Comments (30) Jump to Comments Form

1. 

   parkersinthehouse said, 2 months ago

   what’s this about?

   is the n.e.a. something else besides the national endowment for the arts?

2. 

   Magnaut said, 2 months ago

   HEY! PEES IN HOUSE-STOP WATCHING CNN AND GET NEWS…BETTER STILL DON’T DISTURB YOU BLISS.

3. 

   cdward said, 2 months ago

   It also stands for National Education Association, a professional organization and union for teachers. Given that this is McCoy, I’d bet that is his reference. He hates anything that has to do with unions.

4. 

   believecommonsense said, 2 months ago

   It is about the National Endowment for the Arts, and involves a conference call between NEA staff and artists about encouraging them to produce works that would reinforce the President’s call for service for Americans, including “focusing on core areas of the recovery agenda – health care, energy and environment, safety and security, education, community renewal.”

   The conservative right believes it was inappropriate for NEA staff or WH staff to suggest artists could consider works promoting public service.

5. 

   oldlegodad said, 2 months ago

   Propaganda,ala Gorbels cira 1939

6. 

   anatheist2009 said, 2 months ago

   Got to agree with oldlegodad.

7. 

   oldlegodad said, 2 months ago

   You agreeing with a Bible Thumping neocon ‘publicant? You sick or what? Yo libocrat buddy’s gonna out you.

8. 

   NoFearPup said, 2 months ago

   No “art” to see from NEA, either…

9. 

   tjdestry said, 2 months ago

   Why, that would be like asking Walt Disney or Frank Capra to make movies promoting the public interest during WWII. Everyone knows that serving your country is socialism, and that promoting a spirit of patriotism is not the job of the government – it’s the job of rightwing radio hosts, and it involves encouraging people to wave the flag and ignore what it stands for.

10. 

    churchillwasright said, 2 months ago

    TJDESTRY: He’s asking the NEA to promote his agenda WITH THE EXCEPTION OF the War Effort. See the difference?

11. 

    danTheForth said, 2 months ago

    tjdestry,
    So you’d be fine if GWB had asked today’s prominent directors to make movies that supported the Iraq War? Propaganda is propaganda.

12. 

    4uk4ata said, 2 months ago

    And there I was thinking you guys are not fond of him escalating the war in Afghanistan…

    @ Churchill - wars tend to feature quite prominently in movies anyway. Bush didn’t need to tell anyone to make movies about all the new hardware the US got - directors like flashy stuff, explosions and the like already.

    So he didn’t expressly tell them to get more of it. Do you honestly think movies will start being hostile towards the armed forces? I find it quite unlikely.

13. 

    danTheForth said, 2 months ago

    4uk4ata,
    Your argument is a misdirect. Whether or not something will “feature quite prominently in movies anyway,” is a different issue than whether they will explicitly support a policy. Movies about military hardware are different from movies supportive of a war. There were plenty of movies critical of the Iraq War, if not the armed forces. But even the question of whether movies supported the war isn’t the issue. It’s whether they were asked to support it.

    Here we’re talking about a foundation that receives taxpayer funds asking artists to produce works that support a policy of the administration.

    Whether or not people are expressly told to “get more of it,” is precisely the issue. There are plenty of artists now who are happy to support Obama’s policies, and there’s no problem with that. Asking them is a problem.

14. 

    4uk4ata said, 2 months ago

    You have a point, but I don’t think it’s that bad. The President calling on someone to act for the public good (as he understands it) is imo nothing new, and as long as the cause he asks them to support is bipartisan, or at least not aimed against the other party, I can live with it. It is a bit trickier when public money are spent on it, of course.

    To be honest, I don’t care for it that strongly either way.

15. 

    HOWGOZIT said, 2 months ago

    The NEA has been a “prostitute” for Democrats for decades.

16. 

    striper77 said, 2 months ago

    National Endowment for the Arts and / or National Education Association, they are both whores for the democrat party.

    Just look at how well the school system is.

17. 

    dtroutma said, about 1 month ago

    Stripper, just like Faux is a pimp for the right?

18. 

    wbr said, about 1 month ago

    dfish except fox does it voluntarily – nea is getting gov $$$$$$$$

19. 

    Corosive Frog said, about 1 month ago

    I guess we don’t have the same artists in Canada than in the US. Canadian artists are tofu-eaters who see using art for selling anything (including political ideas) as selling their souls.
    In the US, most of them are waaay too radical for the democratic party. They vote Nader, if they vote at all.

20. 

    NoFearPup said, about 1 month ago

    Here’s the factors and the equation on the “Art Stimulus”
    NEA = Russell Simmons,Go-to-man- (Rapper, Hip-Hop Label owner) = Black Politics/Urban Hand-out.

21. 

    believecommonsense said, about 1 month ago

    Oh the horror of artists creating work that promotes public service!!

22. 

    parkersinthehouse said, about 1 month ago

    you mean like the works progress administration in the 40s? like when jackson pollack and some of those guys started streaming the movement of abstract expressionism? - like when the mexican muralists came to new york to work with them, and murals and all this really great stuff happened because the government saw that politically, culturally and socially it was essential to keep artists and art alive and working?

23. 

    NoFearPup said, about 1 month ago

    ^good point…didn’t say I was against it. If a Republican did it ; it would be called “graft”, though. (Or influence peddling, corruption, etc…)
    Can I put a big crucifix in downtown NY; next to the Mosque?

24. 

    deadheadzan said, about 1 month ago

    That’s correct, Parker, FDR had murals and paintings in post offices and other government buildings. Our local paper just had an article about it 2 days ago showing a couple of the paintings.

25. 

    itisme said, about 1 month ago

    Like the whole teabagger movement isn’t built on propaganda.

    HYPOCRITE! Remove the sty from thy own eye first.

26. 

    cdward said, about 1 month ago

    Let me ask this question: Was he or his staff directing the NEA to do this or encouraging? Was agreeing to do what the president wanted a condition for getting NEA money?

27. 

    believecommonsense said, about 1 month ago

    ^ no it was not, from what I read. It was encouraging, and i read somewhere else (though haven’t confirmed it) that the WHouse, when informed of it, expressed concern about the possible appearance of impropriety probably for the reasons others have pointed out here.

    I hope some of the artists do it anyway. Since when did the idea of volunteer national service become so nefarious?

28. 

    dsped said, about 1 month ago

    I suspect the harlot’s skirt originally read ACORN, and McCoy decided it’d work with this NEA thing.

29. 

    danTheForth said, about 1 month ago

    believecommonsense,

    As has been stated before, it’s not the idea of volunteering, and it’s not the idea of artists promoting volunteering. I actually produce art on a regular basis that promotes volunteer programs. It’s the idea of a government funded agency asking artists to promote the administration’s volunteering initiative.

    It’s easy to deflect it and sarcastically ask why volunteering is bad, but we know that’s not the issue. If we say this sort of government influence over art is ok, where will we draw the line?

30. 

    believecommonsense said, about 1 month ago

    dantheforth, as i said it my earlier post, the White House has told NEA/WH staff working on this issue to cease discussions because of the appearance of impropriety described on this thread. The White House staff that participated in discussions were low-level and when upper level learned of it, they put a stop to it. The administration already acknowledged these concerns, and I wrote about it. I understand the possible implications, even though it seems harmless enough.