There is a single link between Brooklyn and Kazoo Concerto of a few months ago; I seem to be constructing an immense story space for the reader to explore. Next up (don't know when): a linked nine story series about two brothers and a sister in the software development business. It will have one character in common with Brooklyn of Dreams.
This month, I had my first hard disk crash ever, after seventeen years of computing. Out of pure luck, I lost no text, but I lost a lot of Spectacle mail. If you wrote me in January and your missive isn't here, it vanished in the crash; please write me again.
As always, Jonathan Wallace
Patriots are Republican! Join the fight against Big Government(more like Big Brother). STOP the banning of free speech by politically correct liberals! STOP the failed socialist in the Democratic Party! STOP criminal cuddling by the liberals! PRESERVE our right to bear arms so we can resist the oppresive bueacracy foreseen by our ForeFathers like Jefferson, who where Republican.
JOIN THE REPUBLICANS AND PRESERVE THE INDIVIDUAL!
Frank Young #fyoung3@ix.netcom.com
This is in response to an article from your netzine, vol III, No. 9, September 1997.
from Jim Ray's Article "Defund the National Endowment for the Arts":
Unlike performance artist Karen Finley, I think the federal government should get out of the art business altogether and completely defund the NEA.
Okay, as an artist, I'm willing to disarm, but not unilaterally. I am all for defunding the NEA as soon as all farm subsidies, wasteful arms spending and Black Budget, the War On Drugs economy, Newt Gingrich's limo service, free ads for milk, tobacco subsidies, etc. etc. etc. are terminated. And they'll have to go first because they waste way more money and do much less to improve my life.
As Ray points out, the market economy rewards some forms of art quite well. But certainly not all forms. As Austrian economist Ludwig Mises pointed out in Human Action, truly advanced artists and philosophers, not just people making pottery or whatever people want to buy, will often have serious economic problems. But the bright side for capitalism as a whole is that such individuals are so driven to create that they will do so under whatever circumstances they have to put up with, so they'll still "deliver the goods" in the end. Example: Van Gogh who never sold a painting in his life.
And let's face it, certain forms are art are elitist in nature. Most people will never develop the auralization and conceptual skills to fully appreciate the late Beethoven quartets, just as some people will not develop the ability to understand the calculus, or the business analytic skills to determine the most cost-efficient country to find labour to manufacture sneakers. Art that makes such demands has always been, and remains a niche market. Beethoven will never be able to compete with Michael Jackson, as Nietzsche will never be able to compete with Dave Barry.
I don't have a problem with that. Ray is certainly correct that the government is unlikely to fund art which challenges the status quo. But are corporations any different? Is Shell Oil going to fund an opera on the tribulations of the Ogoni tribe? I don't think so. Anyone who believes major corporations are the next Medici patrons of great art is welcome to point out the new Michelangelos who now shower the public with great art on corporate commission.
I am sympathetic to Ray's deep sense of injustice at being taxed for things that don't benefit him directly. As an electro-acoustic artist, in the late 1980s I was quite upset by the DAT royalty tax which was passed by an essentially secret agreement between the major record labels and the US congress. This tax was based on the premise that anyone who buys a blank DAT tape intends to use it for illegal copying, and so should pay a royalty. So I and many other "underground" artists were paying taxes to Michael Jackson and co. when we bought blank DATs for our original work. Funny but I don't recall too many libertarians expressing deep concern about that particular tax, at the time or later as they directed their attention to more relevant issues about how Karen Finley was ripping them off.
Eric Lyon eric@iamas.ac.jp
Eric Lyon said:
Okay, as an artist, I'm willing to disarm, but not unilaterally. I am all for defunding the NEA as soon as all farm subsidies, wasteful arms spending and Black Budget, the War On Drugs economy, Newt Gingrich's limo service, free ads for milk, tobacco subsidies, etc. etc. etc. are terminated. And they'll have to go first because they waste way more money and do much less to improve my life.
Libertarians agree on all these things, but your "you first" demand is a no-starter. Everyone want's the other's pork cut first, the only possible compromise is all at once (which I'm fully for). A radical step, but the prosperity we'd get from leaving people be would (IMO) be incredible.
