Digital Journal: NEA Caught Making Political Gaffes (Update: More NEA Propaganda)

[IHOPSkins]

Related: More Propaganda from the NEA........

Obama 'Most Powerful Writer Since Julius Caesar,' Says NEA Chief

Rocco Landesman, chairman of the National Endowment for the Arts, declared in a speech to art philanthropists in Brooklyn last week that President Obama is the world's most powerful writer since the days of Caesar....

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/10/28/obama-powerful-writer-julius-caesar-says-nea-chief/

Please place in the Messiah File

[Thiebear]

Most powerful writer???

Before President books or memo's to NEA after President?

[mardi gras skin]

Stay thirsty my friends

[deejaydana]

And the Kool-Aid drinking continues at the NEA :

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/11/01/the_nea_is_completely_committed_to_obamaism_98975.html

Instead, Landesman embraced a timeless tactic of power politics. He debased himself with incandescently vulgar obsequiousness to his supreme leader. "There is a new president and a new NEA," he proclaimed. "This is the first president that actually writes his own books since Teddy Roosevelt and arguably the first to write them really well since Lincoln. If you accept the premise, and I do, that the United States is the most powerful country in the world, then Barack Obama is the most powerful writer since Julius Caesar. That has to be good for American artists."

After more fawning praise for the "Optimist in Chief," he added that proof of Obama's desire to take the NEA in exciting new directions was the president's "out-of-left-field choice to head the NEA, a signal I certainly took to mean he wasn't interested in business-as-usual for the arts." One must trust that Landesman's interpretation of his own appointment is accurate.

Let us pause to reflect on Landesman's odd - by which I mean absurd - historical analysis. Obama has written two books, one good, the other a plodding concatenation of political clichés and bromides. Ulysses S. Grant's memoirs, published by Mark Twain, were a literary triumph. Woodrow Wilson wrote many books of great import but of less literary worth. JFK won a Pulitzer for one of his books - the one he didn't write, alas. But Richard Nixon wrote plenty, as did Herbert Hoover, including two definitive texts, one on mining, the other on fishing.

Oh, and Lincoln never wrote any books.

[Larry]

And the Kool-Aid drinking continues at the NEA :

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/11/01/the_nea_is_completely_committed_to_obamaism_98975.html

Instead, Landesman embraced a timeless tactic of power politics. He debased himself with incandescently vulgar obsequiousness to his supreme leader. "There is a new president and a new NEA," he proclaimed. "This is the first president that actually writes his own books since Teddy Roosevelt and arguably the first to write them really well since Lincoln. If you accept the premise, and I do, that the United States is the most powerful country in the world, then Barack Obama is the most powerful writer since Julius Caesar. That has to be good for American artists."

After more fawning praise for the "Optimist in Chief," he added that proof of Obama's desire to take the NEA in exciting new directions was the president's "out-of-left-field choice to head the NEA, a signal I certainly took to mean he wasn't interested in business-as-usual for the arts." One must trust that Landesman's interpretation of his own appointment is accurate.

Let us pause to reflect on Landesman's odd - by which I mean absurd - historical analysis. Obama has written two books, one good, the other a plodding concatenation of political clichés and bromides. Ulysses S. Grant's memoirs, published by Mark Twain, were a literary triumph. Woodrow Wilson wrote many books of great import but of less literary worth. JFK won a Pulitzer for one of his books - the one he didn't write, alas. But Richard Nixon wrote plenty, as did Herbert Hoover, including two definitive texts, one on mining, the other on fishing.

Oh, and Lincoln never wrote any books.

1) I'd suggest that if you're going to accuse somebody else of drinking Kool-Aid, you not do so by quoting such outrageously theatrical statements as this one.

2) I'd also suggest that your agenda would have been better served if you'd found a source which quoted the "most powerful writer" out of context, like the previous partisans did.

Including the first part of the sentence, like this source did, spoils the whole thing by revealing tha the speaker was not making a statement of any kind as to the quality of Obama's writing, but rather was referring to the power of the office he now holds.

You went and ruined the whole spin.

[deejaydana]

1) I'd suggest that if you're going to accuse somebody else of drinking Kool-Aid, you not do so by quoting such outrageously theatrical statements as this one.

2) I'd also suggest that your agenda would have been better served if you'd found a source which quoted the "most powerful writer" out of context, like the previous partisans did.

