The Obamanation

[DanaC]

Originally Posted by case

Our schools are not broadcasting the speech. I think they got it right. Let the parents decide if they want their kids to watch it. It isn't up to the schools.

Well, it's up to the schools what they teach them in science class. It's up to the schools whether or not they run citizenship programmes. And it's up to the schools whether or not to show the kids videos on the progress of a bill through congress. Why shouldn't it be up to the schools whether or not the kids listen to a non-political message from their president about the importance of working hard in school and aiming high?

[capnhowdy]

Obama's advisor quits amid controversy.

[gadfly]

Obama is showing what's called leadership--- by addressing the school children.
Are you a "True American" if you refuse to let your child listen to the US President's Address?

[Urbane Guerrilla]

Noted without comment:

This just in ... Obama is a leftist!
Posted: September 03, 2009
1:00 am Eastern

© 2009

"Now I'm truly scared."

A friend wrote this after she watched Fox News' Glenn Beck's series on the "alarming number of far-left radicals the president is surrounded by" – referring to some of the president's special advisers and "czars." President Barack Obama, my friend tells me, is "a true left-winger."

So, now she knows.

She didn't know after the president signed the $800 billion so-called "stimulus program." She didn't know after government takeovers/bailouts of banks, insurance companies
and auto companies.

She didn't know after Obama campaigned in favor of protectionism by promising to unilaterally change free trade agreements, such as NAFTA, or after the inclusion of "Buy American" provisions in the "stimulus package."

She didn't know after Obama campaigned on government-run health care or after he said during the campaign that "if starting from scratch," he'd implement the Canadian single-payer system.

From Larry Elder.

Some people are remarkably thick, and can prove it beyond doubt. This unnamed woman ought to move in with Radar's family. She and he would have so much to talk about.

[Urbane Guerrilla]

Originally Posted by DanaC

I also think it's quite distasteful to be bashng a former dwellar who isn't here any more. Hasn't been here for a heck of a long time. Not only is it distasteful, as he isn't around to mount a defence, but it's more than a little creepy as it shows a level of obsession that surprises me somewhat.

In my case the one thing it shows is normal memory -- of a vivid impression to be sure, but normal in any case. The guy did say he voted for Obama on the grounds he thought Obama was the more libertarian candidate. Mistaking Obama for a libertarian... words just fail. So does Radar.

I understand Radar's situation is he's busy first with moving, then fixing up the new house. Not a lot of time to sit on his fatty acids and do the Seinfeldian yadda yadda in the Cellar just yet.

[Urbane Guerrilla]

Originally Posted by Griff

For instance, Bush still holds you in his grasp even as his very unRepublican interventionist programs continue to kill American soldiers and yield little in the way of democratic self government. Both major parties are cult-like.

Griff, I can recognize libertarian-like thinking and policymaking in Republicans even when you can't. Bush41 didn't, but Reagan did, as did Bush43. To how much effect, particularly inside the Beltway, there is plenty of room for debate. I'd imagine at least three thick books' worth.

I am no intellectual puppet, but you may be, as suggested by your "holds you in his grasp" blather. It's the kind of thing puppet people would say, no? I challenge you to show otherwise. For starters, interventionism against totalitarianism cannot be wrong, and you cannot show it to be so. Don't remain misled by white liberal guilt; democracy in its several flavors is really the only way for humans to live well vis-a-vis their governments. Anything less than democratic inescapably ends up being all about the oppression. Such things are quite the enemy of mankind. See if you can show otherwise. I don't think you can manage that one either; not and stay committed to liberty you can't.

You're a stimulating thinker, Griff, but you still manage to piss me off a lot, for somebody I've probably got a lot in common with.

[DanaC]

Ahhh....dunno why I had scanned your reply and though it said Radar, I 'saw' rkzenrage lol.

Soz about that :P

[classicman]

I fear that my fears about a culture czar are being realized.

Thankfully, we still don't have a cabinet-level Secretary of Culture, but we do have Kalpen Modi, Associate Director of the White House Office of Public Engagement, who, in a conference call last week, sought to rally the artworld troops behind President Obama's call for Americans to engage in public service.