As Ray points out, the market economy rewards some forms of art quite well. But certainly not all forms. As Austrian economist Ludwig Mises pointed out in Human Action, truly advanced artists and philosophers, not just people making pottery or whatever people want to buy, will often have serious economic problems. But the bright side for capitalism as a whole is that such individuals are so driven to create that they will do so under whatever circumstances they have to put up with, so they'll still "deliver the goods" in the end. Example: Van Gogh who never sold a painting in his life.
I don't recall, but I don't think any government of the time was intelligent enough to give him a subsidy (and his heirs and the heirs of his friends are doing quite well, which is worth something, though not to the artist himself). I'm not sure whether this leads to an argument that modern governments are made up of smarter or more-honest or more tasteful people than those of Van Gogh's time.
I doubt it, but then, I live in Miami, whose politicians are still
working to make Orange County CA in the late '80s look fiscally
responsible.
Agreed. (Few can come close to The Dave, in my book!:)
Corporations, I doubt. I don't trust them when they get big. I'd
trust INDIVIDUALS to put out challenging art. One recent example
is Dr. Kevorkian's painting, which is interesting. Another is my
brother's stuff, which is finally beginning to sell.
Actually, it's more well-hidden sarcastic annoyance than injustice.
I'll see Mapplethorpe using a bullwhip in a (AHEM) unique way and
think, "pity you didn't stick that NEA check up there." I try to
sound more mature than my initial thoughts upon seeing these fruits
of April the 15th, and that's what most folks see instead. Perhaps
I shouldn't restrain myself so! :^)
You may not recall it, but it happened anyway. For one thing, I'd
not rely on the major media [or even the Libertarian party] to get
or accurately report all of libertarian thought. For *multiple*
examples of what you don't recall, check the cypherpunks archives
from that period. Karen is actually ripping more than just me off,
she is trying to steal a word, censorship, to describe what is NOT
censorship by any stretch of the imagination. She is free to do
her artwork on someone else's dime, the givernment is stopping her
from doing it on mine. As I said, the controversial stuff like her
or Mapplethorpe is easy, I wanna defund it ALL as a matter of
principle, and various artists' stretching of the bounds of good
taste to the point that the fatcat community notices and slaps her
wrist by defunding just her or Mapplethorpe has no effect on this
principle.
Most people who disagree go off on all sorts of tangents. The DAT
thing was a new one, mostly it's "You must support all sorts of
military waste, then," as if one thing (forced speech) has anything
to do with the other ("the united States shall maintain a navy")
AFA the U.S. Constitution is concerned. It's evidently hard to
defend the idea of an NEA in a vacuum, which is telling, IMO.
Thanks for reading and commenting, Jonathan has permission to use
my part of this if he finds it useful.
Catherine Lord cathlord@kcls.org
The case you raise is a more difficult one, but I
think it would still be unconstitutional. Quite aside from
that, I don't recommend this approach from a policy standpoint.
1. Constitutionality. Although the use of filters would be optional,
the library would still be delegating its decision-making to
third parties using vague standards (illegal under the MPAA cases)
and censorship of a good deal of speech not meeting any imaginable
criteria would still be occuring.
Try this analogy: if the Christian Coalition objects to a lot
of content in your library, would you create a Christian
Coalition room containing only CC-approved content? After
all, its use would be optional.
2. Policy. Pursuant to ALA standards, librarians have
always rightly resisted the implication that it is their
responsibility to babysit kids--and many have said that when they
are forced to do it, they do it badly. (For example, the only
book a librarian ever denied me as a child was Oscar Lewis'
La Vida, a sociology book I needed for a research
report.) Putting an optional filter on one machine
makes the librarian responsible for worrying about what children can see
using that filter, children using the wrong machine, etc. I
would prefer a policy that required parental consent
before the Net could be used at all by children
under a certain age (13, say), then gave
unfiltered access--this is much cleaner.
I am a education student trying to pull all the resourses that I can
togeither on a Soicial Studies unit concerned with the Concentration
camps of Nazi German. I was very impressed with you web site and was
wondering if there is any way that I can get a hard copy for use in my
class. Please let me know what I would have to do or other options
concerning this information. Thank you for a well presented web site
and a educational reminder.
Sincerely,
I am an eigth grade English teacher in Ohio. My class is just now
finishing up the young adult novel "The Giver" by Lois Lowry. It will take
us into a unit of the Holocaust. We will be reading "Night". Do you have
any suggestions? Or is there anything that you feel is important to share
with the kids that is not ordinarily taught in a Holocaust unit? I found
some valuable information off your Alphabet. Very painful. I must share
that I do believe there is a God, but I understand your convictions as
well. Your help would be greatly appreciated, and thank you for your
contribution to educating others. Take care.
