All Hail Her Highness
With all the news regarding the disgusting activities of the criminal class openly operating the ACORN organization, and the politicians who have supported and depended on them for illicit campaign funding, it's easy not to notice news of the royal family.
I'm not speaking of the British royal family of course...I'm speaking of their equivalent here in the U.S.
The Canadian news networks, being somewhat less cowardly than their Yankee counterparts, ran an interesting breakdown of Michelle Obama's staff. I've taken the liberty of reprinting the stats below with salaries, names, and positions:
1. $172,2000 - Sher, Susan (Chief Of Staff)
2. $140,000 - Frye, Jocelyn C. (Deputy Assistant to the President and Director of Policy And Projects For The First Lady)
3. $113,000 - Rogers, Desiree G. (Special Assistant to the President and White House Social Secretary)
4. $102,000 - Johnston, Camille Y. (Special Assistant to the President and Director of Communications for th e First Lady)
5. $100,000 - Winter, Melissa E. (Special Assistant to the President and Deputy Chief Of Staff to the First Lady)
6. $90,000 - Medina , David S. (Deputy Chief Of Staff to the First Lady)
7. $84,000 - Lelyveld, Catherine M. (Director and Press Secretary to the First Lady)
8. $75,000 - Starkey, Frances M. (Director of Scheduling and Advance for the First Lady)
9. $70,000 - Sanders, Trooper (Deputy Director of Policy and Projects for the First Lady)
10. $65,000 - Burnough, Erinn J. (Deputy Director and Deputy Social Secretary)
11.. $64,000 - Reinstein, Joseph B. (Deputy Director and Deputy Social Secretary)
12. $62,000 - Goodman, Jennifer R. (Deputy Director of Scheduling and Events Coordinator For The First Lady)
13. $60,000 - Fitts, Alan O. (Deputy Director of Advance and Trip Director for the First Lady)
14. $57,500 - Lewis, Dana M. (Special Assistant and Personal Aide to the First Lady)
15. $52,500 - Mustaphi, Semonti M.. (Associate Director and Deputy Press Secretary To The First Lady)
16. $50,000 - Jarvis, Kristen E. (Special Assistant for Scheduling and Traveling Aide To The First Lady)
17. $45,000 - Lechtenberg, Tyler A. (Associate Director of Correspondence For The First Lady)
18. $43,000 - Tubman, Samantha (Deputy Associate Director, Social Office)
19. $40,000 - Boswell, Joseph J. (Executive Assistant to the Chief Of Staff to the First Lady)
20. $36,000 - Armbruster, Sally M. (Staff Assistant to the Social Secretary)
21. $35,000 - Bookey, Natalie (Staff Assistant)
22. $35,000 - Ja ckson, Deilia A. (Deputy Associate Director of Correspondence for the First Lady)
This does not include part-time travelling companions; a make-up artist and hair-stylist who travel onboard Air Force One with the first lady.
To be fair, though...other first ladies have had permanent paid staff. Most recently, Hillary Clinton had a staff of three...and Laura Bush had a staff of one. I recall someone in the press during the Bush years criticizing Mrs. Bush for wasting the taxpayer's money with her paid staff member. What, oh what, has happened to that journalist...maybe he's mellowed out with age.
Now keep in mind Mrs. Bush was an inferior human being...after all her graduate degree was in Library Science (ugggghhhh...teaching innocent little children to think...what treachery) versus Michelle who's graduate degree is in law (ahhhhh...using the law to force others to do things they don't want to do...how noble). And Laura's husband...ex-military and an ex-CEO...how disgusting; while Michelle's hubby is an ex-street organizer...just like Ghandi...or Lenin...take your choice.
Therefore Laura only needed the one personal secretary. Michelle has just sooooo much going on she really, really, really needs all of that personal attention at our expense. Sorry if that explanation sounds lame...I'm trying to co-opt what the twits in the media are going to say in order to justify this narcissism.
As a matter of fact...does the Queen Mum of Britian have as large a staff as Michelle. If not, she can be consoled with her precious MP3 player filled with Obama speeches.
Sorry if this sounds like a petty issue...I'm just pointing out the difference in attitude from prior first ladies. I suddenly have a renewed respect for Hillary Clinton...not an easy accomplishment, but there you have it.
I look forward to the day when we once again have the family of a public servant in the White House...instead of royalty. I tire of monarchy, and pomposity, so quickly I'm afraid.
