It may have taken awhile, but thanks to Patrick Courrielche’s exposé at, of all places, Big Hollywood, conservatives are positively fuming over the Bush Administration‘s decision to funnel $2.2 billion through the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives into programs that specifically support the President’s ideological and policy commitments, like the Abstinence Education Program, designed to “enable states to provide abstinence education and mentoring, counseling, and adult supervision to promote abstinence from sexual activity.”
Conservatives are rightly upset with a speech Bush delivered at the 2004 White House National Conference on Faith-Based and Community Initiatives, in which he said “[i]t’s hard to be a faith-based program if you can’t practice faith [and] the message to you is, we’re changing the culture here in America.”
“It’s hard to read his comments as anything but a call for groups to engage in a partisan campaign on behalf of the Bush Administration’s policy agenda,” argued John Hinderaker. Nick Gillespie agreed, saying that “[i]f you’ve ever wondered—and worried—about where government support of the arts leads, look no further than the full transcript of an August 10, 2009 telecon[ference call] between an official at the National Endowment for the Arts and a group of ‘independent artists from around the country.'”
Wait wait wait—I thought conservatives were upset because the White House created an office, installed it five federal agencies, then used them to fund a clearly partisan policy agenda to the tune of $2.2 billion. You mean to tell me all those links are about an August 10th conference call that tried to wrangle up support for the current President’s National Day of Service—a call in which not one cent of the NEA’s $155 million budget was dispensed or even offered?
They are.
All the outrage centers around a conference call designed, in the words soon-to-be-becked* Yosi Sergant, “to raise the visibility” for a program whose purpose is to encourage “all Americans and others throughout the world to voluntarily perform at least one good deed or another service activity on the anniversary of 9/11 each year, and on other days marked by terrorist events.” The problem, it seems, is that the NEA is supposed to be above partisanship, and supporting the President’s United We Serve initiative is seen by conservatives to be a partisan issue. Here are some of its highly partisan goals:
We want to make Americans’ lives better by asking everybody to participate in shaping the life of their community and make the quality of life better.
Clearly, “making Americans’ lives better” is a partisan issue. Which would be acceptable, were the administration not being so heavy-handed:
[H]ow do we move the people who look to each of you for guidance to get involved? We have to leave that to you because nobody else knows how to do it better than you do[.]
Clearly, dictating that individual organizations ought to do what they think is appropriate in a manner of their own choosing is but one step from installing Obama as Dictator for Life. Which is what they will do, because these are doggedly partisan projects:
I hearken back to an example that happened right before election day during the campaign when a bunch of DJs got together and put on a conference call for all the top radio and club DJs around the country who got onto a telephone call and encouraged everyone to make DJ mixes using songs that would encourage people to get out and vote.
And when these hip-hop-listening kids went out and voted for whomever they so desired, who did they vote for? The Dictator for Life, who now wants them to
to go out and donate blood or adopt an alley way or identify some walls in [their] neighborhood that have been stricken with graffiti that need a mural.
According to conservatives, encouraging artists to encourage kids to donate blood is now a partisan activity because it falls under the heading of “service,” and “service” is communism; “service” is socialism; “service” is Marxism; “service” is fascism.
So now, for conservatives, “service” is partisan.
That’s the root of all this outrage—that the NEA would listen in on a conference call designed to spread the word about the National Day of Service. For more on this and other trivial items that are suddenly important after eight years of whistling while actual civil liberties were being non-hypothetically violated on a regular basis, watch the Glenn Beck Show tonight on FOXNews.
*beck v. trans. beck-ing, beck-ed, to be baselessly attacked by an idiot with a megaphone, then have those accusations alter your life for the worse because it’s politically expedient for your spineless superiors to demote or fire you
Alternatively (and to maintain my honor):
beck, v. trans. beck-ing, beck-ed, to baselessly attack an innocuous public official, then have those accusations alter that official’s life for the worse because it’s politically expedient for their superiors to demote or fire them, esp. when done by idiots with megaphones. Also intr.
(x-posted.)
The Edge of the American West 
72 comments
September 21, 2009 at 2:51 pm
SEK
(Troll Alert! I tried to use “nofollow” links, but the “nofollow” disappeared when I published. You have been warned.)
September 21, 2009 at 4:04 pm
davenoon
genius.
September 21, 2009 at 4:28 pm
Substance McGravitas
I am a complete sucker for reading the entire transcript of that call.
Next up: Arbor Day and the Fifth Column.
September 21, 2009 at 8:37 pm
borked
You spelled that verb wrong. The correct spelling is “bork.”
September 21, 2009 at 9:40 pm
davenoon
The transcript really is quite hilarious — or, rather, the wingnut highlighting makes it hilarious, to the degree that they select the most innocuous statements and swaddle them in yellow and red so you don’t miss the dangerous, scary parts. I’m half-surprised there weren’t accompanying instructions for readers to salvage screen shots, lest the President’s underground hacker legion disable Brietbart’s site forever.