Sincerely,
I don't know if I really have all that much to say, except for that I'm
truly sorry for how you have been treated over the years.
To say that the Jews killed Jesus...Well, what is there to say to such
stupidity?? Not only was he Jewish himself, but if these biblical stories
had taken place elsewhere, Jesus obviously would have been killed by the
inhabbitants of that particular country. I also must say that I'm ashamed
of how my own country, Sweden, acted during the second world war! To say
that we were neutral is nothing but a terrible lie, and we even turned our
backs to our neighbouring countries. What scares me more than anything is
the fact that man never seems to learn from history, that we still today
have nazies walking down our streets!
All the best,
ps. I visited Israel last year, and Jerusalem is one of the most
interesting places I've ever been to. Bless you..
I check your site with some regularity, and generally find its
contents interesting and informed, especially the materials related to
internet censorship.
An exception is
Motherhood, Maidenhood and Modernity. I'm not sure what it's doing
there, since it seems to have little connection to the issues you
generally pursue. As a polemic it is poorly conceived (pun intended)
and poorly executed. Sy is entitled to his opinion, but we, the
readers, are at least entitled to well-supported and well-reasoned
opinions, or you're just wasting our time. Instead, there's a lot of
uninformed generalizations and bald assertions on topics ranging from
sex to sociology to history to early childhood development. Many or most
could be refuted - but why bother? Life is too short, and it would take
too long. Besides, the facts are clearly irrelevant.
Joan Bertin bertin@ncac.org
I have just come accross your pages while researching on the subject of
sociobiology. Didn't have much time to read it all, but a few screens
and your biography prompted me to send this letter.
I may not personally agree with all your opinions on ethics or
anthropology (will decide after more investigation), but one thing I
know for sure, they will surely be considered in the book on education I
am writing now, since they represent a profound and sincere effort
towards understanding, and a most intelligent one.
I thank you for letting us cybernauts share your thoughts. The Internet
is a warmer place after reading your prose.
Best regards,
I read the section of your page on
Orwell and I disagree with you.
1984 is not a portrayal of Soviet Russia, but a description of life
under any totalitarian system (exagurrated slightly for interest
purposes). The government of every large country today is, in effect,
totalitarian. This includes America, because being able to vote for the
beuracrat of your choice is not democracy. The upper class protects
itself much like it did in 1984.
Do you really beleive that because Russia has opened up that there
is hope for the Russian people, or people in general for that matter.
It's Ingsoc compared to Death Worship, or Capitalism compared to
Communism, it is all the same. this is what Orwell is saying. Just
because Russia has adopted our version of totalitarianism does not mean
they will be any better off.
While I would love to see a world of equality evolve because of
what you call human natures resiliance, it is not going to happen.
Human nature is whatever the Party and Big Brother say it is. Thank You
for your time.
Robert B. davirosa@rosey.com
I'm reading your pages on
Hiroshima. You might be interested in:
http://titan.iwu.edu/~rwilson/hiroshima
Regards,
Bob Wilson's article,
The Conservative Military, was interesting and a
seemingly accurate portrayal of Clinton's disregard for the military,
except for one point. His statement, 'Consequently, the current commander
in chief would not be a suitable candidate for commissioning as a second
lieutenant. As an enlisted man, he would not be considered for access to
classified information.', is inaccurate. In the Air Force, prior service
marijuana use is rarely a disqualifying offense for a security clearance,
commissioning, or nuclear weapons duty. The service academies may have
different rules, but not all prior service drug use will disqualify someone
for sensitive positions that require a top secret clearance.
Except for this minor point, Mr. Wilson pointed out some of the reasons why
the President is not always very popular with many service men and women.
Jim Bragge
I came across the Ethical Spectacle and was attracted by various of the
things that you have written. However I find some of your contributors
and contributions incredibly right wingt. That is from my perspective
as an English Liberal.
On this side of the Atlantic some of the views expressed would shock.
On issues such as capital punishment, abortion, euthanasia you provide
links to websites which are appallingly reactionary. Often they cloak
prejudice and lack of coherent argument in layers of religious and
political abuse.
