Dale Chihuly, I’m So Disappointed in You. I Thought You Were Smarter Than This.

Share with: Everybody. Sharing is caring, ya know.


Let’s see now…
Artists part company with Republicans because the GOP generally thinks government shouldn’t get involved with funding art.
Democrats are spending time backing efforts to shut up public debate (censorship doctrine), impose speech codes (on college campuses), and, of course, are wholesale behind shutting up political speech with campaign finance reform (along with their friend John McCain). In other words they’re working on ENDING free speech and the free exchange of artful ideas.
So why would an artist like Dale Chihuly give $50,000 to BHO’s inaugural?

Chihuly, Dale

Artist

Seattle

WA

$50,000

Why do artists believe the Democrats embody the beliefs that nurture art?
Are you kidding me?
Why is the idea of government funding the crucial difference? It seems to me that iconoclastic artists wouldn’t want the government NEAR their work–unless they’re selling a public installation they’ve already created.

Tell ’em where you saw it. Http://www.victoriataft.com

Share with: Everybody. Sharing is caring, ya know.


38 thoughts on “Dale Chihuly, I’m So Disappointed in You. I Thought You Were Smarter Than This.

  1. Sometimes, people just don’t make no sense!

    Then again, it would appear a little over half the nation decided to cut off their noses to spite their faces.

  2. For some reason.. Artists tend to be very progressive or liberal. Many think that tax payer money should be used for social programs.

    But the Artist’s who got National Endowment for the Art’s grants were in a class by themselves.

    How about $1.8 Million for having crosses placed in jars of urine as art..

    $550,000 to pass out $100 bills to homeless people, “to make them feel good”

    The Worse one I EVER heard of was the $2.7 Million dollar grant to the man in New Mexico who made the display showing various war paintings and mockery of patriotic paintings.. with a American Flag drapped on the floor at such a point where anyone viewing would have no choice but to step on the flag.

    Several Veterans were arrested when they attempted to remove the flag from the floor from that display. I know one of them personally and he told me that he would do it again.

    I use to work in Graphic Design.. but I never understood how the country could afford to give out those large NEA Grants with tax payer money.

    Ms. Chihuly must make quite a bit of money to help pay $50,000 towards the inaugural. But dispite many of these donations.. it cost the tax payers $18.9 Million dollars that day.. ON TOP of all the donations.

  3. The Fairness Doctrine is about giving citizens input in what is in their local programming. Shouldn’t citizens have a right to say what is on the public airwaves? The is their right. You have the right to speak all you want, but their is no right to have a talk radio show, that is a privledge.

    As for speech codes on college campuses, those are geared towards hate speech. Although hate speech is protected speech often times, the students and community should have a right to say what goes on at their campus.

    As for campaign finance reform, why are you so scared of it? Because maybe you can’t win elections without have huge sums of money from one donor. Look, if you suck that bad as a candidate and campaign finance reform is hindering you, maybe you should try for a different career. Besides, campaign finance reform was voted for democratically. Are you conservative folks now against the democractic process?

    Why do artists believe…? Because it is true. Republicans are against art unless it is Christ-centric. Besides, Republicans have been railing against the National Endowment for the Arts for decades. Why is the artists claim not valid?

    Art being funded by the government has been happening for centuries. Most of the greatest artwork of all time was commissioned by governments of the world. You need to read a little art history then get back to us.

  4. One more thing, I am not sure why all of a sudden you are trying to make yourselves sound progressive. History shows the Republicans as the most regressive group in history. Many of your slogans match that of the Taliban as pointed out in the previous post “What do Republicans Believe”. No amount of chatter and whinning about the Fairness Doctrine or Campaign Finance Reform is going to change that history.

  5. Un-Abel, You will not be glad to know that Progressive Radio (read Regressive Radio) is losing one of their icons. Peter B. Collins is going off the air this coming weekend. And good riddance. Losing him will be another step in the right direction to killing any thought about the UnFairness Doctrine being shoved down our throats by Tsarina Pelosi and Scary Reid.

    BTW, did you know that Conservative talk radio is listened to be 9 times more people that regressive talk radio. A ratio of 9 to 1 is pretty indicative of how “Popular” regressive radio really is. And that number is not from a conservative radio host. It is from Peter B. Collins yesterday.

