This Goes Out to the House Republicans
Well, well, well, President Obama passed his stimulus bill without one single vote from you recalcitrant GOP motherfuckers.
After he tried so hard to reach out his hand in non-partisanship for the good of the country, those fucking Republicans chose party over country and ignored his gestures.
The news pundits interviewed some of those idiots and we had to hear gems like, "He wants to fund the National Endowment for the Arts!!"
Yeah, so?
What's wrong with restoring the culture of a great nation, you lawn flamingo, Budweiser sign havin' hayseed fucks?
How many people in the world can tell you what kind of munitions the Italians had in their arsenal the year the Mona Lisa made her debut? NONE.
The GOP's stimulus packages benefited their cronies on Wall Street and banking, but did it help save one fucking job or home or car? Hell no!
Listen Republicans, we saw how your ideas failed.
You think you have the right to force more of your stupid, failed ideas on President Obama?
Think again.
He won. You lost.
And you're no good.
8 comments:
Please don't assume your cultural ignorance is as widespread as you'd like it to be.
Obviously it would take more time to educate you as to the importance of the NEA to our society than I have patience for, but suffice it to say, a society that eschews funding for and fostering of the arts is hardly a society at all.
And once again, you've proven that anonymous commenters tend to be ignorant AND cowardly.
Anon, I don't like them teasing you on those Geico commercials so I'm not going to make fun of you because cavemen can't be expected to know anything about "good art."
But some day, maybe in 1000 years or so, your kind will understand that In a civilized society everyone has a stake in defining their national identity in collective expression. The NEA was created as a democratization of culture.
Actually, sis, the cave paintings at Lascaux,France are more than 16,000 years old, and when they were discovered in 1940, they told flabbergasted archeologists a lot about the culture of the prehistoric people who painted them.
So, even 16,000 years ago there were people more artistically enlightened than our anonymous gate crasher.
Clearly, he'd have to step it up a bit to be called a caveman.
Were those cave paintings funded with tax dollars collected from surrounding Neanderthal communities? No? I think you're proving my point here, however unwittingly.
If you can name some decent, NEA funded art, I'll back down. If you can't, and it's looking that way, you might ought to reconsider your opinion on the necessity of the NEA. Good art will happen in spite of the government in any free society. Not because of it. The Soviet Union supported a lot of 'art' too.
And, give me a break, I could be anonymous or I could call myself Roger Finkelstein. You still have no idea who I am. Cowardly, my ass. This is the internet. Your name probably isn't Zipdrive. Coward.
The problem with listing worthwhile NEA projects for people like you is that it usually becomes an ongoing, subjective argument.
But you offered to back down, so I'll oblige you this once.
Here's a URL for just one worthwhile NEA project:
http://www.nea.gov/grants/apply/GAP09/LITA.html
Oh wait, here are some more:
http://www.arts.gov/features/index.php?choosemonth=2008_08
I prefer my tax dollars go toward funding art and culture over funding war and aggression.
That's all there is to it.
And you missed the point entirely about Lascaux.
Art endures through the ages, so a modern, democratic culture should help foster that in its people.
Have you personally bought any art? I own a piece by Bob "Daddy-O" Wade. Bought it from the man himself. If you don't know who that is, you got no right assailing my taste.
Ok, looks like my position on the NEA was needlessly harsh. Allow me to refine it. I think we're better off leaving the decisions of which art should be funded to the people rather than the government. That doesn't mean just the filthy rich with all the buying power. A canvas, some oil paints, and a few brushes don't cost that much. A real artist with a vision will still be able to chase their dreams without government assistance or kissing blue blood fanny. Go to a local coffee shop and look at the prices of that stuff on the walls. $500 is not what those raw materials cost. It's cocky pricing an oil painting from an unknown artist at $500, but if your stuff is good you make some sales, you get a customer base, and all of the sudden you can sell your pieces for 5, 10 times that. That's how I think it ought to work. Not you don't make some sales, people mock your dumb ideas, so you apply for a government grant to produce more inferior work.
That's not to say the government has no role to fill in the production of art in this country. I'm all, 100% for better art instruction in schools. Teach the kids. Give them a brush or a violin. Let's foster that talent as best we can. That's the best way to ensure the survival of national artistic expression.
I have an extensive art collection and I also have made my living as a fine artist before.
I've heard of Bob 'Daddio' Wade but he's more or less a Waco/Austin curiosity and I think his art is an acquired taste.
George Bush loves his stuff.
Part of what NEA does is fund art projects in public schools, and in an era when funding arts in the classroom are the first things hit by budget shortfalls, I think the NEA provides meaningful assistance to students who can't afford even rudimentary art supplies.
A canvas, some brushes and paints can run into a lot of dough for a school kid, especially one whose folks are barely scratching out a living.
The NEA helps artistic dreams come true.
i hate eric cantor. and i bet he doesnt sing like one
Post a Comment