The Professor
I'm not speaking of the British royal family of course...I'm speaking of their equivalent here in the U.S.
The Canadian news networks, being somewhat less cowardly than their Yankee counterparts, ran an interesting breakdown of Michelle Obama's staff. I've taken the liberty of reprinting the stats below with salaries, names, and positions:
1. $172,2000 - Sher, Susan (Chief Of Staff)
2. $140,000 - Frye, Jocelyn C. (Deputy Assistant to the President and Director of Policy And Projects For The First Lady)
3. $113,000 - Rogers, Desiree G. (Special Assistant to the President and White House Social Secretary)
4. $102,000 - Johnston, Camille Y. (Special Assistant to the President and Director of Communications for th e First Lady)
5. $100,000 - Winter, Melissa E. (Special Assistant to the President and Deputy Chief Of Staff to the First Lady)
6. $90,000 - Medina , David S. (Deputy Chief Of Staff to the First Lady)
7. $84,000 - Lelyveld, Catherine M. (Director and Press Secretary to the First Lady)
8. $75,000 - Starkey, Frances M. (Director of Scheduling and Advance for the First Lady)
9. $70,000 - Sanders, Trooper (Deputy Director of Policy and Projects for the First Lady)
10. $65,000 - Burnough, Erinn J. (Deputy Director and Deputy Social Secretary)
11.. $64,000 - Reinstein, Joseph B. (Deputy Director and Deputy Social Secretary)
12. $62,000 - Goodman, Jennifer R. (Deputy Director of Scheduling and Events Coordinator For The First Lady)
13. $60,000 - Fitts, Alan O. (Deputy Director of Advance and Trip Director for the First Lady)
14. $57,500 - Lewis, Dana M. (Special Assistant and Personal Aide to the First Lady)
15. $52,500 - Mustaphi, Semonti M.. (Associate Director and Deputy Press Secretary To The First Lady)
16. $50,000 - Jarvis, Kristen E. (Special Assistant for Scheduling and Traveling Aide To The First Lady)
17. $45,000 - Lechtenberg, Tyler A. (Associate Director of Correspondence For The First Lady)
18. $43,000 - Tubman, Samantha (Deputy Associate Director, Social Office)
19. $40,000 - Boswell, Joseph J. (Executive Assistant to the Chief Of Staff to the First Lady)
20. $36,000 - Armbruster, Sally M. (Staff Assistant to the Social Secretary)
21. $35,000 - Bookey, Natalie (Staff Assistant)
22. $35,000 - Ja ckson, Deilia A. (Deputy Associate Director of Correspondence for the First Lady)
This does not include part-time travelling companions; a make-up artist and hair-stylist who travel onboard Air Force One with the first lady.
To be fair, though...other first ladies have had permanent paid staff. Most recently, Hillary Clinton had a staff of three...and Laura Bush had a staff of one. I recall someone in the press during the Bush years criticizing Mrs. Bush for wasting the taxpayer's money with her paid staff member. What, oh what, has happened to that journalist...maybe he's mellowed out with age.
Now keep in mind Mrs. Bush was an inferior human being...after all her graduate degree was in Library Science (ugggghhhh...teaching innocent little children to think...what treachery) versus Michelle who's graduate degree is in law (ahhhhh...using the law to force others to do things they don't want to do...how noble). And Laura's husband...ex-military and an ex-CEO...how disgusting; while Michelle's hubby is an ex-street organizer...just like Ghandi...or Lenin...take your choice.
Therefore Laura only needed the one personal secretary. Michelle has just sooooo much going on she really, really, really needs all of that personal attention at our expense. Sorry if that explanation sounds lame...I'm trying to co-opt what the twits in the media are going to say in order to justify this narcissism.
As a matter of fact...does the Queen Mum of Britian have as large a staff as Michelle. If not, she can be consoled with her precious MP3 player filled with Obama speeches.
Sorry if this sounds like a petty issue...I'm just pointing out the difference in attitude from prior first ladies. I suddenly have a renewed respect for Hillary Clinton...not an easy accomplishment, but there you have it.
I look forward to the day when we once again have the family of a public servant in the White House...instead of royalty. I tire of monarchy, and pomposity, so quickly I'm afraid.