  6. “Why do artists believe…? Because it is true. Republicans are against art unless it is Christ-centric. Besides, Republicans have been railing against the National Endowment for the Arts for decades. Why is the artists claim not valid?”

    Not True.. I actually think the National Endowment is a great thing.. Except for the Abuses within its past.

    It has NOTHING to do with the Christian Faith.. You paint a large brush with that statement and your attempt to make anyone who happens to beleive in the Christian Faith is something dirty. Well my friend.. you need to read the 1st amendment carefully because it is their right to believe what they believe.

    But Abel.. CLAIM TO WHAT? The endowment was created by congress in 1965 and there is a process to make a claim for a grant or loan. It is not a RIGHT to have free money given to you.

  7. All this incessant bellyaching about the “fairness doctrine” is simply disingenuous demagoguery wedded to a cynical marketing scheme.

    Sit down, because you might be in for a shock: you and others like you are using my airwaves — the people’s radio frequencies — to spew your bile and hostility toward anyone different from you, and while you have an absolute right to play the village idiot in public, we have the right, though our elected representatives, to place limits on your content and to attempt to maintain a political discourse on the airwave not governed solely by listener ratings and corporate profits.

    And don’t forget, you had an opportunity to stop any chance of the people pursuing some modicum of fairness on radio airwaves. All you had to do was win the last election. So how did that work out?

    You’ve chosen a medium, radio, upon which we routinely place restrictions — and upon which we may, hopefully, place more. If you don’t like it, start a newspaper, write a book or go on satellite. It’s not my problem that you’ve chosen to use something you don’t own to offer your shallow political “insights.” Newspapers own their printing presses; bookstores own their shelves; bloggers own their computers and their websites. You don’t own our airwaves.

    Of course, the way around this is for you and your corporate handlers to lobby the government to auction radio frequencies to the highest bidders. Then you would own them, and could do with them as you wished. But serial griping is so much more fun, isn’t it?

    And before anyone bring up the canard about “progressive” radio, it can be just as vile and pathetic as right-wing radio, and I would feel precisely the same way if it were as “popular” as conservatives radio is now.

  8. I must be thinking wrong than ! I thought that radio was market driven . If you don’t have an audience you can’t sell advertising , and you don’t have a show! SO I AM IN FAVOR OF THE FREE MARKET DECIDING WHAT PEOPLE WANT . iF YOU DON’T LIKE IT, CHANGE THE STATION!! Then there is that one little thing about freeeee speach , cant forget that . Some dems want to control what we think and what we say , Don’t they have public schools for that!

  9. Miles, I do believe the owners of KPAM might disagree with you about it being “YOURS”

    You see, son, if it is the airwaves themselves, it is OURS too and by the ratio mentioned above, we outnumber you 9 to 1.

    You whiny liberals need to learn that you can listen to anything else you wish. So can we.

    You see, what rights are granted are granted to ALL, not just liberals!

  10. Actually No Shorty bLewser, we will just pass the fairness doctrine and you will be listening to what we want you to. And if you don’t like it you can jump around.

  11. “Actually No Shorty bLewser, we will just pass the fairness doctrine and you will be listening to what we want you to. And if you don’t like it you can jump around.”

    Thank you Me.

    Now you have shown the TRUE face of the Fairness Doctrine or Localism. You want to RESTRICT what people hear on Radio and the Internet (The FCC and Senator Dick Durbin both have mentioned that Localism will also include Internet Content).

    Liberal Fascism.. Pure and simple.. You wish to restrict a market driven programming feature because you do not like what you are hearing.

    What will you do if talk radio goes away? Also you will not be able to troll on boards like this becasue Victoria will probably not run a blog because your Localism board would outlaw it.

    The 1st Amendment, the Free Market do not matter to folks like you. This is why conservatives speak up about such moves.. because of attitudes such as yours.

  12. [“Miles, I do believe the owners of KPAM might disagree with you about it being “YOURS”’

    Lew — KPAM may own the building, the microphones, hire the — ahem — “talent”. etc. etc. etc. But they do not own the medium through which they chosen to spread their tripe. That is owned by all of us, collectively, and if we, through our elective representatives choose the exercise our collective will and limit the number of stations a corporation can control in a market or force a media company to extend reasonable access to opposing views, then so be it. If they don’t like it, they can find some other way of expressing their views that’s not owned by the public.



