NEA Stimulus Funds Pay for Porn
by John NolteThe National Endowment for the Arts might be the strongest proof yet that Leftists are much more invested in the culture war than say, oh, feeding the hungry. You would think anyone truly concerned with the downtrodden would be outraged over the very idea of the NEA: “People living in the streets and we’re spending tax dollars on Perverts Put Out?!?”
If there’s any program Republicans like myself would be willing to immediately de-fund, dismantle, and move its resources over to Head Start and “green initiatives” (is porn more important than Mother Earth?), it’s the NEA. For the asking, millions upon millions of dollars in federal relief could be transferred to hunger programs, breast cancer research and third-world vaccinations. But no, obviously the screening of skin-flicks featuring Gorillas takes precedent:
The NEA was given $80 million of the government’s $787 billion economic stimulus bill to spread around to needy artists nationwide …
[I]ncluding a $50,000 infusion for the Frameline film house, which recently screened Thundercrack, “the world’s only underground kinky art porno horror film, complete with four men, three women and a gorilla.” …
[T]he weekly production of “Perverts Put Out” at San Francisco’s CounterPULSE, whose “long-running pansexual performance series” invites guests to “join your fellow pervs for some explicit, twisted fun.” …
[A]n additional boost from a $25,000 stimulus grant [will go to] “The Symmetry Project,” …
The show depicts “the sharing of a central axis, [as] spine, mouth, genitals, face, and anus reveal their interconnectedness and centrality in embodied experience[.]”
In the flesh — and there’s a lot of it — it amounts to two people writhing naked on the floor, a government-funded tango in the altogether.
So “for the children” I ask my friends on the left for the children to embrace this new spirit of bi-partisanship for the children and let us come together for the children, dismantle the NEA for the children, and use this money for the children.
Email this to a friend | Print |
Share on Facebook
| Tweet this
| 
Follow Us on Twitter
Subscribe via RSS
Tips & Feedback
128 Comments
Truly sick!
So many puns, so little time. . .
Wow. We're in trouble. The govenment is now subsidising porn too.
N E A is a waste of T A X $ $ $.
I wonder if I can get a grant to streak at football games……
Hmmm, I wonder how many religious art projects the NEA funds aside from those trashing religion that is.
The problem is not that the money goes to show "Thundercrack", Thundercrack is an important film and the gorilla sex is more akin to a John Waters movie. If you feel that the NEA should not fund the showing of Thundercrack then you're advocating that government should control artistic content. The reason the NEA is bad is that Thundercrack being shown would be funded during a liberal or libertarian administration and not shown during a conservative one. While art should never be censored, it's best that government get out of the art funding business because my money should never be used to fund someone else's lifework at gunpoint and government should never choose what's good or bad, moral or immoral.
That's one of the many reasons why we need to give the boot to almost every elected official, most of whom have grown so arrogant and careless in how they use our hard-earned money.
Having been laid off and without a job for a couple of months now I look at the $50,000.00 grant and it makes me wanna go all underground gorilla horror porn flick on the Obama admin. I could live for a year on that.
This is why 'Art' is just a guy's name.
So is this what endowment means in National Endowment for the Arts?
Only for the gorilla…..
"Only for the gorilla….. "
If I had a nickel for every time I ended a sentence like that.
"Only for the gorilla….. "
If I had a nickel for every time I ended a sentence like that…
Ugh.
ok, I don't care who you are, THAT'S funny…..
Your arguments are a little incoherent. I'm not sure if you're being facetious or serious in your arguments. Seems you're arguing for the funding of the movie, then arguing against funding of the NEA.
When the NEA is fully funded by PRIVATE donations, then it can fund anything it wants to, and no one would argue otherwise. But while it is receiving federal funds, it should not subsidize works such as that film or the perv play.
And by requiring the NEA to not fund this movie (or the group sponsoring the movie) is not advocating for the censorship of that movie. Do it on your own dime, not the publics.
the NEA is a very important liberal tool…
More than just the tax dollars flowing there are it's deep ties to PBS; and the never ending slew of left wing indoctrination passing as 'art'- just try to get funding through NEA for, say an artists gallery of NASCAR greats or perhaps great US generals since 1776… but a crucifix in urine? Not a problem.
"Thundercrack is an important film"
To whom? And in what way?
I'm no art historian, but didn't a lot of the early masters work through private donations or sponsors (or whatever that word is I can't think of right now)?