The Professor
Forgetting History...a Presidential Pastime
On September 17, 1939, the Soviet Union invaded the Kresy, or borderlands, of Poland in what would basically be the extermination of that small nation for decades to come. In the following years the cities of Poland would be systematically destroyed and millions of her citizens would be murdered in a genocidal frenzy to be rid of all things Polish.
Fifty years later, the United States and its CIA would help build the underground freedom movement, known as Solidarity, which would eventually help bring about the fall of the Soviet empire, and with that collapse, the resurrection of Poland as an independent nation.
On the 70 year anniversary of the invasion, while Poles were holding candlelight vigils to remember the dead, and television specials reminded the people of the horrors they had suffered, our President caved in to Russian demands that the US not aid Poland in her future defense.
Some commentators have stated the date, September 17, was chosen in order to insult the Polish people and those who support them...to throw in their faces that their old masters were once again moving toward control of their region and their futures, and that we in the US would turn a blind eye and allow it to happen.
I truly believe that theory to be overly cynical and wrong-headed...though the end result will be as described if we don't change course. No...the date was chosen despite its historical and highly emotional signifigance to the Poles. I truly believe that our President, as well as every person on his staff, his czars, his advisors, and his family, friends, and acquaintances...have again proven their extremely shallow knowledge of history.
Over and over again, they have exercised "new ideas" which have been tried repeatedly in the past and have always failed. They have demonstrated an ignorance of that past, and how it affects the now and the future, that would be embarassing to most 5th graders. In fact, they have shown an outright disdain for the lessons of history...instead putting their faith in theories and platitudes which have been espoused for centuries...and have always resulted in disaster. By ignoring history, they can ignore reality...and pretend that this time...this time...the theories and platitudes will actually work...really they will...
Those who do not understand history will become victims of it! No truer words were ever spoken, and in a few years those of us with open and inquisitive minds will watch this prophecy come true for the naive and shallow folks in the current administration. Unfortunately, they will make many of us victims as well. We already suffer from their inability to understand basic economics, ignoring history there as well while embracing simiplistic slogans and childlike theorems.
Those who understand history, particularly the history of negotiation with Russian leadership, winced painfully as this deal was made. We knew full well that within hours the Russians would be demanding more concessions...and that is exactly what happened. It's what has always happened...why didn't the President's advisors know it would happen again?
Again...naivety and ignorance. I, myself, have negotiated business deals with Russian businessmen. The process always begins with their making unreasonable demands. The wise negotiator makes unreasonable demands in return to block them. It can go back and forth for some time...perhaps years...before they begin to scale back their demands.
The secret to success...remembering that we have far more of what they want than they have of what we want. I strongly believe Obama and his people don't understand this.
Once the initial wall is breached, and they give in to something (you never concede first) they will always follow with the original absurd demands. This can, again, go on for some time. You eventually respond with some small concession...then hold your ground until they concede something larger. Then the process begins again...absurd demands followed once more by your refusal to discuss those issues while insisting they give in on some other small issue.
And thus it goes...if you are wise enough to study history and understand the process. If not...you get railroaded. And the Russians are experts at this. One might note they have responded, not only with new and more outrageous demands, but have wisely "created" concessions which make their opponent believe they won something in return.
In this case, the Russians announced they would no longer consider putting nuclear missile batteries on the Polish border. They hadn't done it...they don't have the funds to do it...and it would be foolish as every missile in the Russian inventory can easily reach Poland now! Duhhhhh.......but just watch...the administration and the media will take the bait and announce they have received this "major concession" from the Russians, thereby averting a horrible conflict.
Who won't believe this blatant nonsense? The Polish people...that's who. They are perfectly aware that Russian tanks are quite capable of crushing Poland again...the Russians would never have used nuclear weapons in the first place. But the hysterical sycophants in America will praise the administration for averting nuclear disaster. Watch and observe...this will be a good measure of who the truly stupid are in our society.
Unfortunately, US foreign policy is now like a textbook on what hasn't worked in the past and never will. The British survived Chamerlain...hopefully we, and the Polish, Georgian, Ukranian, and other eastern European peoples who had hoped to be our allies, will survive this challenge as well.
The Professor
Fifty years later, the United States and its CIA would help build the underground freedom movement, known as Solidarity, which would eventually help bring about the fall of the Soviet empire, and with that collapse, the resurrection of Poland as an independent nation.