    [“You see, son, if it is the airwaves themselves, it is OURS too and by the ratio mentioned above, we outnumber you 9 to 1.”]

    So, elect representatives who will support your position. You didn’t, and now let the wailing and gnashing of teeth begin. A “9 to 1” ratio is inconsequential. Clearly, being popular on the radio rarely translates into votes, thank God. Gee — I wonder why radio blatherers rarely run for office, let alone win. Could it be that their ideas are centered somewhere south of the 16th century?

    [“You whiny liberals need to learn that you can listen to anything else you wish. So can we.”]

    And if only far-right lunatics with slick messages and a bucketload of logical fallacies are all that’s on, that’s just too damn bad? And there are places in this country where this is true. You and others who make a fetish of the free-market seriously want the political debate on radio wholly the product of which ideology makes the most money?

    [“You see, what rights are granted are granted to ALL, not just liberals!”]

    Unless, of course, those rights don’t “pencil out.” But since ownership of the medium doesn’t really matter to conservatives, I’d like to come over to your house and spray paint some political slogan on it. You see, I own the spray paint can, so it’s all good!

  13. [“Liberal Fascism.. Pure and simple.. You wish to restrict a market driven programming feature because you do not like what you are hearing.”]

    Total Bull, at least from my perspective. I don’t want any ideology to so dominate a medium as to effectively cut out dissident voices, and that’s exactly the case now, particularly in rural places. Broadcasters has a duty to the public to allow opposing views to refute the abject madness infecting radio today. At least, they did before the lust for profits swept away any pretense of serving the public.

  14. miles
    if people wanted to listen to left wing crap they can. If they get enough listeners they can open up another station in another market . So hows that going for you! If you DON’T like it change the station !!!!!!

  15. “Localism”? Interesting that what people want in the community they live in isn’t OK. If the majority want to have access to “Left-wing” programming shouldn’t they be able to choose that? Under localism, Victoria Taft would be better accepted and suited to broadcasting in Eastern Oregon whereas Tom Hartmann would be better accepted and suited to broadcasting in the Willamette Valley. I think it is a good plan. I really can careless to hear Victoria’s screetchy voice complaining about everything with no solutions, whereas the uneducated rednecks in Eastern Oregon would eat it up. I think that allowing people to choose what they want for their community is Democracy at it’s best.

  16. Abel. From your last post at 17:07 PDT.

    Then why do you even bother posting on this board?

    I guess I can safely call you what I first gathered from your posts when I joined this board months ago. A true Internet Troll.

    If Victoria wishes me to quit posting I will.. but your last post here says volumes about your character.

  17. Miles

    Your speaking a party line there and it has it’s basis in 1949 era Fairness Doctrine.

    So lets pretend its being put in..Localism or the Fairness Doctrine. Would you allow Rush Limbaugh Show onto the airwaves of AM 620 KPOJ as part of the Fairness of it all? Allow him to have the opposing view to say Thom Hartman, or Randi Rhodes, or Ed Shultz?

    How about Sean Hanity or Mark Levin and have Ring of Fire here on KPAM? Would you listen to the channel through out the day? I doubt it.

    Your claim is just another way to wipe out the medium because you wish to put in on “broadcasters duty” to air opposing views that you do not listen too in the first place.

    I highly doubt if you sit and listen to the conservative radio from the tone of your posts.

  18. Miles, MiniMe, and the others who love the UnFairness Doctrine, You might try reading the First Amendment of the Constitution. Unless you clowns think it is irrelevant, it is still the law of the land.

    And MiniMe, go back into your dark hole under the rock that you crawled out of. Nearly everyone here is sick and tired of you.

  19. “I’d like to come over to your house and spray paint some political slogan on it. You see, I own the spray paint can, so it’s all good!”

    That would be a very huge mistake on your part. Do not mistake being a Republican, for weakness.

    Damn radio Nazi. You know you can always listen to AirHead America. Listen to that raspy voiced woman spew her hatred. She could use some callers too, that is if she is still on the air.