Including the first part of the sentence, like this source did, spoils the whole thing by revealing tha the speaker was not making a statement of any kind as to the quality of Obama's writing, but rather was referring to the power of the office he now holds.

You went and ruined the whole spin.

WTF are you talking about? I guess you don't think it's a bad thing for the NEA to be pushing a political party's agenda. I'll say this for the NEA, at least they/re leadership is overt about it. I don't think the NEA should be shamelessly advocating gov't programs but I guess that's where we diverge Larry.

[IHOPSkins]

.....I guess you don't think it's a bad thing for the NEA to be pushing a political party's agenda........I guess that's where we diverge Larry.

Larry calls people liars that are partisan

But when the NEA does it.....they are doing their job

Talk about Propaganda

[Destino]

I love conservative manufactured fights. They come out and oppose the existence of the NEA and then go crazy when the NEA favors democrats. The same thing they do with the teachers union (and unions in general). When you oppose the existence of the group the group will oppose you. That's the way it works, and no that doesn't change when public dollars are at stake. Government agencies are no different than the private sector in the regard that they fight to continue existing. Public radio and TV are the same. Conservatives threaten to kill it and then fake (I hope it's fake because otherwise it would be stupid) surprise when these mediums oppose them politically.

[Larry]

Larry calls people liars that are partisan

Larry calls people liars who are liars.

But when the NEA does it.....they are doing their job

Just like that one. I said no such thing, and you perfectly well know it.

(Trying to think up a term for someone who makes statement that he knows aren't true.)

[Larry]

I love conservative manufactured fights. They come out and oppose the existence of the NEA and then go crazy when the NEA favors democrats. The same thing they do with the teachers union (and unions in general). When you oppose the existence of the group the group will oppose you. That's the way it works, and no that doesn't change when public dollars are at stake. Government agencies are no different than the private sector in the regard that they fight to continue existing. Public radio and TV are the same. Conservatives threaten to kill it and then fake (I hope it's fake because otherwise it would be stupid) surprise when these mediums oppose them politically.

Now, if this were a thread about, say, the GOP complaining about blacks not voting for them, then I'd say you've got a point.

But no, government agencies are not supposed to campaign for one political party or the other. Ever. They're not supposed to campaign for the one that gives them the most money. They're not supposed to campaign for the guy who's in the White House.

And while I'll certainly grant you that "not supposed to" doesn't equal "don't", I think the GOP (or any political party) has a legitimate beef if a government agency is engaging in partisan politics.

I think some folks are (deliberately) blowing this thing WAY out of proportion. And (deliberately) claiming that it's something it's not.

The only "crime" here is that a perfectly legitimate, government produced flier, with a perfectly legitimate purpose, got forwarded by a government official who shouldn't have. Which may have been an abuse of power (but we'll never know), and certainly looked like it could have been.

But at least that part of the complaint is perfectly legitimate, and as the opposition party they have a right (some would say an obligation) to rub everybody's nose in it.

[IHOPSkins]

........a White House staffer who's job is to encourage volunteers to work with the White House has been caught red-handed working on a conference call whose purpose was to encourage volunteers to work with the White House. This, no doubt, clearly proves that the entire White House is corrupt, no doubt.......

Larry calls people liars that are partisan

But when the NEA does it.....they are doing their job

Talk about Propaganda

Larry calls people liars who are liars.

Just like that one. I said no such thing, and you perfectly well know it....

Obfuscate:to make obscure, to be evasive, unclear, or confusing

And this is Larry obfuscating for the NEA........call it propaganda

What's really got me ticked off about the whole thing is that there actually is something here to object to. Something wrong.

No, it's not the fact that the White House office charged with encouraging volunteers ......:blahblah::blahblah::blahblah:

It's the fact that someone who is in charge of handing out government money mailed out the fliers.

......

An August 10, 2009 National Endowment for the Arts conference call in which artists were asked to help support President Obama's agenda -- a call that at least one good government group called "inappropriate" -- has prompted the White House to issue new guidelines to prevent such a call from ever happening again.....

In the call, Yosi Sergant, then the NEA's communications director, seemed to encourage the listeners to create art to further the president's goals by promoting the United We Serve campaign and create art specific to areas of health care, education and the environment.