This is almost as dumb as the yodeling that transpired when Obama ordered dijon mustard a few months back — and perhaps even dumber, since people like Assrocket are claiming an actual violation of the law.
September 21, 2009 at 10:18 pm
SEK
Didn’t you know, dave, that the Hatch Act could be violated without nary a dollar changing hands so long as one of the parties involved thought the word “socialism” really, really hard?
September 21, 2009 at 11:08 pm
jasperjava
Davenoon – you mean, putting Dijon mustard on your burger is actually legal?
SEK: Great post.
September 21, 2009 at 11:20 pm
TF Smith
Shouldn’t these folks be worrying about their precious bodily fluids, or floridated water, or the British royal family’s drug dealing, or speaking in tongues, or something else equally important?
September 21, 2009 at 11:40 pm
AYY
Oh fiddlesticks. Conservatives aren’t complaining about the attempt to enlist aritists to urge people to give blood or to remove graffiti. They’re complaining about the Obama administration’s attempt to use the NEA to drum up support for his political agenda. You haven’t made much of a case that that’s not happening.
September 22, 2009 at 12:08 am
max
You haven’t made much of a case that that’s not happening.
‘If the other boys jumped off a bridge, would you follow? OF COURSE NOT!’
max
[‘SINCERELY, YOUR MOTHER, THE TROLL.’]
September 22, 2009 at 4:34 am
FormerDem
The “office of faith based . . .” under Bush was BS, and this admin decision to continue it is BS too. What Bush did doesn’t make what Obama is doing Ok.
Conservatives should have yelled about what Bush did, but thats no excuse for what Obama is doing.
September 22, 2009 at 6:25 am
Matt Osborne
I had a similar reaction. Much of this hullabaloo is explained by the fact Courrielche, who posted the conference call at BigGovernment.com, is a member of the Ayn Rand cult. Y’know, the guys who say volunteerism is really slavery, somehow.
It’s also worth noting that the website’s other big claim to fame is the Victoria Jackson self-parody blog.
September 22, 2009 at 7:52 am
MKS
Every tax is an imposition on freedom and a confiscation of honestly earned property.
Some purposes, such as military defense from foreign aggression and police protection from domestic oppression, are needed enough to justify these impositions and consfiscations.
Not many other purposes qualify – certainly not arts and humanities.
September 22, 2009 at 7:56 am
dave
oh fuck off to a country that thinks like that then.
September 22, 2009 at 8:07 am
jasperjava
MKS is an anti-government fundamentalist. I recommend a failed state like Somalia, where there are no taxes or government control.
Why have socialistic government-run military and police? Pay off your local warlords if you want to live. What have you got against free enterprise?
I hope you also refuse to use socialist highways. Use an ATV from place to place, making sure you go only on private property, paying tolls to the property owners along the way.
September 22, 2009 at 8:17 am
Mnemosyne
You haven’t made much of a case that that’s not happening.
You haven’t made much of a case that it is happening, given that the conference call was organized by a private group and not the NEA. There’s pretty much zero evidence and yet Breitbart and his merry lunatics are running around screaming about a CONSPIRACY!!!1!!!11! because that’s what they do — they’re professional whiners.
September 22, 2009 at 8:23 am
Dr. Squid
Every tax is an imposition on freedom and a confiscation of honestly earned property.
No conservative has ever earned anything honestly. They’re all skimmers off society. Therefore, the deserve to be taxed at a higher rate.
September 22, 2009 at 8:50 am
Robert Fulton
How can any commenter who has read the transcript of the call state: “There’s pretty much zero evidence…”? Oh, wait..
The original blog entry above is the equivalent of a review of the tea service and muffins available in the dining hall while the Titanic is sinking. Accurate perhaps, but not really relevant to the matter at hand.
Then there is the liberal knee jerk claiming that all the fuss is about what Breitbart is saying. Not true. The fuss is about what the people on the call said.
Then there is the claim that the right has highlighted and therefore distorted the content of the call. Not true. The problem with the call is evident to the average reader regardless of the highlighting. Yes, I can see the Obama Kool-aid drinker scanning the transcript and nodding in agreement and approval. That response ignores the issue of the propriety of the call. Said propriety notably not discussed in the original post.
September 22, 2009 at 8:59 am
Jeremy
I thought that, finally, electing Obama would make me not ashamed to be American anymore. At least everyone outside the US thinks Obama’s the shite, though I’ve still got my reservations (especially about faith-based anythings).
September 22, 2009 at 9:51 am
Ahistoricality
electing Obama would make me not ashamed to be American anymore
Look at it this way, Jeremy: how ashamed would you be if we’d elected McCain/Palin? You may not be proud of our President yet, but at least you’re not frequently horrified…..
Eventually I’ll come to grips with the hypocrisy of the right-wing calling national service “partisan”, especially the hypocrisy of a movie-oriented “conservative” site attacking artistic contributions to patriotism, but for now I’m pretending that it hasn’t happened.
September 22, 2009 at 10:15 am
Robert Fulton
By the way, the NEA did not “listen in” on the call; Mr. Sargant sponsored it. You are not really very well informed on this issue, are you?