    Besides, whatever gains followers is what is going to be aired. Libs have to be entertained, hence television is radically liberal. Including all your news programs. We don’t like it, it extremely partial to democrats and continues to belittle Republicans. Our voice is recognizable on the radio waves. Birds of a feather you know. 😉

    Hey we aint rich like yall, but we gonna be, cuz we got Borak Obama. Haha

    Here is riddle. When is a fireman a firefighter? Anybody?

    Hey Miles, Communism is a good thing aint it? You would join that army with that Mini person right? Fairness doctrines, socialized health care, more illegals to do work liberals won’t do and make sure more liberals get elected. Yada yada. Round up all the Republicans and put them in a camp, right? Say it. Admit it. Own it.

  20. Actually, no, Abel. Radio stations buy the rights to the use of certain radio frequencies. For all intents and purposes, they own the use of a given frequency to broadcast whatever they wish to (within the very very loose limits of free speech). Thus, if they wish to use their frequency to broadcast the opinions of a certain person, why should they be forced to broadcast the opinions of anyone who wants airtime? They apportion airtime for Rush Limbaugh, for example, because they are aware that his voice is a good investment because the listening public is highly aware of the Limbaugh “brand name” and will be highly inclined towards listening to a station that broadcasts him, thus providing income to the station. Essentially, the “fairness” doctrine is a way for the government to direct the operation of a private business and gives anyone with a grievance the “right” to impose on the station’s use of the frequency they’ve bought the use of. There is no way in which this is right.

  21. There’s no need to change that history, Abel, because the history isn’t what you claim it is. As i’ve pointed out in a previous post, the Democratic Party and many liberals are stuck in the late 1890s and represent the ultimate form of regressive positions. There is no way to change this fact by accusations and fantastic claims.

  22. Yes, but the “hate speech” codes are drawn so broadly that they use the statement that “women are not widely represented in science” as an example of hate speech. There is no way even in the furthest stretch of imagination that a factual statement constitutes “hate” but a student who said the above could expect punishment.

    Abel, you seem like a really smart guy but you seem to love repeating Democratic talking points that are simply wildly wrong. The Republican Party gains most of its money from small doners where the Democratic Party relies on giant ones.

    Artists simply want public funds; their beliefs are completely 180° backwards from reality. Besides, your statement is appallingly idiotic. Are Monet’s paintings all Christ-centric? Republicans are quite happy to have a museum dedicate a Monet exhibit. Many classic Greek statues and statue works by Michaelangelo were not centered on Christ and many were nudes but do you hear Republicans railing against that? Be realistic, Abel… the only things Republicans rail against are smearing elephant feces all over something and calling it “art” or giving an artist a $15,000 NEA prize for a poem that consisted of nothing more than the word “Lighght”. In other words, things that have no merit whatsoever shouldn’t be paid for by the public in the eyes of Republicans.

    No, some of the greatest pieces of art in history were commissioned by INDIVIDUALS or organizations. A monarch isn’t a government and neither is a wealthy patron or the Catholic Church. You should be the one reading your history, Abel.

  23. Miles said, “A “9 to 1” ratio is inconsequential

    And here I thought it was all about “citizen input.”

    I guess that means just which “citizen,” huh?

  24. Abel said,

    “Shouldn’t citizens have a right to say what is on the public airwaves”

    Yes, citizens have the right to be heard on the airwaves!

    “Congress shall make no law respecting …or the abridging of the freedom of speech” Funny, there is no exception in the bill of rights as to the medium — warm global air, radio, television, internet and it isn’t the right of the medium, but the infringement of our individual rights.

    Perhaps,however, Victoria should make an exception on her internet blog for trolls, since I’m not sure the freedom of speech includes your incessant whining!

    The “fairness doctrine” is simply a blatant form of censorship of the free interchange of ideas through the medium of radio. Wikipedia defines censorship as the suppression of speech or censorship of communicative material which may be considered objectionable or harmful or sensitive, as determined solely by the censors.

    Censorship occurs when governments exert control over their population through violence, intimidation, force of law or mob, thus effectively preventing free expression about and disagreement with prevailing government policy. This certainly isn’t anything new, being tried by the Nazi secret police and youth mobs including the Brown Shirts within a quarter of a century after the first radio broadcast as described below,

    “Censorship was rampant throughout Nazi Germany. Censorship ensured that Germans could only see what the Nazi hierarchy wanted people to see, hear what they wanted them to hear and read only what the Nazis deemed acceptable. The Nazi police dealt with anyone who went outside of these boundaries. Censorship dominated the lives of the ordinary citizen in Nazi Germany.