On the 70 year anniversary of the invasion, while Poles were holding candlelight vigils to remember the dead, and television specials reminded the people of the horrors they had suffered, our President caved in to Russian demands that the US not aid Poland in her future defense.
Some commentators have stated the date, September 17, was chosen in order to insult the Polish people and those who support them...to throw in their faces that their old masters were once again moving toward control of their region and their futures, and that we in the US would turn a blind eye and allow it to happen.
I truly believe that theory to be overly cynical and wrong-headed...though the end result will be as described if we don't change course. No...the date was chosen despite its historical and highly emotional signifigance to the Poles. I truly believe that our President, as well as every person on his staff, his czars, his advisors, and his family, friends, and acquaintances...have again proven their extremely shallow knowledge of history.
Over and over again, they have exercised "new ideas" which have been tried repeatedly in the past and have always failed. They have demonstrated an ignorance of that past, and how it affects the now and the future, that would be embarassing to most 5th graders. In fact, they have shown an outright disdain for the lessons of history...instead putting their faith in theories and platitudes which have been espoused for centuries...and have always resulted in disaster. By ignoring history, they can ignore reality...and pretend that this time...this time...the theories and platitudes will actually work...really they will...
Those who do not understand history will become victims of it! No truer words were ever spoken, and in a few years those of us with open and inquisitive minds will watch this prophecy come true for the naive and shallow folks in the current administration. Unfortunately, they will make many of us victims as well. We already suffer from their inability to understand basic economics, ignoring history there as well while embracing simiplistic slogans and childlike theorems.
Those who understand history, particularly the history of negotiation with Russian leadership, winced painfully as this deal was made. We knew full well that within hours the Russians would be demanding more concessions...and that is exactly what happened. It's what has always happened...why didn't the President's advisors know it would happen again?
Again...naivety and ignorance. I, myself, have negotiated business deals with Russian businessmen. The process always begins with their making unreasonable demands. The wise negotiator makes unreasonable demands in return to block them. It can go back and forth for some time...perhaps years...before they begin to scale back their demands.
The secret to success...remembering that we have far more of what they want than they have of what we want. I strongly believe Obama and his people don't understand this.
Once the initial wall is breached, and they give in to something (you never concede first) they will always follow with the original absurd demands. This can, again, go on for some time. You eventually respond with some small concession...then hold your ground until they concede something larger. Then the process begins again...absurd demands followed once more by your refusal to discuss those issues while insisting they give in on some other small issue.
And thus it goes...if you are wise enough to study history and understand the process. If not...you get railroaded. And the Russians are experts at this. One might note they have responded, not only with new and more outrageous demands, but have wisely "created" concessions which make their opponent believe they won something in return.
In this case, the Russians announced they would no longer consider putting nuclear missile batteries on the Polish border. They hadn't done it...they don't have the funds to do it...and it would be foolish as every missile in the Russian inventory can easily reach Poland now! Duhhhhh.......but just watch...the administration and the media will take the bait and announce they have received this "major concession" from the Russians, thereby averting a horrible conflict.
Who won't believe this blatant nonsense? The Polish people...that's who. They are perfectly aware that Russian tanks are quite capable of crushing Poland again...the Russians would never have used nuclear weapons in the first place. But the hysterical sycophants in America will praise the administration for averting nuclear disaster. Watch and observe...this will be a good measure of who the truly stupid are in our society.
Unfortunately, US foreign policy is now like a textbook on what hasn't worked in the past and never will. The British survived Chamerlain...hopefully we, and the Polish, Georgian, Ukranian, and other eastern European peoples who had hoped to be our allies, will survive this challenge as well.
The Professor
There's that "F" word again...
Goodness...the professor has been upbraided for using the "F" word...
Fascist...there I go again darn it.
"How," I've been asked, "can you use the "F" word when discussing what our current administration and lackeys are up to?" "Where is your tolerance, you hate-speecher you, and why are you so paranoid about our beloved leader?"
Hmmmmm...has been my response, as they've answered their question with the question itself.
Remember the professor is about logic...no emotion here folks...just putting together batches of information, studying and analyzing that info, and looking at the historical background and precedent. Let's discuss the infamous "F" word in a rational manner and analyze what Fascism is.