It's a worthwhile objective, to be sure. But government exhortations for artists to join the United We Serve brigade makes me more than a little uneasy. Many, if not most, of our most important and influential artists and cultural institutions are impelled by self-driven creative imperatives, not external political ones. That's the way it SHOULD be.

As I commented when the controversy over Quincy Jones' call for a Culture Secretary briefly surfaced:

More government oversight will inevitably lead to more government interference and control.

During last week's conference call (on which I was a lurker, after a waiting period rendered nearly unendurable by our being a captive audience for three clunkers from Kenny G's "Greatest [or Worst] Hits" album), there was much talk of finding ways to "get the arts community engaged in a sustainable way" and "leveraging federal dollars" to get artists and cultural organizations involved in social-service projects.

Americans for the Arts, whose president, Robert Lynch, played a leading role during the conference call, has launched a United We Serve arts website, where you can "share your story" on how "arts make change happen." Among the highlights: "The Ultimate Happy Hour at Gap, Inc." and the "United We Serve Arts Idea Kit."

This was the second such conference call: In a post on the Big Hollywood blog (excerpted yesterday by the Wall Street Journal), Patrick Courrielche, who reported that he was invited by the National Endowment for the Arts to participate in the first telephone discussion on Aug. 10, came away fearing that the arts were at risk of "becoming a tool of the state."

Courrielche wrote:

It sounded, how should I phrase it...unusual that the NEA would invite the art community to a meeting to discuss issues currently under vehement national debate. I decided to call in, and what I heard concerned me....

Throughout the conversation, my inner dialogue was firing away questions....Is this truly the role of the NEA? Is building a message distribution network, for matters other than increasing access to the arts and arts education, the role of the National Endowment for the Arts?

At the beginning of the second conference call, last Thursday, Modi informed us that "unfortunately our colleagues from NEA and NEH [the National Endowment for the Humanites]" were tied up in meetings and couldn't participate, as had been planned.

Could it be they were having second thoughts about commandeering their constituents for this political adventure? We can only hope so.

One of those who added personal comments to the webpage announcing Thursday's conference call said it best:

Am I the only one creeped out by this? The White House is asking the arts community to produce propaganda for its agenda---as if that was not already happening to an alarming level in a democracy....By saying this, am I gonna get on the "bad list" at the White House?

I'm "creeped out" too...even though, like many on the call, I supported and (with reservations) still support the agenda of the new President.

Link

I dunno what to make of this. Is it more fear-mongering from the right or an example of the current administration getting a little too involved for comfort?
I'm not familiar enough with either of these organizations to really know what it is they are supposed to do. I did find it an interesting read though and thought I'd share it.

[glatt]

Nothing new about the US government commissioning art. There's a good exhibit going on at the Smithsonian American Art Museum where government sponsored art that was commissioned as part of the New Deal is showcased. It's some really good work. You might even recognize some of it.

[classicman]

Ahhhh but glatt - you missed the point - was that intentional?

[glatt]

Maybe I did miss the point. I thought the point was that the government was using artists to get a political message out. What did you think the point was?

[classicman]

That the Gov't was using them to get their message out.

[glatt]

Well they did that during the New Deal too, and it resulted in some nice art. Some of it was simple documentation of the work that the government was doing, but the message then was that the government was there to improve your life and that the New Deal was a good thing. Like this painting of a Binghamton underpass.

[classicman]

I like that one. Very understated, yet it still has a certain aura to it.

I'm missing the issue here.

But I havent seen anything that would suggest the intent is to use the arts to promote a political agenda...nor do I think it is about government funding of the arts, but rather to demonstrate- through encouraging artists to share specific examples of art, theater, music dance - and how the arts can play a positive role in the "community"...whether the "community" is local or national.

A continuation of the Bush Sr. and the arts component of the "thousand points of light", Clinton's role of the arts in the Community Service Corps and the same in GW Bush's USA Freedom Corps.