    The prime mover in censorship was the Minister of Propaganda, Joseph Goebbels. It was his responsibility to see that the German people were fed with material acceptable to the Nazi state. Newspapers, RADIO and all forms of media were put under the control of the Nazis”

    http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/censorship_in_nazi_germany.htm

    Abel, I am sure you look very spiffy in that Brown Shirt. You’ll probably receive the rank of at least sergeant in the Obama Civilian Defense Corps.

  25. Again, if the majority of citizens in a particular region want a certain form of broadcasting, shouldn’t they have a right to that?

    The public airwaves are just that public. The FCC gives permission to companies to use those airwaves. With Localism, it gives citizens the opportunity to choose what they want. The majority might not want right-wing radio, they may want variety shows instead. How is anyone’s speech being denied? Because a conservative can’t have a radio show in a particular media market? Well Boo hoo. Sorry, but the conservative can go on the street corner and speak. They may look like a complete fool, but no one is denying their right to free speech. The “right to have a radio show” does not exist in the Bill of Rights, so get off it.

    I think what is at work is that conservatives have nothing but radio. Seems every conservative from Limbaugh to Savage have been kicked off TV because of their bigotry. Radio doesn’t have the same decency laws I guess. Besides, AM radio stations are run by mostly big business who have a right-leaning stance on most issues. That is their agenda. If the Fairness Doctrine in the form of Localism comes, corporatations will no longer be able to dictate to certain communities what they will have to listen to. That goes both ways. Like my example of Victoria Taft, she would have support in places like La Grande, where in Portland the majority would choose someone more like Thom Hartmann.

    Sorry you all are so against the the democratic process, but eventually this will probably become a reality that you will all have to face. Maybe you should start planning if you can’t live without conservative talk radio. There are alot of houses for sale in La Grande.

  26. So..you wish to continue the Democratic Process line… Who said we live in a Democracy?

    Article 4, Section 4 of the US Constitution.

    “The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.”

    Also the localism provision has not been put in yet Abel.. so quit trying to pedal your slum lord property in La Grande.

    Your statements are just the type to get a reacion.. But your scenarios are unrealistic.

    I disagree with Pete. You would not make a Sergeant in any type of army or body. Sergeants are leaders..

  27. Abel, you don’t seem to have a really good grasp on what this fairness doctrine crap all means. The end goal is a situation where, as with most things where government gets involved to promote “fairness”, a minority can stomp on the majority. Before they had to push it underground, the idea was that if a few upset people wanted a chance to reply to something they didn’t like hearing from, say, Lars Larson, they had the right to trump everyone else’s desire to listen to the Lars Larson Show so that the disgrunted few could respond.
    Localism, in this context, is just a ploy word because localism is already in operation. Radio stations in a given locality air the stuff people in that locality want to listen to already so the advocacy of something that already exists makes no sense unless you’re trying to change the result. You may not like conservative radio being aired in Oregon but enough of the people within reach of 1190 KEX want to hear Rush Limbuagh that station managers haven’t removed him from their lineup. Think about that for a bit, Abel.

    What is actually at work, Abel, is that liberals have everything BUT radio. Until the 1980s, there was a complete dominance of news by the liberal position. Then Rush Limbaugh happened and the conservative presence on radio became dominant. Suddenly, the liberals didn’t have a lock on all forms of media and there were people who were offering another perspective on the news of the day to the unwashed masses. It really, really hurts when you lose the ability to dictate what the truth is to the people and with this fairness doctrine and the false “localism”, the liberals have found a clever way to limit the “damage” that another viewpoint does to their message control. It really is quite clever and appeals to many people on an instinctive level (because that’s where most liberal ideas appeal) but if one stops and thinks, it becomes readily apparent that the entire purpose of the new “fairness” is to make sure that non-conservatives can’t hear the dissent.

    Yanno how protestors are always telling us that they’re being “silenced” (at the top of their lungs, too)? Well, when it happens, it doesn’t seem like silencing people is a problem so long as it’s the right people being silenced.