The word is the Americanization of "Fascista"...the popular national socialist party in Italy at the beginning of the 20th century (Fascio Autonomo d'Azione rivoluzionaria). At that time the western world was going through a love affair with experimental political systems, mainly as a result of growing populations, the morphing of agricultural workers into industrial workers, growing importance of industry and growing consumer demands, and world-wide unrest as a result of this growth and change.
Bennito Mussolini, who would later lead the Fascistas to victory in national elections, had been an international socialist for over a decade. He came to the conclusion that the Italian people had too much pride in themselves as the descendants of the Romans to ever put their faith into an organization loyal to international interests. He felt the Fascistas were on the inside track to bringing a socialist agenda to Italy.
The internationalists immediately turned their vengeance on him...denouncing the Fascistas as a "right wing" organization. This charge actually did not really stick until World War II forced socialists world-wide to denounce Mussolini's rule. It was most convenient then to state that he had been a right wing zealot all along, despite his socialist writings and leadership.
The National Socialist party which eventually took control in Germany (the N.A.Z.I) was never referred to as a fascist organization until Mussolini was rebranded as a right winger. Then the brand slid effortessly over to the German dictatorship. Confusing? Keep in mind socialists world wide had spent a decade drooling over the recasting of all of Europe in the socialist model, led by Herr Hitler and Il Duce.
Those dreams turned into nightmares of course, as always happens in authoritarian regimes. What saved the world, thank God, was that the two major players for world dominance could not long tolerate competition. So the international socialists, represented by the Soviets, and the national socialists, represented by the Nazis, had to come to violent blows. It became totalitarian state versus totalitarian state for control of land, resources, and human capital.
The real history buffs among you will remember as well, during this time of political upheaval the U.S. was hardly immune from radical ideas from Europe. Mussolini was very fashionable in the U.S. from the first world war especially. Later, Hitler, also became an idol of the radical chic set.
Woodrow Wilson modeled himself as the American reflection of European "stateism" and wrote extensively on behalf of a powerful and centralized government. He decried that Blacks, Jews, and excessively "individualistic" persons should not be allowed to vote. He deputized hundreds of thousands of goons to terrorize his political enemies. These "redshirts" burned down newspaper buildings, the homes of editors and writers, and lynched the more unfortunate.
They were given the authority to arrest, as an internal security organization of the government, and more than a quarter of a million Americans went behind bars in punishment for not supporting the administration. The Wilson gangs arrested more persons in three years than Mussolini and his Fascistas did in a decade.
It was during this time period that Wilson declared himself "the American Fascist" and Mussolini "the Italian Progressive."
The point of this history lesson, of course, is to view current politics in a clearer light. The labels of socialist, progressive, and fascist are truly interchangeable. You will hear gnashing of teeth at this historical truth, of course, as radical idealists will always be mesmerized by labels and always be competing among themselves for the top rung on the radical ladder. Socialists and progressives will call capitalists by the term fascist...and fascists will label the socialists and progressives as communists, and the rest of us will generally be quiet on the issue as we view all of the above as being dangerous NUTS!
Whoops...now I'm using the "N" word as well. Well, bring on the censorship...I deserve it for being a "F........." old "N....."
The Professor
Fascist...there I go again darn it.
"How," I've been asked, "can you use the "F" word when discussing what our current administration and lackeys are up to?" "Where is your tolerance, you hate-speecher you, and why are you so paranoid about our beloved leader?"
Hmmmmm...has been my response, as they've answered their question with the question itself.
Remember the professor is about logic...no emotion here folks...just putting together batches of information, studying and analyzing that info, and looking at the historical background and precedent. Let's discuss the infamous "F" word in a rational manner and analyze what Fascism is.
The word is the Americanization of "Fascista"...the popular national socialist party in Italy at the beginning of the 20th century (Fascio Autonomo d'Azione rivoluzionaria). At that time the western world was going through a love affair with experimental political systems, mainly as a result of growing populations, the morphing of agricultural workers into industrial workers, growing importance of industry and growing consumer demands, and world-wide unrest as a result of this growth and change.
Bennito Mussolini, who would later lead the Fascistas to victory in national elections, had been an international socialist for over a decade. He came to the conclusion that the Italian people had too much pride in themselves as the descendants of the Romans to ever put their faith into an organization loyal to international interests. He felt the Fascistas were on the inside track to bringing a socialist agenda to Italy.