September 22, 2009 at 12:35 pm
Michael Bérubé
You haven’t made much of a case that that’s not happening.
True — SEK forgot about that part. But I haven’t! I am holding a rock that will prevent it from happening, and I am willing to sell it to you for a special low, low price.
September 22, 2009 at 12:52 pm
Halloween Jack
Well-played, sir.
September 22, 2009 at 1:29 pm
Michael Bérubé
Thanks! I take this kind of thing very seriously. Because I used to be a Democrat, but when I heard about this scandal, I got really outraged by WPA murals.
September 22, 2009 at 1:39 pm
Kerry Jacoby
Wow. Here I come to a recommended website thinking to find “enlightened” discussion, and all I get is this lousy faux ignorant swipe at Big Hollywood.
It’s easy to tell the difference between the Faith-based initiative and the president’s attempt to bring the “arts community” to a whole new level of Soviet realism. Unless you’ve been trained by Bill Ayers and the socialist cadre of American education (which you have if you were in college anytime in the last thirty years). So let me make it easy for you. The Faith-based initiative allowed churches and community groups with appropriate 501c3 status to compete on a level playing field for federal grant dollars with their secular counterparts. And what did they do and for whom? These agencies provided social services TO the public.
The Obama White House, on the other hand, attempted to shape the art that would be subsidized by the NEA, by telling the artists what POLICIES of the WHITE HOUSE it wanted pushed. This is not the artists providing a service to the public and being supported for it by the government because it is a worthy effort. This is the GOVERNMENT enticing the artists to produce a product for the government, while pretending to be providing a public service to the taxpayers–when in fact, it is taking the taxpayers’ money to persuade them to suppport the policy of the government.
Call it “Riefenstahlism.” Call it the return of Albert Speer. I don’t care. But don’t tell yourself it’s freedom. And don’t pretend it’s not important.
September 22, 2009 at 1:59 pm
Substance McGravitas
The point is there is no evidence at all of that.
September 22, 2009 at 2:21 pm
dana
Unless you’ve been trained by Bill Ayers and the socialist cadre of American education (which you have if you were in college anytime in the last thirty years).
Christ, my committee keeps getting bigger all the time.
September 22, 2009 at 2:33 pm
silbey
the socialist cadre of American education
I sense a possible new bumper sticker.
September 22, 2009 at 2:49 pm
JPool
I can never find when my cadre’s meeting times are. I suspect I’m not in the inner circle.
September 22, 2009 at 2:51 pm
SEK
You haven’t made much of a case that that’s not happening.
That’s but one of many things that I haven’t made a case for not being happening, including: a pancakes-for-handjobs epidemic among the elderly; the democratization of of poodles; and men named “Billy” being used as a form of currency in western Kentucky. The thing is, it’s not incumbent upon me to make the case that things that aren’t happening are not, in fact, happening—that responsibility lies squarely with the affirmative side, which in this case, is those who claim the NEA is being turned into a soviet-style propaganda ministry.
Conservatives should have yelled about what Bush did, but thats no excuse for what Obama is doing.
I absolutely loathe this rear-guard manuever. Let me put it this way: if you drove a car for eight years and never changed the oil, rotated the tires, checked the brakes, replaced the tires or washed it, then gave it to me to run, you have lost the right to complain about how I treat the car—especially if I’m trying to triage it. Conservatives are currently complaining that Obama’s paying insufficient attention to the dire state of the brake drums, which are indeed in desperate repair; however, given that the tires are deflated and the engine block is cracked, you’ll have to excuse us if we don’t immediately fix the brakes the last Administration ground into nubs.
Accurate perhaps, but not really relevant to the matter at hand.
So while it’s true that a billion is exponentially more than a million, we should be more concerned about this because it’s happening now? Thanks for taking such shitty care of our Car of State, but I’m glad you care now. That said, the point of the analogy you grant is valid is that while the former Administration behaved in ways only lawyers think are legal, the current one is in the clear.
The fuss is about what the people on the call said.
They said they wanted to advertise the President’s call for a National Day of Service. What, exactly, is so worrisome and improper about that? I can wait.
By the way, the NEA did not “listen in” on the call; Mr. Sargant sponsored it. You are not really very well informed on this issue, are you?
You’re not really well-informed on how government works, are you? Because that doesn’t matter. Moreover, during the last administration, the White House and its representatives sponsored many similar events—Google “White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives” and the word “summit” if you don’t believe me—and while there was something actually squishy about them doing so, not a single conservative batted an eye. Now, however, even though absolutely no money was involved and the NEA was there in an advisory capacity, The World Will End.
Unless you’ve been trained by Bill Ayers and the socialist cadre of American education (which you have if you were in college anytime in the last thirty years).
Sentence fragments, where I was trained.
Unless you’ve been trained by Bill Ayers and the socialist cadre of American education (which you have if you were in college anytime in the last thirty years).
But seriously, if you think Bill Ayers is an influential figure in how people are taught in universities.
Unless you’ve been trained by Bill Ayers and the socialist cadre of American education (which you have if you were in college anytime in the last thirty years).