I have always despised the NEA, even back in my embarrassing days as a voting Democrat.
Why are artists afraid to compete on an open market? Because in reality many of those who choose 'art' as a career path are just lazy people with anti-American viewpoints. This was actually reflected in a recent article on MSNBC about art kids 'sticking it out' in Portland through the current unemployment surge … by siphoning off the system via unemployment checks and other entitlement funds. Naturally all of them are bitter and angry that painting or writing Marxist paeans doesn't pay as much as being a doctor or an engineer.
Has anyone here ever heard of a single NEA taxpayer-funded program or piece of "art" offending the left?
I haven't.
Lot's of stuff like "Piss Christ".
Hmm?
Has anyone here ever heard of a single NEA taxpayer-funded program or piece of "art" offending the left?
I haven't.
Lot's of stuff like "Piss Christ".
Hmm?
"Capitalism"
Yeah, they'll never fund a "Piss Mohamed".
Patrons
It bothers me more that as they begin funding these projects, there are dozens of small theater houses going under from a lack of funding. I won't argue the value of Thundercrack vs. Waiting for Godot – there isn't an argument that will please everyone, so it would be a waste of time – but, it is a shame that the one is getting $50,000 and the other is shuttering its windows.
I'd like to suggest the first then…..A tribute to John Wayne covering the Golden Gate Bridge…..'
Let's see how they like them apples….
yes, that would be offensive…..
Of course not!
Christians won't bomb you when they get offended.
Muslims, on the other hand…
I like Garfunkle myself
dude!
LOL a point for you
Go ahead! Give it a shot!
In the words of Lloyd Kaufman: "Make your own damn movie!"
"I won't argue the value of Thundercrack….."
Ok, I will. Someone earlier posted "……the gorilla sex is more akin to a John Waters movie." I'm guessing he means Pink Flamingos. I was able to sit through that piece of cinematic excrement, and for the life of me I can't come up with a single redeeming quality, not a solitary piece of inspiration (other than vomitting and then a Silkwood shower). I think I have a pretty open mind, one would have to to be able to sit through that whole movie, but there is nothing "important" about a man sexually assaulting a woman with a live chicken.
If Thundercrack is even just one tenth as foul as Pink Flamingos, then the only thing that would be important about it is it's absence….
"Ugh."
That sounds like a script for one of those movies
The whole script
LOL
It never fails. Someone writes a piece about Government funding for tripe such as "Thundercrack", and there's the Liberal, insisting that by not wanting our tax dollars to pay for it we are "censoring" the "Arts". No, UNDERLING, we simply would like for other "Underlings" to pay for it– that's all.
To make things even sadder is the fact that virtually all of the NEA-funded type of "shock" art long ago became cliche'. The only people who still find it daring are its creaotors, their groupies, and counter-culture neophytes, and without any underlying substance, these "works" are of no value outside a rather incestuous subculture of pretentious circle-jerks.
In the late 1960's Alejandro Jodorowsky made a low-budget film on his weekends called Fando y Lis. When it premiered in 1968 at the Acapulco film festival, a full scale riot broke out, from which he narrowly escaped as an angry mob hurled stones at him. His film was banned and he was nearly deported from Mexico.
It says much that just about the only way you could get that kind of reaction from the NEA crowd would be with works that were, without apology, pro-Western culture, or anti-Marxist/Islamist. They call themselves avante-garde, but the truth is they are nothing more than intellectual and artistic cowards.
The Underling's post is so ill-logical that it smells like the work of a satirist. Then again, it is so poorly written that if it indeed is the work of a satirist, I hope that the satirist doesn't give up his / her day job just yet.
Then again it might be a sincere posting from a lib who has poor writing skills. There are a lot of libs who confuse the concepts of "private funding" and "censorship." If this is a sincere lib, he / she is not the sharpest crayon in the multi-cultural, god-hating, perversion worshipping, liberal crayon box.
Think Bill Clinton doesn't have a hand in White House dealings anymore? Here's evidence to the contrary.
Patrons, religious organizations, sometimes patrons funding works intended for religious organizations. That's not to say that royalty (and hence the state) didn't hire artists, but you'd obviously have to prove yourself before you made it into that league.
