Saturday, May 26, 2018

The poisoning of post-American culture - today's edition

This, folks, is why we call them jackboots:

On Friday, New York Mayor Bill De Blasio – who suggested today that the presence of The New York Post was harmful to his horribly-governed city – announced a “cultural plan” for New York. According to The New York Times, De Blasio looks to “link future funding for museums and arts groups to diversity of their employees and board members.”
So, no longer will public dollars merely go to artists based on the alleged quality of their work. Now De Blasio will explicitly link those dollars to the skin color and sexual orientation of the artists. As the Times continues:
This unusual move by the city, which rarely dictates policy to its cultural leaders, puts pressure on the Metropolitan Museum of Art, Carnegie Hall, the American Museum of Natural History and other pre-eminent institutions that are led largely by white male executives and power brokers from Wall Street, real estate and other industries.
Because the most important thing about art is obviously whether its funders are white. White people’s art is simply too stultifying – let alone art by non-white people funded by white people. De Blasio said, “We do this because we believe in fairness.” Not fairness of opportunity, of course. Equality of outcome, no matter the quality of the work itself. And then De Blasio, who gives practically none of his money to charity, tore into those cultural institutions largely supported by charity: calling them “elitist,” he added, “There is still the assumption among many New Yorkers about where they belong and where they don’t belong.” So, in other words, if too many white people give money and sit on the board of the Met, De Blasio will look to cut funding to the Met, even if the Met is funding projects by people of color.
De Blasio explained, “We’ve got a long way to go. We’ve got more work to do,” citing the fact that 26 percent of senior staff members of cultural organizations are non-white. Which, of course, is not proof of discrimination of any sort, but is good enough for De Blasio to now promote government discrimination.
By the way, De Blasio told the Times that he’d never been to his local museum.
But at least the City Council can posture – Melissa Mark-Viverito braged, “There are people who will resist, who will resent, who will obstruct. Any moment for equality and inclusion doesn’t come easily.” Perhaps New York should begin by giving back any Rockefeller, Vanderbilt, Ford, and Carnegie cash used to establish major institutions in the city. After all, those are old dead white men. 
Does anyone need any further proof that the Left's war on freedom, dignity and common sense has reached a deadly serious phase? This nation cannot survive in any recognizable form as long as thugs like this are the arbiters of our "culture."
 


15 comments:

  1. Ridiculous what the mayor is trying to do but there's a whole lot of average between the conservatism your ilk insists on and that extreme, though it often seems anything to the left side of your ilk is leftist, and likely that's what you want us all to think.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Not at all clear how your general assertion plays out here. All “my ilk” would be asking for is to leave demographic classification entirely out of consideration about the museum biz.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Your ilk are pure comservatives to hear you tell it. Your position here on this issue is probably consistent with that of most all bit what you debase as hard left and then wax ballistic. But I understand your fear, though I don't think they'll be taking over anytime soon. It's good to have sworn enemies to rail against, but most of those to the left of you are pretty much harmless. They simply disagree to certain degrees. Let's just say you include a lot more people as your sworn enemies than reality actually demonstrates. Then you call them reasonable gentlemen aka gentle persons.

    ReplyDelete
  4. You vastly underestimate the death grip that the hard left has on our culture.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I've pretty much always gone my own way. Too late to stop now

    ReplyDelete
  6. "Go my own way" . . . There's a formula for engaging the great questions of the human condition.

    ReplyDelete
  7. It's called being an independent. It's OK if you think I'm damned because, frankly human judgment doesn't matter much beyond the input it might lend. I try with all my personal might to forgive you your trespasses and this ain't one of them. The you is anyone other than I and whether or not I am forgiven is up to the Father I pray to.

    ReplyDelete
  8. It's a mystery, but as Christians we should be sharing the same Spirit.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Since you're critical of my waywardness, I thought I'd elucidate what going my own way means to me, if not you who I coulld give 3 craps about what you think. So I'm against the border wall, pro-life, think public schools can be improved, not given-up on, don't mind taxing corporations who I largely don't trust, want to save social security, work through international coalitions militarily, support all US statecraft in hot spots, legal marijuana, and love the current Pope Francis as the embodiment of the forgiveness and mercy of Jesus Christ. To be continued..,and I think Donald Trump is the worst mistake America ever made though I was not among the minority who voted for him. I do t consider myself a leftist but I will never ever be a Republican.

    ReplyDelete
  10. I like the idea of an assault weapons ban and background checks but am certainly not cool with banning firearms. Not what we need is more reasons for the law to mess with us like they still do in many jurisdictions over marijuana (which was Nixon's intent, as exposited by John Erlichman), And having been insulted and harassed by cops who found nothing because nothing was to be found, I personally know they can really be assholes.

    ReplyDelete
  11. What is an “assault weapon”?

    If you tax corporations it will raise the prices of their products. They’re not just going to absorb the cost.

    And we’re still waiting for your serious proposal for saving Social Security.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Cops can be a———-, as can people in any occupational field. Systemic brutality in that field does not automatically follow from that assertion.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Saving social security simply requires raising taxes. Assault weapons are defined in length and depth everywhere you look. It's not like they're good for anything else than killing large numbers of people or animals. There's thousands of pages of testimony in Congress concerning assault weaponry and its definition. I'm not into writing an essay here about it. I'm not in favor of the corporate tax cut, nor were any Democrats. And as for the cops, the people complaining have a point. It's just that you won't listen.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Re: SS: off the table. You can't raise taxes enough to make up the difference. We've covered this ad nauseam.

    Here's an idea: Let people keep the money in the first place, rather than running it through government (seizing it at gunpoint) and handing it back to them.

    And re: cops, I'm listening. I don't deny every and any anecdotal recounting of police misbehavior. But it doesn't rise to the level of a systemic problem

    ReplyDelete