For real this time: no one who knows anything about the work of Bill Ayers or Saul Alinksy would associate it with what goes on in colleges and universities. Ayers writes primarily about elementary schools, Alinsky about community organization, and neither of those, you will note, have much to do with what happens on college campuses.
The Faith-based initiative allowed churches and community groups with appropriate 501c3 status to compete on a level playing field for federal grant dollars with their secular counterparts. And what did they do and for whom? These agencies provided social services TO the public.
Like abstinence-only educational clinics, which certainly don’t fall along partisan lines, no sir.
The Obama White House, on the other hand, attempted to shape the art that would be subsidized by the NEA, by telling the artists what POLICIES of the WHITE HOUSE it wanted pushed.
You need to re-read the transcript and this post: the White House was asking for help in advertising its National Day of Service, and it specifically did not tell those involved in the call what to do. Note the quotations in the original post. Here is one of them:
You must have missed the part where they didn’t tell people who to vote for.
Call it “Riefenstahlism.”
If you think the sky is falling . . .
Call it the return of Albert Speer.
If you know the sky is falling . . .
But don’t tell yourself it’s freedom.
While seeking shelter from the chunks of sky . . .
And don’t pretend it’s not important.
Because look at all this junk that used to be the sky? If only there were some sort of national day of service where we could entice communities to clean all this shit up . . .
September 22, 2009 at 3:19 pm
Michael Bérubé
the president’s attempt to bring the “arts community” to a whole new level of Soviet realism
Now that you mention it, LibertyFightingEagle guy, some of those murals do look kind of fishy. I’m sensing a Zhdanov-ACORN connection, are you?
Wow. Here I come to a recommended website thinking to find “enlightened” discussion, and all I get is this lousy faux ignorant swipe at Big Hollywood.
The bloggers here specialize in faux ignorance, as it happens. It’s one of the fields of study in which Bill Ayers University specializes! But didn’t you forget to say something about the Reverend Wright? He was one of my tenure reviewers.
September 22, 2009 at 6:45 pm
Robert Fulton
“They said they wanted to advertise the President’s call for a National Day of Service.”
Well, they might have said that too, but I recall something about a specifc request for submitting art supporting the administration in four areas – pretty specific stuff. Is there a rule here against getting specific?
I am trying to get used to this blog’s shuffling of comments to appear under the name of random posters.
September 22, 2009 at 7:08 pm
SEK
I am trying to get used to this blog’s shuffling of comments to appear under the name of random posters.
That’s an IE problem. Switch to any browser that won’t, on principle, download viruses and it’ll look fine. (Seriously: if you don’t want viruses, don’t use IE.)
Well, they might have said that too, but I recall something about a specifc request for submitting art supporting the administration in four areas – pretty specific stuff. Is there a rule here against getting specific?
Those were the focuses of the National Day of Service: health care (blood drives), the environment (the Rock the Vote people talk, at length, about the artist who works with recycled goods), and because that previous parenthetical is so illustrative of how innocuous this was, I’ll quote it instead of finishing this sentence:
That doesn’t sound like cap and trade to me. Not even agenda-driven, at least not in any way that reasonable people consider partisan, right?
September 22, 2009 at 9:52 pm
Jackmormon
I am an artist very willing to paint crypto-Soviet murals if the government will pay for them. Is there anything in this scandal for me?
September 22, 2009 at 9:55 pm
URK
what you don’t understand, SEK, is that Cody Hudson is going to take all of that junk, organize the donors into teams and construct a giant Obama-head. A giant light up Obama-head made out of stuff that people have powerful, unresolved sentimental attachments to, stuff they know used to be theirs. They won’t be able to help themselves, and then they’ll need to make a body for it, but for that they’ll need other people’s stuff! Before you know it that head will have spawned a social-realist-found-art-Presidential sculpture revival which, as you surely must know, will guarantee Obama’s coronaiton as President-for-life and chief eater of freedom.
September 22, 2009 at 10:04 pm
AYY
“I thought that, finally, electing Obama would make me not ashamed to be American anymore.”
Oh come on, you should have been proud to be an American when Bush was in office. There’s nothing about the election of Obama that ought to make you proud. He’s the guy who went to Jeremiah Wright’s church for years and was buddies with Bill Ayers. What’s there to be proud of with that? What’s to be proud of when you have a president who was elected because we had a press that was more concerned about whether you could see Russia from Sarah Palin’s house than they were in investigating Obama’s ties with Soros, Rezko, Ayers, etc.
September 23, 2009 at 5:34 am
Michael Bérubé
Didn’t Soros write Dreams from My Father?
September 23, 2009 at 5:39 am
Walt
This is why no matter how badly Obama does as President that we’re going to have years of Democratic dominance. What the fuck are these people babbling about? The nation that was unmoved by Bush = Hitler signs is unlikely to be persuaded by rhetoric comparing some goofy feel-good NEA program to Leni Reifenstahl.