"Fliers"?....The WH changed a policy on "Fliers".......I don't see no stinking "Fliers"

I do see the WH changing the way they do things related to a CALL TO PROPAGANDIZE their Agenda (because they got caught)

.... and as the opposition party they have a right (some would say an obligation) to rub everybody's nose in it.

Why Thank You Larry

NEA = Unofficial Propaganda Arm of the Obaminator

[Larry]

Wow. You actually brought new information to the discussion.

In honor of this occasion, I'm going to ignore everything else in your post, and actually respond to the new information.

In the call, Yosi Sergant, then the NEA's communications director, seemed to encourage the listeners to create art to further the president's goals by promoting the United We Serve campaign and create art specific to areas of health care, education and the environment.

See, that's the first time in this thread (near as I can tell) that you've mentioned that Yosi did anything other than to forward some fliers which were produced by United We Serve (according to the altered emails you posted earlier, the email had two attachments, called "united we serve flyer.pdf" and "Stories for united we serve.doc".), as part of a conference call set up by him, United We Serve, and Kalpan Modi.

(Rememper Kalpan Modi? The purpose of your stunning UPDATE was to tell us that you've linked this evil conspiracy to the White House, conveniently editing out the fact that Modi's job title is "White House associate director of public engagement". Meaning, that his job is to encourage volunteers. That's probably why he was participating in a conference call whose stated purpose was to encourage volunteers. Might explain why he's involved in producing fliers promoting the conference call whose purpose is to encourage volunteers, too.)

However, I was getting to the new information you've provided. See, you just mentioned that Sergant didn't just email some fliers that United We Stand produced, but that he also was one of the speakers in the conference call.

That, IMO, makes things worse.

He didn't simply forward on invitation to some other guy's event, he actually had a part in the event.

Still not the vast, communist, conspiracy to sap and impurify our precious bodily fluids. But it's worse than just forwarding an email that would have been perfectly legitimate if someone else had sent it.

Thank you for the additional information. This changes my opinion somewhat.

[Johnny Punani]

Wow this is devastating. When does the impeachment begin?

I don't know which is more devastating...

This obviously illegal activity or those who have gulped down so much partisan kool-aid; they believe their party isn't as bad as the others and will defend it at all cost.

[Johnny Punani]

Wow. I was going through your post section by section and pointing out how completely irrelevant they are to this discussion, and then I found a sentence that I think might actually fit, here. So I'm throwing out all of the comments I was typing about how wring you are, and talking about the thing I think we agree on.

Now, I don't know if that law would actually apply in this case. (Did the guy encourage volunteers to promote the Democratic Party, or to promote the government's agenda? I can see a whole lot of doublespeak being thrown at that particular nit.)

But it is at least really close to the problem that I do have with that action.

I don't have a problem with the White House promoting volunteerism. But there is a problem when a person who has the authority over an agency who's purpose is to hand out government money to people forwards the call to volunteer along to people he has authority over.

It certainly could be interpreted as a hint that maybe your grant might depend on how enthusiastic a volunteer you are, even if no such intent was present.

And we all know that Washington is full of people who are really adept at the world of "nudge, nudge, wink, wink". (Not to be confused with "foot taps".) We'll never know if such an intent were really present. Too many habitual liars in there.

I thank you for trying to think in an unbiased fashion and taking an honest look at everything....

From the recording I heard, it seems to me their plan was to use the NEA to push those artists involved with the agency to produce artistic works for a specific political agenda and/or policy stance with the purpose of influencing those described in 18 USC 1913 that are barred from receiving such influence through those means.

[Destino]

And while I'll certainly grant you that "not supposed to" doesn't equal "don't", I think the GOP (or any political party) has a legitimate beef if a government agency is engaging in partisan politics.

I disagree. I am a realist. The military brass loves the budget expanding right wing and they really don't hide it. Government agencies will do what they do based on who scratches their back the most or against those that threaten their existence. This applies to congress, the white house, and everyone beneath them. The only difference between most cases and this one is that conservatives came out and declared war on this particular agency. One would have to take idealism to a heroine infused dream level to believe that such a stand wouldn't turn the NEA anti-GOP.

Actions have consequences, even if they shouldn't in the minds of some. I have no issue with that because when you think of it those people are fighting for what they believe in, no different than everyone else. The GOP has threatened that.

[SnyderShrugged]

The NEA shouldnt have any place in our government unless it is wholly subsidized by voluntary charity, not taxpayer funds.

[Johnny Punani]

I don't have a problem with funding the NEA. I think the arts are a very important part of our society and culture. However, if they want to produce artistic works whose sole purpose is to push a partisan political agenda then they can do it without public funds.

[SnyderShrugged]

I don't have a problem with funding the NEA. I think the arts are a very important part of our society and culture. However, if they want to produce artistic works whose sole purpose is to push a partisan political agenda then they can do it without public funds.

I never saw funding arts in the enumerated powers, not anywhere. Heck, I dont even see where it qualifies as the tried and true "general welfare or commerce clauses".

[Johnny Punani]

I never saw funding arts in the enumerated powers, not anywhere. Heck, I dont even see where it qualifies as the tried and true "general welfare or commerce clauses".

Heck, I saw it in the Constitution...

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.articlei.html

Section 8. The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;

To establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin money, regulate the value thereof, and of foreign coin, and fix the standard of weights and measures;

To provide for the punishment of counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States;

To establish post offices and post roads;

To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;

To constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court;

To define and punish piracies and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations;

To declare war, grant letters of marque and reprisal, and make rules concerning captures on land and water;

To raise and support armies, but no appropriation of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years;

To provide and maintain a navy;

To make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces;

To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

[SnyderShrugged]

^^ I dont believe they meant oil paints and sculpture as "Useful arts".

Please use context. It's obvious that they intended "useful arts" as inventions that advance society, not pretty pictures.

[Johnny Punani]

^^ I dont believe they meant oil paints and sculpture as "Useful arts".

Please use context. It's obvious that they intended "useful arts" as inventions that advance society, not pretty pictures.

Well of course they didn't mean oil paintings and sculpture, but that section does form the basis for public funding of the arts. Science and "useful arts" (technology) was viewed as being beneficial to the "public welfare." The Arts (not only oil paintings and sculptures but writing, music, film, etc) enrich society and are beneficial to the "public welfare."

[SnyderShrugged]

Well of course they didn't mean oil paintings and sculpture, but that section does form the basis for public funding of the arts. Science and "useful arts" (technology) was viewed as being beneficial to the "public welfare." The Arts (not only oil paintings and sculptures but writing, music, film, etc) enrich society and are beneficial to the "public welfare."

It's just another twist of the interpretation in order to make it say what they didnt mean. No one can convince me that painting, etc was the intent of that enumerated power, any more than I could be convinced that regluating commerce was intended to make dope illegal.

[Larry]

The NEA shouldnt have any place in our government unless it is wholly subsidized by voluntary charity, not taxpayer funds.

As has been pointed out, the history of the government (and the church, which for a long time was also a government) sponsoring art is a really really long one.

I can think of worse things for the government to subsidize.

(Although I do have to wonder how I can reconcile, say, the government subsidizing the Boston Symphony, and yet get mad at the government subsidizing an NFL team. I think part of the way I rationalize the difference is my belief that it's just about impossible to run a world-class symphony without a government subsidy, whereas I believe that the NFL is perfectly capable of paying it's own bills.)

I do see your point, though. And I'm not certain that the Federal government should be doing it. And probably not as much as they're doing it.

[SnyderShrugged]

As has been pointed out, the history of the government (and the church, which for a long time was also a government) sponsoring art is a really really long one.

I can think of worse things for the government to subsidize.

(Although I do have to wonder how I can reconcile, say, the government subsidizing the Boston Symphony, and yet get mad at the government subsidizing an NFL team. I think part of the way I rationalize the difference is my belief that it's just about impossible to run a world-class symphony without a government subsidy, whereas I believe that the NFL is perfectly capable of paying it's own bills.)

I do see your point, though. And I'm not certain that the Federal government should be doing it. And probably not as much as they're doing it.

By gum, I think we almost see eye to eye!

[Larry]

^^ I dont believe they meant oil paints and sculpture as "Useful arts".

Please use context. It's obvious that they intended "useful arts" as inventions that advance society, not pretty pictures.

To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries;

They obviously intended it to apply to authors.

You want to claim that they only intended it to apply to authors who write textbooks, but not those useless fiction authors? That, say, Mark Twain didn't deserve to have a copyright on his works?