I can't understand how the NEA can fund such "artistic endeavors" (I use the term very loosely). Because whether you like it, hate it or despise it, porn sells and makes a lot of money. If the artist made porn people wanted they would be wealthy, but they are making porn 99% of the people don't want to see. Regardless of the moral questions, these are things most people don't want to see or be exposed to.
Can someone tell me why the liberal governments always want to promote things that people don't want and don't make any money?
Oh, Pink Flamingos. My ex boyfriend and his friends all thought that would be wonderful to see in college. I didn't want to go but they talked me into it. They all wanted to leave after a bit, but the imp of the perverse kept me in the seat and they stayed because I did. They drug me into that filth and I made sure they watched every last minute of it. No one ever suggested we do something like that again.
I can't understand how the NEA can fund such "artistic endeavors" (I use the term very loosely). Because whether you like it, hate it or despise it, porn sells and makes a lot of money. If the artist made porn people wanted they would be wealthy, but they are making porn 99% of the people don't want to see. Regardless of the moral questions, these are things most people don't want to see or be exposed to.
This could be a valuable learning experience. I predict that, within 6 months, one of the two following memes will emerge: 1) This whole flap will be dismissed as fiction or anecdote, "Oh, yeah, SURE, tax dollars went to fund porn. Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight, just like Reagan's line about welfare queens in Cadillacs!" or 2) It will become a mark of virtue to defend NEA porn, and to look down on doubters–"People like you who attack taxpayer-funded porn are no different than those people who wanted to censor Elvis on Ed Sullivan because he would corrupt our young people!"
We are rapidly becoming a society that believes that 2+2 can equal 5, so anything is possible.
It makes perfect sense to me. These libs already want to destroy the family unit. How better to do that by encouraging people to be creepy preverts rather than actually having a healthy "normal" relationship.
"government should never choose what's good or bad, moral or immoral. "
Uh, UNDERLING, that's one of the principal things government SHOULD be doing on a regular basis.
When the phrase, "You can't legislate morality" was first used by –can't remember if it was Holmes of Frankfurter, it referred to holding or expressing OPINIONS about morality. In that sense, ithey were saying mmoral opinions shouldn't be legislated, but immoral BEHAVIORS should be.
It's ironic that the left, who justify federally funding immoral behaviors by invoking the First Amendment protections of free speech, seek to deny the same protections to those who are forced to pay for the display of those behaviors against their consciences.
It isn't about censorship to not want our tax dollars spent on things like Thundercrack; I think it's simple fairness. Since every liberal I've ever known would hit the roof if their tax dollars funded a showing of Handel's "Messiah" because it would clearly constitute government endorsement of religion, I think it's equally fair to demand that no art at all be government funded. Don't fund some art if you can't fund all art. It's either art or it's not, message aside. In a perfect world, the government wouldn't fund any art because true art would sell on its own merits.
he's got his hand up something, that's for sure.
tell me about it. The stuff we've been working on over here is no where near perverted or sick enough to warrant NEA funding, and we're doing horror.
to gorillas who cant figure out how to have sex.
Hell I can show them how for free!! All I need is Kate Beckinsale……
Well there's horror, and there's …..well….I have no idea what you would call a movie depicting gorilla sex…..
CalVRWC, I said nothing about censoring the movie, the movie can be played anywhere without government interference. But to deny the film it is subsidizing whatever "less objectionable" movie that replaces it and by accepting the film for screening it is subsidizing Thundercrack. In both cases it's using our money to push a point of view. Neither scenario is acceptable. I've seen Thundercrack is much less objectionable than being portrayed here (it's in the extreme South Park range) and I would have no objection to it being shown, you would. How can the government make the decision between our two points of view? It has no right to do that.
I got stuck watching after a couple "artsy" friends came over with the DVD, insisting it was"Provacative".
It was extremely disturbing and I questioned their sanity afterwards….
That's what she said.
As far as Thundercrack, Hank. Prove to me it's not important then we'll talk. Or would you rather have a government bureaucrat sort it out for us?
A few things to Underling. I think it's safe to say that if "Thundercrack" is defunded, life will move along just fine without it. If you want to set up a private donation for this "important film" then go right ahead and do so, but don't expect the rest of us to flip the bill for an irrelevant piece of nothing.
You are correct, the Government should get out of the business of paying for someone elses lifework, but then you end your posting with, "government should never choose what's good or bad, moral or immoral".
Are you saying, anything should go just because someone tags it as "art"? Would that include a picture from the 1950's of a black guy hanging by a rope and one word under the black guy ,"freedom", could that be art too? I mean after all, if we take your comment about the government should never choose what's good or bad, moral or immoral, then this too would be art, correct? If you disagree, then why shouldn't be art?
Maybe the artist is trying to show that by the black guy being hung he's found his freedom from the hell he's been living. Then the artist wants funding from the NEA for his art work. If he's denied that funding, he should take the NEA to court for discrimination. Sound crazy? Of course it is.
We as a society have to have boundries, standards, and decency. Just like when you drive a car, we have green lights, yellow lights, red lights, speed limit signs, one way signs, no parking in front of a fire hydrant, no parking zone, etc, etc. If not, the roads in our country would be a big mess. Good, bad or indifferent, standards will always be applied, otherwise the art community and our culture will be like our road systems without any signs or lights, a big mess.
That was my point Katt. I am no liberal and how dare you suggest I am and how dare you suggest I said not funding it was censorship. Go find the word censorship in my post. I AM AGAINST GOVERNMENT FUNDING OF THE ARTS. Or are we as conservatives more interested in being offended about a film we haven't seen or sticking to our principles?
I have a guess where it's not….
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!
She doesn't have as much back hair, they might get confused. Would need an ultra lefty woman.
Good point, can I have Kate Beckinsale anyway??
I'm agreeable to your point that the government should not be funding art of any kind, period. If there's something that needs to be made, those with the vision and the resourcefulness will find a way to do it.
relaxed primatology?
not mine to give. you're on your own tracking down that prey.
not mine to give. you're on your own tracking down that prey. but if it were up to me, then sure thing!
and that's why I would never shake hands with the guy. even for a free beer.
reaching for another specially dipped cigar?
TO ALL COMMENTERS: READ MY POST AND TRY AGAIN.
Dang…..stupid restraining order……
Pesky little things aren't they.
I would've said "Hide the Banana"….
Don't fund some art if you can't fund all art. >> That's all I was trying to say…wow. Thanks AHarris for being a better writer than I am. I only write for a living : ) Thank goodness for this anonymity thing, the people who hire me would be mortified.
Yes, patronage, patron … that's the word I was looking for. I thought of it when I took a walk earlier and it just came to me. We've all had that happen – can't think of something and then later it just comes to you. Thanks, though
I think if you call any "art" or call yourself "just a comedian," you can get away with doing or saying anything.
You need two days and two lawyers to understand it.
Brilliant writing Kevin (and no I'm not being satirical). Your very good points about the picture of the Black man show why a bureaucrat has no right to decide these things. As far as rules of the road, we can empirically figure out what happens without red lights that's different than art which can never be figured out. The reason I am so up in arms about the responses is that this is the difference between why they are liberals and why we are conservatives. They use government money to dole out to those messages and programs they see as proper, we say that government money should only be used for practical necessities. Those of us that are values conservatives don't want government EVER picking morality because it will always be a corrupt form of morality when the government does it. That by the way is why the separation of church and state originally developed, to keep their from being a Godless state church that serves government's and not the spirits needs.
A more concrete point would be to say that if there were the methods to fund films under the Bush administration and they chose predictably good or wholesome stuff, then the Obama administration could use that mechanism to pay for offensive fare. There should be no mechanism.
I truly am a conservative so I'm sorry to do anything that would encourage the employment of lawyers : )
Simply stunning….. thanks again to the people that voted the LEFT INTO OFFICE!!!!!!
Obama, messiah or whatever we are calling him today, what the HELL IS WRONG with you???
I'm all for the arts but I'm all for the arts sinking or swimming by their own merits. The NEA is a welfare program for ballet companies and symphonies that can't draw people as well as for freaks, weirdos, and perverts who want somebody to pay them to live out their deviant lifestyle.
Indeed. One could see much of this pathology inherent in the treatment of Palin: the left wing's biggest mischaracterization of her was as a fundamentalist religious nutjob. The left has been spreading the myth of imminent Christina-based domination of America, along with the myth that all Conservatives are religious wackos, for ages. I have friends who voted for Obama who still try to convince me that during the Bush years the country took a pro-religious turn. Where? When?
Interestingly it all ties into the same pathology: some of it is cowardice (the coward self-critiques rather than stand up to the bully – "What did I do wrong to make you hit me?!") and some is that innate need leftists have to feel persecuted. But as with most left-wing insanity, the real world handily disproves their thesis: which is more likely to raise a fuss nowadays, a movie that has blatant religious content or one that has blatant anti-religious content (excluding, of course, the group the lefties are tragically afraid of criticizing)?