September 23, 2009 at 6:12 am
Ahistoricality
The nation that was unmoved by Bush = Hitler signs …
It’s not about “the nation”: it’s about moving the base, motivating them, and putting the enemy on the defensive. Since the Bush Administration had no shame, the latter didn’t work; Democrats are less sociopathic, on the whole.
September 23, 2009 at 7:21 am
Robert Fulton
“…absolutely no money was involved and the NEA was there in an advisory capacity…”
Now who is being naive or disingenuous? Endowment is their middle name! It’s all about grants and everyone knows that, so why make your ridiculous remark except to obfuscate the issue?
Look, the whole point of this discussion is that it is not appropriate for the NEA to be doing what it did. You seem to believe that it was OK and nothing new. Well, you can SAY that (and you have) but just saying that – as the NEA did while “reassigning” Mr. Sergant – will not make this go away, as will become evident if you continue to follow the story.
September 23, 2009 at 7:57 am
Robert Fulton
‘That doesn’t sound like cap and trade to me. Not even agenda-driven…”
You might as well have quoted the “Hello” at the beginning of the call.
I am sure that there are other innocuous portions of the call that can be quoted to make any point that you like. Do you really think that those making a fuss about this are so stupid that they would object to a call featuring trash collection being turned into art? Perhaps you also believe that Democrats are less sociopathic?
Did you find ANY of the comments made on the call …questionable?
September 23, 2009 at 8:59 am
Michael Bérubé
Do you really think that those making a fuss about this are so stupid that they would object to a call featuring trash collection being turned into art?
I don’t know about SEK, but I wonder if some of the people making a fuss about this are so stupid that they would object to the work of, say, Robert Mapplethorpe.
September 23, 2009 at 10:58 am
Robert Fulton
I get it. This is another of those liberal sites where everyone takes the issue of the day and cherry picks it for opportunities to make (hopefully clever) fun of those wingnuts. Actually read the facts of the issue and think about them? How boring. “We can all be deucidly clever and flatter our self-image quite well enough without such pedestrian pursuits, thank-you-very-much.”
Well, I think some of the comments were clever. And, I even understand how actually discussing the issue at hand bursts the bubble of self-congratulation at being smarter than the wingnuts and worse, takes time and thought much better spent on more productive pursuits. Since I get mine from discussing the actual issue at hand and can only be clever on rare occasions, I am not of much use here. So I shall move on.
September 23, 2009 at 11:14 am
rja
Can I just say thank you right-wingers for responding in full panic mode over the subversive dangers of art? You’ve actually made my life as an art historian seem like the fast-paced, adrenaline-filled roller coaster ride I had always hoped it could be.
September 23, 2009 at 11:49 am
Substance McGravitas
Mine what?
Not crazy alarmist knee-jerkery at all, but rather an actual discussion of an actual issue.
September 23, 2009 at 12:15 pm
silbey
bubble of self-congratulation
I vote we rename the blog to this.
September 23, 2009 at 12:30 pm
politicalfootball
oh fuck off to a country that thinks like that then.
I occasionally tell my conservative blue-state friends that if they think things are run so well in Mississippi, they should move there.
September 23, 2009 at 1:17 pm
politicalfootball
Robert, I want to help you out here. When you find yourself talking about specific issues, but can’t bring yourself to talk about them specifically, then you’re probably not on solid ground, to wit:
Look, the whole point of this discussion is that it is not appropriate for the NEA to be doing what it did.
Try this again, except finish the sentence “it’s not appropriate for the NEA to be” and then describe the bad thing the NEA is doing. In your comment, you note that “Endowment” is in the NEA name, but you also seem to understand that the NEA wasn’t endowing anything here (hence your inability to be specific).
Did you find ANY of the comments made on the call …questionable?
See, again: Why not fill us in?
Since I get mine from discussing the actual issue at hand
Robert, you’ve written a lot of words here, but I’m not seeing where you actually address the issue at hand. Do you think the “Endowment” comment said something substantive? If so, what?
September 23, 2009 at 4:51 pm
SEK
Endowment is their middle name! It’s all about grants and everyone knows that, so why make your ridiculous remark except to obfuscate the issue?
Despite being called the Coast Guard, that agency regularly does things that don’t directly involve guarding the coast. Spelling out its acronym has no bearing on what went on in that phone call.
You might as well have quoted the “Hello” at the beginning of the call.
What I quoted was the NEA employee talking about what he meant by “the environment,” and it wasn’t cap-and-trade. If you believe there’s a host of objectionable material in that call, by all means, post it—because I’ve read the transcript, and all the examples are exactly like that this one.
Do you really think that those making a fuss about this are so stupid that they would object to a call featuring trash collection being turned into art?
Yes, because they’re bartering in slippery slopes in which encouraging community recycling leads to vegetarianism leads to gulags. Jonah Goldberg’s book is the blueprint, and people on the right are following it.
Did you find ANY of the comments made on the call …questionable?
No. If you did, I’d love to hear what it was and why.
September 23, 2009 at 5:34 pm
Robert Fulton
I know that it violates the unwritten rule on liberal blogs, but I try to give a direct answer (no straw men or pretended misunderstanding) when someone asks me a direct question. When I said mine I meant my jollies.