The internationalists immediately turned their vengeance on him...denouncing the Fascistas as a "right wing" organization. This charge actually did not really stick until World War II forced socialists world-wide to denounce Mussolini's rule. It was most convenient then to state that he had been a right wing zealot all along, despite his socialist writings and leadership.
The National Socialist party which eventually took control in Germany (the N.A.Z.I) was never referred to as a fascist organization until Mussolini was rebranded as a right winger. Then the brand slid effortessly over to the German dictatorship. Confusing? Keep in mind socialists world wide had spent a decade drooling over the recasting of all of Europe in the socialist model, led by Herr Hitler and Il Duce.
Those dreams turned into nightmares of course, as always happens in authoritarian regimes. What saved the world, thank God, was that the two major players for world dominance could not long tolerate competition. So the international socialists, represented by the Soviets, and the national socialists, represented by the Nazis, had to come to violent blows. It became totalitarian state versus totalitarian state for control of land, resources, and human capital.
The real history buffs among you will remember as well, during this time of political upheaval the U.S. was hardly immune from radical ideas from Europe. Mussolini was very fashionable in the U.S. from the first world war especially. Later, Hitler, also became an idol of the radical chic set.
Woodrow Wilson modeled himself as the American reflection of European "stateism" and wrote extensively on behalf of a powerful and centralized government. He decried that Blacks, Jews, and excessively "individualistic" persons should not be allowed to vote. He deputized hundreds of thousands of goons to terrorize his political enemies. These "redshirts" burned down newspaper buildings, the homes of editors and writers, and lynched the more unfortunate.
They were given the authority to arrest, as an internal security organization of the government, and more than a quarter of a million Americans went behind bars in punishment for not supporting the administration. The Wilson gangs arrested more persons in three years than Mussolini and his Fascistas did in a decade.
It was during this time period that Wilson declared himself "the American Fascist" and Mussolini "the Italian Progressive."
The point of this history lesson, of course, is to view current politics in a clearer light. The labels of socialist, progressive, and fascist are truly interchangeable. You will hear gnashing of teeth at this historical truth, of course, as radical idealists will always be mesmerized by labels and always be competing among themselves for the top rung on the radical ladder. Socialists and progressives will call capitalists by the term fascist...and fascists will label the socialists and progressives as communists, and the rest of us will generally be quiet on the issue as we view all of the above as being dangerous NUTS!
Whoops...now I'm using the "N" word as well. Well, bring on the censorship...I deserve it for being a "F........." old "N....."
The Professor
National Endowment for the Arts: Fasionable Fascists
It was inevitable of course...as the Obama campaign and presidency seems to be more about image than anything else...that the ever-loyal regions of the artsy-fartsy community would eventually be drafted to serve in the battle over thought.
In the last few weeks, the National Endowment for the Arts, the NEA, has been putting out emails and having phone conferences for the so-called "cool" community (their words...not mine) and others who are fashionably "with-it". In these conferences, speakers put forth that the "duty" of the artistic community is to support the Obama administration and its goals. Listeners are urged "to show care" in allowing this agenda to be known as the legal ramifications are unclear.
Now keep in mind these folks, and this organization, is paid for by our tax dollars...and Obama's cozy little crew decides how much money they will receive.
No conflict of interest there...
But isn't art supposed to be about art? Isn't it supposed to challenge? To be rebellious? To cause viewers and listeners to think? In other words...to be creative?
Apparently not anymore. This isn't the first time however. Anyone who has studied the history of propaganda knows that governments throughout time have manipulated the art community to push their agendas. Art becomes propaganda when used by government...and the U.S. is almost as guilty as some others.
We really started to use the art community just prior to the first world war. Most of us have seen the posters and recruitment art of that war...showing the "Hun" as a slobbering, mindless, animal bent only on rape and murder? How about some of the posters of the next war...with caricatures of the "Jap" as a slanty-eyed devil wearing massive bi-focals and sporting an incredible overbite? Might one believe that such caricatures made it just a bit easier to ignore the constitution and put Americans of Japanese descent into concentration camps?
The difference, of course, is that our government did not normally jail or execute dissenting artists. In other cultures, such pressure and outright violence was part of the norm.
In Germany, the government began steering the vision of art in the early 1930's and controlled more and more output until the end of the war. They did not usually execute or imprison artists who did not fall into line...but those persons did find themselves unable to practice their art, or to sell art, or even to be allowed to take part in conferences or events. Every so often one would suffer "an unfortunate accident" and be seriously injured or killed.