Indeed. One could see much of this pathology inherent in the treatment of Palin: the left wing's biggest mischaracterization of her was as a fundamentalist religious nutjob. The left has been spreading the myth of imminent Christianity-based domination of America, along with the myth that all Conservatives are religious wackos, for ages. I have friends who voted for Obama who still try to convince me that during the Bush years the country took a pro-religious turn. Where? When?
Interestingly it all ties into the same pathology: some of it is cowardice (the coward self-critiques rather than stand up to the bully – "What did I do wrong to make you hit me?!") and some is that innate need leftists have to feel persecuted. But as with most left-wing insanity, the real world handily disproves their thesis: which is more likely to raise a fuss nowadays, a movie that has blatant religious content or one that has blatant anti-religious content (excluding, of course, the group the lefties are tragically afraid of criticizing)?
"Important" usually connotes a film no one wants to see. It's a justification for silly and/or depressing themes, cf. "powerful performances."
[...] starving I say! The National Endowment of the Arts needs to be disbanded and defunded, and let’s do it for the children. Sphere: Related [...]
[...] original post here: Federal Stimulus Funds Pay for Porn This entry is filed under America – Blogs, Big Hollywood. You can follow any responses to this [...]
Heads (or other body parts) should roll on this one! That's what happens when Obummer is in such a rush to sign a 'stimulus' bill!! No one reads it; no one directs or keeps track of where funds go. Every cent of this travesty should be demanded be returned. It's also in Queen Pelosi's district. So she saved the salt marsh harvester mouse and now she's saving the depraved with MY tax dollars. Truly sick! If people want this type of depravity – fine – but they need to pay for it with their $ – not mine!
And this freak show in San Fransicko is a perfect example of that! I'm sure they can thank Queen Pelosi for the grant.
I thought that "art", by definiton, is to offend conservatives, rebeling against the establishments and your parents. At least that's what I thought I learned in all my art classes.
I thought that "art", by definiton, is to offend conservatives, rebeling against the establishments and your parents. At least that's what I thought I learned in all my art classes.
How bout Spunk the Monkey?
So that's why it's called stimulus money!
If it was good porn, it certainly wouldn't need to be subsidized.
How often does a porn distributor ask himself "What am I going to do with all this porn!?!"
Remember when it was the Artists that suffered for their art, and not the audience?
That's actually a very good point. It's difficult to lose money selling porn, except when the gorilla shows up…
if it was any good it would make money on its own
I have always despised the NEA, even back in my embarrassing days as a voting Democrat.
Why are artists afraid to compete on an open market? Because in reality many of those who choose 'art' as a career path are just lazy people with anti-American viewpoints who believe others should pay their bills. This was actually reflected in a recent article on MSNBC about art kids 'sticking it out' in Portland through the current unemployment surge … by siphoning off the system via unemployment checks and other entitlement funds. Naturally all of them are bitter and angry that painting or writing Marxist paeans doesn't pay as much as being a doctor or an engineer.
I'm not religious, but I've long contended that the NEA and government funding of institutions like PBS need to be discontinued because the 'art' they fund is worthless and anti-social. The best way to get an NEA grant is to do 'shocking' and 'edgy' things like dip a cross in urine or smear feces on it. And PBS is nothing but left-wing groupthink. If religious groups, which actually do some good for society rather than tear it down, can't use public buildings why can the societies of American communists, pagans, hedonists, and sociopaths use public funding to spread their propaganda?
Sorry for those of you who think I go too far. Perhaps it's the old military guy in me… whenever I think of demolition art I remember the old military axiom, "Always carry a block of C4 with you. You never know when you need to re-decorate."
For those of you who do not know, C4 is plastic explosive. A block is about 1 pound. And it will do an admirable job of re-arranging the furniture…and the walls….and the drapes…
My apologies to those of you who think I go too far. Perhaps it's the old military guy in me… whenever I think of demolition art I remember the old military axiom, "Always carry a block of C4 with you. You never know when you need to re-decorate."
For those of you who do not know, C4 is plastic explosive. A block is about 1 pound. And it will do an admirable job of re-arranging the furniture…and the walls….and the drapes…
Do you think the NEA would finance A PISS BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA. After all he is God Like and to the Far Left Looney Toons…. He…is……..GOD.