My off-the-issue comments: commenting on and responding to other comments is part of discussing the issue. Don’t blame me if the original comment was not on point.
The Endowment comment was intended to humerous while making the substantive point that no discussion with the NEA can avoid the fact that any interaction my affect future or continuing grants, since that is what they do.
If the Coast Guard were to arrange a conference call offering to use all of their boats, etc. to carry Democrats (or Republicans) only to the polls, only a fool (or a lawyer) would ask what is wrong with that.
I know that you are baiting me to get me to say something that you can pretend to misunderstand. So, let’s give it a try. I have to go away to get my actual quote (let’s start with just one so that “misunderstandings” are limited.
September 23, 2009 at 6:05 pm
ari
Stop feeding the troll, people. Robert, didn’t you say you were leaving?
September 23, 2009 at 6:07 pm
ignobility
Robert, it didn’t sound like baiting to me. It sounded like Scott was just trying to get you to cite the specific parts of the phone call that support your argument. Which you still have not done.
September 23, 2009 at 6:38 pm
Robert Fulton
I hope that I am smarter than to try to carry the burden of making the case that the call was out of order. So, I gave you the “limp leg” and started everyone salivating over having a sacrificial lamb (which is what anyone other than a bona fide liberal is when commenting on a blog like this) offer his body for the feast.
Nevertheless, I promised a quote and I have one. This is from a letter written by Republican Senators to Rocco Landesman, the Chairman of the NEA:
“We are writing to express our concern about recent news reports that the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) used taxpayer dollars to engage in lobbying activities to promote the President’s health care legislative agenda and other legislative priorities….there remain significant concerns that NEA’s participation in these calls may have stepped over the line. If true, the activities may have violated criminal restrictions on lobbying Congress, the Hatch Act, appropriations restrictions on spending funds for such purposes and/or are in direct contradiction with the NEA’s mission under its authorizing statute.”
Oh, by the way, I did describe (but did not quote) one of the specific parts of the call that I think was inappopriate. In fact, I used the word “specific”. Anyone too lazy to check those comments in the transcript… well, hey, I guess I really don’t care what they have to say about them, although they will no doubt express their unsubstantiated opinion anyway.
Actually, I usually quote these things; I am just being… contentious.
Nevertheless, the above quote summarizes what I find objectionable in the call. Kool Aid, anyone?
September 23, 2009 at 6:44 pm
SEK
I know that you are baiting me to get me to say something that you can pretend to misunderstand.
I’m not baiting you: I’m genuinely interested to know which part of the transcript you found offensive, because I’ve read it and all the specific examples of the general principles to which conservatives have taken offense—the whole, the President wants to focus on health care, the environment, education, etc.—are, like the recycling one, utterly innocuous. By “focus on the environment,” they meant “make art that encourages recycling,” and by “focus on health care,” they meant “encourage blood drives.” If interpreted out-of-context and uncharitably, you might suppose that “help make a single payer system a reality,” but the facts don’t seem to bear that out.
So if you think there’s something untoward in there, by all means, present it.
September 23, 2009 at 6:54 pm
SEK
The problem with your position, as stated in that letter, starts here:
No one at the NEA was trying to push Obama’s legislative agenda. Read the transcript and look at the examples provided in it: blood drives, recycling campaigns, graffiti removal, etc.
Moreover, this next bit is pure political bluster:
No money exchanged hands or was promised; therefore, the Hatch Act doesn’t apply. If you can provide proof that the transcript represents an ungentle nudge down the slippery slope to fascism, even that would suffice, as it would make clear—perhaps even to you—that what matters to conservatives is not what was said, but what they believe was meant, in a conspiratorial sense, by what was said.
September 23, 2009 at 6:56 pm
Ahistoricality
I’m not baiting you: I’m genuinely interested….
He really is, Robert. He wants to know what triggered you, and where your anger comes from, and how you get from “do good” to “serve the Party,” and how government is supposed to function without triggering paranoic hordes.
September 23, 2009 at 10:30 pm
Robert Fulton
“…how you get from “do good” to “serve the Party,” and how government is supposed to function without triggering paranoic hordes.”
You have to understand that those who agree wholehardidly with what the call sponsors wanted to have happen are handicapped in understanding why the call crossed the line. Yes, it is wonderful that President Obama’s desires are consumated; Yes, it is wonderful that utopia is ushered in, etc. However, it is not wonderful that taxpayer money is used to further the political goals of one party, especially when the other party is so substantially opposed.
Who are the “paranoic hordes”?
September 23, 2009 at 11:02 pm
Robert Fulton
“If you can provide proof that the transcript represents an ungentle nudge down the slippery slope to fascism, even that would suffice, as it would make clear—perhaps even to you—that what matters to conservatives is not what was said, but what they believe was meant, in a conspiratorial sense, by what was said.”
Oh, come on. No one mentioned a slippery slope to fascism or even an ungentle nudge. Parenthetically, this is typical liberal issue framing. There is no issue between what was said and what was meant. What was said was quite sufficient. And, by the way, I am not a conservative and I am not a Republican. That might explain whay you are having such a difficult time scoring cheap shots.
September 24, 2009 at 12:08 am
Robert Fulton
“No one at the NEA was trying to push Obama’s legislative agenda.”
??????
Is English your native language? Anyone seriously trying to make this point after reading the transcript…
perhaps they are part of the paranoic horde?
Oh wait. Those pushing the President Obama legislative agenda were maybe NOT from the NEA but were merely on the call sponsored by the NEA. Well! This is a major hold on our thoughts that the NEA erred. Gee; maybe the NEA had no idea what the other folks on the call were going to say. Why, they were probably duped. Yes, it is a major issue of whether the suspect comments were made by the NEA representatives or others on the call sponsored by the NEA. Yea, let’s go there.
Sarcasm alert.
September 24, 2009 at 12:51 am
SEK
You know, the rails ain’t even that slippery, yet you’ve still managed to tumble off them violently. That’s an impressive technical accomplishment, but not worthy of a response.
September 24, 2009 at 5:59 am
kevin
Who are the “paranoic hordes”?
Judging by your nonsensical ramblings, it seems you are.
Many people here — myself included — simply don’t see what the problem is supposed to be here.
This looks like something that happens under every single president in multiple agencies, without much clamor. Not to engage in equivalency, but much worse politicization happened under Bush. (Remember Lorita Doan at GSA telling government employees they needed to “help Republican candidates” in 2004? Or the Faith-Based Initiative forums that Ralph Reed helped orchestrate for incumbents that year, acts which David Kuo of the WHOFBCI said were political acts?)
People have patiently asked you to point out the parts of the call that you feel have somehow crossed the line, and yet you just keep responding with your poor attempts at sarcasm and ever increasing and now hyperventilating hyperbole.
In a word, you seem to be quite insane.
September 24, 2009 at 7:38 am
JPool
The thing is that I’m certain that Robert is a fully self-aware concern troll (“Anyone who’s read the transcript will share my opinion. I, however, show no evidence of having read the transcript.”), and yet he continues at such length, long after he’s failed to get anyone to do anything other than respond calmly to him. What’s his angle, I wonders. Are libertarian thinktanks paying people to leave vague and pussyfooty comments of concern around Blogovillia these days?
September 24, 2009 at 8:00 am
Barbar
”Anyone who’s read the transcript will share my opinion. I, however, show no evidence of having read the transcript.”
Yeah, this is very strange. Nine comments and counting.
September 24, 2009 at 8:12 am
Chris
Robert: Please provide at least one specific example *from the transcript* (not from a secondhand discussion) of an attempt to “push Obama’s legislative agenda” or “further the political goals of one party”. Several other people have read through the transcript without finding any.
Since you have stated that “What was said was quite sufficient.” (I interpret this to mean sufficient to demonstrate the partisan agenda of the NEA apparatchiks; please explain if this is not what you meant), you should have no difficulty finding something that was said that is quite sufficient to prove your point.
September 24, 2009 at 11:00 am
Hogan
If the NEA gives drama queen grants, Robert Fulton need never go hungry again.
September 24, 2009 at 11:13 am
Robert Fulton
“…utterly innocuous. By “focus on the environment,” they meant “make art that encourages recycling,” and by “focus on health care,” they meant “encourage blood drives.” If interpreted out-of-context and uncharitably, you might suppose that “help make a single payer system a reality,” but the facts don’t seem to bear that out.”
“…what matters to conservatives is not what was said, but what they believe was meant, in a conspiratorial sense, by what was said.”
You’ve tipped your hand. We are going into “I did not have “sex” with that young lady” land. Have another glass of Kool Aid.
It is a waste of time, but since I have already done the work…
Let me give it an appropriate introduction: ” Here is the dismal evidence (I should say lack of evidence) profferred by this troll in his ridiculous attempt to make a social call among artists about blood drives into a conspiracy. Pretty sad, eh? Definitely insufficient:”
Buffy Wicks’ clearly stated on the August 10th call:
“I’m at the Office of Public Engagement here at the White House… we work under Valerie Jarrett, she’s one of our fantastic leaders and Tina Tchen… I’m actually in the White House and working towards furthering this agenda, this very aggressive agenda… we need you, and we’re going to need your help, and we’re going to come at you with some specific asks here…”
Ms. Wicks closed:
“We need your guys’ help to promote this. We know that you all have channels and ability to get the message out far greater than we do here and the president’s put out the call… we know that you all are very powerful voices of change in your own right, and we’re looking to you for your help on that.”
Wow! I’ve never seen a government official so excited about promoting a blood drive.