In the Soviet Union, painting the wrong picture didn't just mean you lost your government stipend...it usually led to a Siberian gulag and eventual death...if not immediate execution. During the cultural revolution in China; artists, musicians, actors, and most anyone involved in those areas, were humiliated, imprisoned, sometimes beaten...sometimes to death, by the crowds.
In the U.S. today, artists scream "censorship" if their funds are not increased as much as they'd like them to be. The personal cost of such "dissent" is normally to have the artist laughed at by the rest of the society.
The military recruitment posters the U.S. produced during the second world war held some level of justification...we were in a battle for our lives against monstrous men and regimes. I'm sure there will be NEA folks today crying out similar justification due to the "planetary emergency" or the importance of "remaking America" into a third-world nation. How those goals can be compared to defeating the National Socialists in Germany and the Japanese Imperial war machine I'll never figure out...perhaps I'm not creative enough to see the similarities.
Here's a thought...now that the NEA has taken this fateful step...let's just require them outright to create art on behalf of every administration that comes into office in the foreseeable future.
They can create anti-abortion art when the Republicans are in the majority, pro-union posters when it's the Democrats, and paintings of drowning Polar Bears when the Progressives have the chair. Abandon the pretext of art for art's sake, and keep the grant money coming.
In the last few weeks, the National Endowment for the Arts, the NEA, has been putting out emails and having phone conferences for the so-called "cool" community (their words...not mine) and others who are fashionably "with-it". In these conferences, speakers put forth that the "duty" of the artistic community is to support the Obama administration and its goals. Listeners are urged "to show care" in allowing this agenda to be known as the legal ramifications are unclear.
Now keep in mind these folks, and this organization, is paid for by our tax dollars...and Obama's cozy little crew decides how much money they will receive.
No conflict of interest there...
But isn't art supposed to be about art? Isn't it supposed to challenge? To be rebellious? To cause viewers and listeners to think? In other words...to be creative?
Apparently not anymore. This isn't the first time however. Anyone who has studied the history of propaganda knows that governments throughout time have manipulated the art community to push their agendas. Art becomes propaganda when used by government...and the U.S. is almost as guilty as some others.
We really started to use the art community just prior to the first world war. Most of us have seen the posters and recruitment art of that war...showing the "Hun" as a slobbering, mindless, animal bent only on rape and murder? How about some of the posters of the next war...with caricatures of the "Jap" as a slanty-eyed devil wearing massive bi-focals and sporting an incredible overbite? Might one believe that such caricatures made it just a bit easier to ignore the constitution and put Americans of Japanese descent into concentration camps?
The difference, of course, is that our government did not normally jail or execute dissenting artists. In other cultures, such pressure and outright violence was part of the norm.
In Germany, the government began steering the vision of art in the early 1930's and controlled more and more output until the end of the war. They did not usually execute or imprison artists who did not fall into line...but those persons did find themselves unable to practice their art, or to sell art, or even to be allowed to take part in conferences or events. Every so often one would suffer "an unfortunate accident" and be seriously injured or killed.
In the Soviet Union, painting the wrong picture didn't just mean you lost your government stipend...it usually led to a Siberian gulag and eventual death...if not immediate execution. During the cultural revolution in China; artists, musicians, actors, and most anyone involved in those areas, were humiliated, imprisoned, sometimes beaten...sometimes to death, by the crowds.
In the U.S. today, artists scream "censorship" if their funds are not increased as much as they'd like them to be. The personal cost of such "dissent" is normally to have the artist laughed at by the rest of the society.
The military recruitment posters the U.S. produced during the second world war held some level of justification...we were in a battle for our lives against monstrous men and regimes. I'm sure there will be NEA folks today crying out similar justification due to the "planetary emergency" or the importance of "remaking America" into a third-world nation. How those goals can be compared to defeating the National Socialists in Germany and the Japanese Imperial war machine I'll never figure out...perhaps I'm not creative enough to see the similarities.
Here's a thought...now that the NEA has taken this fateful step...let's just require them outright to create art on behalf of every administration that comes into office in the foreseeable future.
They can create anti-abortion art when the Republicans are in the majority, pro-union posters when it's the Democrats, and paintings of drowning Polar Bears when the Progressives have the chair. Abandon the pretext of art for art's sake, and keep the grant money coming.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