ACORN payback.
Is there really anything that arts and croissant croud puts out that is worth much? I haven't seen Pink Flamingos and it won't soon be on my list. But it sure sounds 'provocative', or perverted more likely.
That's what she said…. I'm sorry lord, forgive me.
Oh, and I'm serious. Well put.
No, because that hurts people. Gorilla sex on screen does not.
The NEA was given $80 million of the government’s $787 billion economic stimulus bill to spread around to needy artists nationwide … How stimulating for the morally bankrupt crowd, but stimulus disgustingly wasted from a conservative point of view. This is the perfect liberal dreamchild married to the perfect morally bankrupt lovechild. Why am I not surprised and I suspect more of this is yet on it's way from the mind of Obama. Got that community organizing spirit to it don't cha know.
By using the word important, you're implying that if this movie doesn't exist everyone will be losing out on something. Please tell me what you feel is important about this movie.
Look I agree with your premise that the government should get out of subsidizing art on every level. But when you say Thundercrack is akin to a John Waters movie, sorry, but there's nothing important about a movie on par with Pink Flamingos. There is nothing "important" about that film, I imagine Thundercrack is the same.
Now if you had asserted that it was entertaining, then I wouldn't have a problem with what you said. Different strokes for different folks, just don't tell me it's important when clearly it is not.
Okay, and gross, to bring back an old expression I find to be appropo more and more often these days…I came across the most disgusting video linked to a blog, and attributed to some weird balls on display, fetish, festival in the streets of San Fran, that allegedly is an annual fest. Seriously thought I was hijacked by a porn site from the depths of the lowest of eastern european violence, or something. But, it was diverse…some black guy hollering and chanting some crap while degrading and torturing a naked white female in the street with a dead fish, while fat assed sloths stood around smiling and laughing, with cameras. I thought I had purged that from my head, after finding out it was an acceptable display by the patrons of the arts in San Fran. Art? Huh? Let me buy you a ticfket to MOMA, eh?
Not sure if my previous comment will pass inspection, considering I used a harsh word, or two. C'mon, lefties, I'm sure there's enough of your amateur porn out there to keep you passionate for months if not years. It has no place in the arts…and certainly I would think that most of us do not want to pick up your tab.
Here we go again with the Jesse Helms wannabes (with all due respect to his late memory, but he was clearly in the wrong on that issue.) If this is the best the Republican party can do by screaming PORNOGRAPHY… First of all, pornography is made in order to make a profit and doesn't have to have any artistic value at all. These "projects" (I can't call them art either since they are funded by the government, but I can't call it pornography either because it's funded by the government…I just call it pork-barrel excess.) Anyway, these "projects" must have some artistic and inquisitive value that tries to find some underlying truth, and I don't think most of these "artists" are aiming to shock & titilate. They just want to shock… period.
All I can say is that the NEA shouldn't be using stimulus funds that are needed for necessary programs that actually help people, but you know shouting "Fire" in a crowded theater doesn't help your cause, and shouting "PORN" just makes you sound unintelligible like it did for the late Jesse Helms, may he rest in peace, but he was just plain wrong.
Resident evil! Like cockroaches,they thrive in the dark.I wonder who introduced this for approval?
If they are not totally sicko,lobbying corrupted officials was the only answer.Money the root of all evils,.
Smoking laws. Traffic cameras. All creeping into our daily society and slowly but surely eroding our rights and our liberties. The idea is to subvert any sense of right or wrong so that the country collapses under the very burden that they have forced we, the taxpayers to finance.The "dumbification" of our youth and the indoctrination making them see that we must love and respect everything that is perverse while chastising any real values as unforgivable, evil and reminiscent of oppressive society. When the social fabric is sufficiently worn, they rip away the remnants and step into power grabbing up whatever little is left to grab with a whole generation of subservient slaves to do their bidding and rebuild society according to their twisted visions.
Just my opinion but that is how Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, Chairman Mao and others have done it in the past.