“…(19 U.S. Code §1913), … explicitly provides: “No part of the money appropriated by any enactment of Congress shall, in the absence of express authorization by Congress, be used directly or indirectly to pay for any personal service, advertisement, telegram, telephone, letter, printed or written matter, or other device, intended or designed to influence in any manner a Member of Congress, a jurisdiction, or an official of any government, to favor, adopt, or oppose by vote or otherwise, any legislation, law, ratification, policy, or appropriation, whether before or after the introduction of any bill, measure or resolution proposing such legislation, law, ratification, policy or appropriation …”
The Anti-Lobbying Act, according to government handbooks, prevents government employees from engaging in “substantial ‘grass roots’ lobbying campaigns … expressly urging individuals to contact government officials in support of or opposition to legislation …
September 24, 2009 at 11:21 am
ari
I’m going to ask again that people please stop engaging with Robert. And Robert, you really did say you were leaving. Please do so now.
September 24, 2009 at 11:34 am
Robert Fulton
Bye
September 24, 2009 at 12:36 pm
Michael
Dang, you didn’t even give him a chance to document just where the money changed hands.
September 24, 2009 at 3:05 pm
k.
It is pretty incredible though, that he quotes the part where Buffy says “i’m going to give you some specific asks” and “the president has put out the call” but omits the part in between those two paragraphs: where she details what the actual ask is for!
Because the actual ask is totally innocuous.
September 25, 2009 at 9:07 pm
Sandra
“men named “Billy” being used as a form of currency in western Kentucky”
I just have to thank you for the hardest laugh i have had in days. If only I could come up with such lines…
September 25, 2009 at 10:38 pm
AYY
Actually I think Iowahawk nailed it:
http://iowahawk.typepad.com/iowahawk/2009/09/earn-big-the-nea-way.html
“Earn Big $$$ the NEA Way!
FAII1
It’s true — U.S. government demand for art and art-like products has never been higher! Uncle Sam and the good folks at the National Endowment for the Arts are on the lookout for go-getting, obedient artists like you for a fast-paced career in state propaganda. With the quick and easy Federal Art Instruction Institute course, now you too can get a first class ticket on the federal art gravy train!
Tell Me More!
From heath care to the economy to the environment, Washington has become infested with pesky state enemies who are clogging up the legislative pipeline and making life miserable for our cool, art-loving president. That’s why he has ordered the NEA to fund obsequious bohemians to help him exterminate the competition and drive traffic to his hip new website Servile.gov. The Federal Art Instruction Institute will show you how to get off funemployment and on the payroll of this exciting $3.6 trillion growth industry!
How can the Federal Art Instruction Institute help me?
Unlike traditional art schools, the Federal Art Instruction Institute doesn’t waste your time on boring Post-Modernist theory, messy bodily fluids, or painful self mutilation. With our easy-to-learn program you will quickly learn how to channel your natural artistic ability and suburban self-loathing at state enemies who, when you think about it, are a lot like your parents.
Can you draw triangles? The Federal Art Instruction Institute will show you the easy way to turn them into Ku Klux Klan hoods. Turn them upside down and they become scary vampire fangs! Even a simple black rectangle can become a Hitler mustache with our easy to learn methods.
Our award winning studio instructors includes some of the top young professional kowtowers, bumnuzzlers and bootlicks working in the government art field today — people like Buffy Wicks, Yosi Sergant and Michael Skolnik. They will keep you up to date on all the hot new policy trends and enemy lists, and what your patrons at the NEA need you to do about it. Using tried and true traditional art techniques from Cuba, Germany and central Asia, they will teach you how to pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it — for big cash prizes!
I’m skeptical. Do you have previous success stories?
And how! Just read these testimonials from FAII graduates:
“I made over $1 million in my first year, and all I had to do was obey! Thanks, Federal Art Instruction Institute!”
— S. Fairey, Los Angeles, Calif.
“As a cutting edge visual artist, I had a natural aptitude for political servility and blind hatred. The Federal Art Instruction Institute showed me how to turn it into a solid government career with great benefits!”
— J. Greenberg, New York, N.Y.
“The Federal Art Instruction Institute showed us how to win big government contracts for our failing business. This program was a lifesaver!”
–The two hipster assholes from SaraPalinIsAC**tTShirts.com
But I can’t draw. Can I still take advantage of this exciting program?
No problem! Thanks to new NEA guidelines, anybody can be an artist! Are you a musician? filmmaker? Web designer? Guerrilla marketer? Graffiti tagger? HopCore ElectroChill DJ? Freelance vandal? Whatever your mode of expressive behavior the NEA has a sweet load of grant money waiting — and qualifying has never been easier! Do you have —
* an ironic trucker hat?
* ironic facial hair?
* ironic douchebag glasses?
* a vocabulary that includes “bringing utilities” and “mindspace”?
* deep insecurities about your place in the art world hipster food chain?
* a slavish desire to do the bidding of your government?
* no idea what “ironic” really means?
Can you —
* Follow orders?
* Take a hint?
* Maintain plausible deniability?
* Keep your mouth shut?
Then you just might qualify as a student in one of FAII’s prestigious secret conference call classrooms!
Sounds too good to be true! What’s the catch?
No catch, but enrollment is limited. So don’t delay, write today for your free talent and obedience test and see if you have what it takes to be a professional in the new art capital of the world — Washington, D.C.!
Remember — The U.S. Art-my Wants You!”