  28. Well put, Keith. Well put. But don’t hold out for too much hope that any of the Komrade’s apologists here will understand anything of what you posted, much less agree with it.

    And, Witchy-poo, as usual your comments are dead on target. Un_Abel, MiniMe, iago and the rest will never understand about the extreme popularity of conservative talk radio. The fact that Peter B. Collins came out Sunday afternoon with the 9 to 1 ratio of caoservative radio against progressive radio says a lot.

    BTW: I don’t make it a habit to listen to 620AM KPOJ. I was on my way to Lowe’s, about a 2 mile drive from my house, and decided to listen to that tripe. All that was on KXL, KPAM, and KGW was a financial program (Bob Brinker), a basketball game, and Dr. Dean Edell, in that order. I’m not all that fond of any of those programs, so I went to 620AM as a last resort.

  29. scottiebill
    sorry that you had to endure such crap , even if it was for only a short period of time !
    I have listened to 620 for about 2 minutes total and will never go back . I have never heard so much hate in such a short period of time. and to all you left leaneryes there is alot of hate from some consertive shows. So its up to you if you don’t want to listen to a station or show don’t .

  30. “a minority can stomp on the majority.”

    A minority of left leaners in Portland Metro area? I don’t think so. Portland is clearly more liberal than conservative. I know, I wouldn’t live here if it weren’t. Besides, even Lew freely admits it: “Right in a Left World”.

    If the majority of Portlanders don’t want to hear the Right-wing religious perversity of Conservative Talk Radio, then shouldn’t they be able to have the programming that they want? Again, and again, why are you against the democratic process of choosing what people want to hear in their community. The airwaves are public so shouldn’t the public get input on the programming?

    Look, people oppose and voice input on things all the time. Where to put strip clubs, where to put porn stores. Why shouldn’t they get to choose if they want to have conservative radio in their community?

  31. Abel, I refuse to believe that you’re ignorant of the fact that the “fairness doctrine” isn’t something that the Oregon legislature is coming up with. If I meant “minorities in the Portland/Metro area” I would have said just that.

    Please don’t be deliberately dense, Abel. I just got done pointing out that if there wasn’t a sufficient market for the voice of Rush Limbuagh on the radio station 1190 KEX, that station wouldn’t be broadcasting him. If insufficient numbers wanted to hear Air America, do you really think it would be broadcast? The process of “localism” already exists and works quite efficiently. Unless you’re going to try and claim that the station owners of 1190 KEX (and 860 KPAM) are fanatical conservatives that broadcast Rush Limbaugh (among others) to the one person in Portland that listens, stop spouting inane strawmen to dodge the real issue.

    The public presently has the controlling input; this “localism” scheme isn’t an attempt to give the public input but to determine the result. You have not really attempted to dispute this but rather have pretended that a vote against the “fairness doctrine” and the government’s version of “localism” is an attempt to impose certain stations on certain audiences although the result of doing nothing is, obviously, to maintain the present situation where listenership guides radio broadcast offerings.

  32. Bush Administration Mulled Leasing of Monuments

    (Feb. 31)
    (INN News) The Bush White House considered leasing space for political message on the facades of several prominent American monuments to the highest bidder, according to documents released this week by the Obama administration.

    Monuments mentioned in the Bush leasing plan included the Washington and Lincoln Monuments and Mt. Rushmore. According to several internal memos contained in the documents, the plan was to offer space on the sides of the monuments for political slogans and advocacy.

    A former Bush administration official familiar with the plan said no effort would have been made for balance. “This was strictly a free market deal — those slogans that made the most money would be the those allowed on the monuments, and we had couple of hundred places in mind for leasing.”

    The plan, to be administered jointly by the FCC and Department of Interior, was scrapped when Bush administrations officials worried the scheme would not pass though congress.

    “There was some worry that this wouldn’t get the a Democrat (sic) congress, and it was a fight we didn’t want at that time,” a former Bush White House senior policy official stated.

  33. Oddly enough, a quick check with Google fails to produce that article, Miles. Possibly because whatever half-witted left-wing place you picked it off of made it up? INN New has no such article on their website (although their articles DO demonstrate why letting a leftist put his hands on the levers of power is a dangerously foolish idea) and I’ll wager that Reuters doesn’t either.

Comments are closed.