Ahhhhh, when you are in an actual battle, there are very few problems that cannot be overcome with the strategic placement of a sufficient charge of high explosives. Unfortunately, these mentally challenged individuals will never openly step out to do battle but will hide like cowards and toss their morally reprehensible bombs from a point of safety. Not because they are outnumbered or outgunned but simply because no matter how morally decrepit they have become, they still recognize somewhere deep inside that what they are doing is inherently evil and wrong and to show their faces and to bring their battle out into the open would expose them for the hypocrites, perverts and socialists they are as well as giving all of the people blinded by their "faith" in the party of tolerance a very real glimpse of what is in store for them. They would lose the fight before it ever got started if they ever stepped out to do real battle.
There are actually a few festivals of that nature and this time, an investigation is being called for by two "concerned" parties regarding the blatant displays of lewd and lascivious conduct, sometimes conducted in the presence of children and the inability or un-willingness of the local police to uphold and defend the law. Both suits will probably be tossed and certainly will never make it past the Ninth Circus but it would be nice to see the laws applied equally. Lady Justice needs to put her blindfold back on and we the people need to remove ours and take a good hard look at what is being allowed and even encouraged to unfold in our society.
Again, there is an easy solution. Let's take government funding out of the picture completely and if a work of art or any personal expression for that matter, can stand on its own merits it will find a way to funding either through personal donations or other means available. If I am not mistaken, clubs like the ones mentioned likely have a cover charge in order to "enjoy" the "show" do they not? Having never been to one I do not know for sure but I would imagine they do. If they are not making money, let them raise the prices. As for arts and sciences, the government (read the taxpayer) should not have to foot the bill for any of it, offensive or not.
Okay, perhaps I should've said "considered important." It is of note because it was an example of avant garde cinema in the 70s and for someone studying film an example of a film that influenced others. All schools study Un Chien Andalou and Triumph of the Will which are both important films but are disturbing and horrifyingly reprehensible respectively. My point was a theater showing Thundercrack is not necessarily showing it because folks want to see hot gorilla action. However, thank you for acknowledging my real point was that even if the above is so any showing of the film should not be federally funded.
It would be interesting though to know if any of us here who support publicly funded education would then support the government setting curricula.
I was only speaking in terms of art, not in terms of lets say, murder. That's why anti-abortion folks aren't being moralistic as the left says, they're opposing murder in their eyes which is definitely the place of government. The discussion is not about an opinion it's about what's being DONE to that baby.
You thinking of that "destroy the car" event that happens at those machinegun shoots that happen around the country?
Ingredients:
1. Safe location where stray fire and/or shrapnel won't hit anybody.
2. One or more expendable cars. Remote controls for movement optional. So are additional combustables for explosions.
3. However many fully automatic weapons folks have brought around to said machinegun shoot and plenty of ammunition.
Combine and, IMHO, it's a work of art in action.
So, would crashing a car into the theater be "collision art" and therefore able to be subsidized?
Ya know, the Joker in "Batman" claimed that he was a homicidal artist…and while I'm not suggesting that anyone actually gets hurt, why not have subsidized demolition art? After all, other people's artistic vision ought to be subject to the same love – including money and artistic bypass of laws and public decency – as the NEA gets from the government.
I'm just sayin'….
the NEA should be dismantled "Dexter" style. Borderline theft of our taxes.
Need to thank John Nolte for the article. Your piece is informative. Please continue to stay on target and bring information and your commentary to the forum. Again, Thanks.
The gorilla?
Never mind, just read the synopsis of THUNDERCRACK.
Sorry for ruining your joke, it was funny.
has anyone asked about the artists? about their livelihood? their children? or should we be content with a world filled with investment bankers, military contractors, pig farmers and the like?
I know the facts don't matter to any rightwinger in a hissy fit, but no money – NOT ONE PENNY – of NEA funding has gone to Perverts Put Out!, which takes place four times a YEAR, not four times a month. And Frameline is not a "film house," but the country's largest LGBT film festival, which showed literally hundreds of films this year beside Thundercrack. It would be difficult for Frameline to have funded the movie, anyway, since it was made in 1974, TWO YEARS BEFORE Frameline was founded. But hey, Fox is so Fair and Balanced that simple facts are apparently beneath its purview. But once again, for the thinking-impaired: fed funds do not fund Perverts Put Out!, and did not fund the making of Thundercrack! Got it? GOT IT? (Oh hell, none of you cares about the bloody truth.)
[...] for the children, dismantle the NEA for the children, and use this money for the children. Big Hollywood
[...] the fact that it’s being paid for with our taxpayer dollars nobody other than FOXNews and a few brave bloggers are even mentioning [...]
You must be logged in to post a comment.