Is this how the average US citizen thinks or does the Spectacle just
attract a lunatc fringe?
John Tilley johntilley@cix.co.uk
I've done quite a bit of reading tonight throughout your Spectacle Web
pages (mainly featuring the Holocaust).
One brief word of constructive criticism. You need to double-check your
punctuation, as you're misusing the pair of words, "its" and "it's."
"Its" = a possessive (no apostrophe, as with "his" and "her").
"It's" = a contraction for the phrase "it is."
Using the wrong one makes writing appear amateurish. It would do very
well if you were to fix all such errors in your on-line "reprints" from
various essays in the past found in Spectacle, that you have provided on
the Web.
If need be, you can double-check by saying "his or her" in place of all
uses of "its" and saying "it is" in place of all uses of "it's" when you
review your material that you plan to make available. If you have chosen
the wrong member of the pair, making the substitution I suggest here will
reveal the mistake by the nonsense that typically results.
Other than this, your material is great (I've been here many more hours
than I originally anticipated!).
Best Wishes,
yesterday I heard a song on an oldies station, "four dead in ohio"..
I couldn't quite understand what it was about. I looked it up on the web
and found your
Kent State page:
I am 21, and you can deduce for yourself my prior knowledge of this..
it was quite eye opening, thanks!!!
Steven Loomis srl@monkey.sbay.org
And let's face it, certain forms are art are elitist in nature. Most
people will never develop the auralization and conceptual skills to fully
appreciate the late Beethoven quartets, just as some people will not
develop the ability to understand the calculus, or the business analytic
skills to determine the most cost-efficient country to find labour to
manufacture sneakers. Art that makes such demands has always been, and
remains a niche market. Beethoven will never be able to compete with
Michael Jackson, as Nietzsche will never be able to compete with Dave Barry.
I don't have a problem with that. Ray is certainly correct that the
government is unlikely to fund art which challenges the status quo.
But are corporations any different? Is Shell Oil going to fund an
opera on the tribulations of the Ogoni tribe? I don't think so.
Anyone who believes major corporations are the next Medici patrons
of great art is welcome to point out the new Michelangelos who
now shower the public with great art on corporate commission.
I am sympathetic to Ray's deep sense of injustice at being taxed for
things that don't benefit him directly. As an electro-acoustic artist,
in the late 1980s I was quite upset by the DAT royalty tax which was
passed by an essentially secret agreement between the major record
labels and the US congress. This tax was based on the premise that
anyone who buys a blank DAT tape intends to use it for illegal
copying, and so should pay a royalty. So I and many other
"underground" artists were paying taxes to Michael Jackson and
co. when we bought blank DATs for our original work. Funny but I don't
recall too many libertarians expressing deep concern about that
particular tax, at the time or later as they directed their attention
to more relevant issues about how Karen Finley was ripping them off.
Freedom of Speech
I fully agree with an
article (authored by you?) stating that libraries
installing Internet blocking software are violating the Constitution.
However, what do you think about this scenario? A local public library,
in full agreement with your analysis, installs Internet stations without
blocking software, but also installs a separate Internet station with
blocking software, to allow for the choice. Recently, a book (I don't
remember the title) came out with two editions--one geared for adults,
and the other geared for children. The library purchases both copies,
and makes both available for any age group...as with the Internet
stations. Are these cases analogous? What do you think about libraries
making both options available? As long as both are available to patrons
without age restrictions (or any other), wouldn't the availability of
Internet blocking software then be constitutional?
An Auschwitz Alphabet
Dear Mr. Wallace:
Jerry Amundsen amundsen@unionky.edu
Dear Mr. Wallace:
Amy Jo Speaks tespeaks@erinet.com
Greetings,
Anne anne.backlund@lund.mail.telia.com
Miscellaneous
\
Dear Jonathan:
Dear Jonathan,
Hugo M. Castellano webmaster@nalejandria.com
Dear Mr. Wallace:
Dear Mr. Wallace:
Ray Wilson
Professor Emeritus, Ohio Wesleyan University
rwilson@titan.iwu.edu
Dear Mr. Wallace:
jimb@lvdi.net
Dear Jonathan Wallace:
Kingston upon Thames
England
Dear Mr. Wallace:
Dave Simpson SIMPSOND@ELSX.DECnet.az.honeywell.com
Dear Mr. Wallace: