This is the second time I've seen this nonsense about Polley allegedly "playing a neo-Nazi in a sympathetic light." I see the Ministry of Half-Truth is churning away as usual.
Go and see *White Lies*. And then give your head a shake.
Dawg, that is about as tangential as you can get from the gist of the piece.
Posted at 2008-04-25 09:38:54 [PermaLink]Dawg.
the rest of the article just confirms the double standards of the Left in Canada.
"Tangential?" Come now, Bruce, is that going to be the excuse every time a conservative is caught in a flat-out inaccuracy? "Oh, but that's tangential?"
As for arts funding, I got some agreement over at my place from right-of-centre folks that, if the government is going to make a pool of money available for artistic production in the first place, it shouldn't then be imposing non-artistic criteria (in this case fundie/so-con ones)in the allocations. (The conservatives thought that there shouldn't be such a body of money in the first place, mind you.)
Dawg,
When you decide to address the meat of the piece rather than hand-waving over some tanegential issue I'll take your contribution seriously.
As for "art", much of it isn't. More precisely "art" has become a euphemism for agitprop, and to quote Thomas Jefferson, "To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves is sinful and tyrannical."
Bruce:
I'm not overjoyed with a lot of modern art either, but so what? That's tangential, if I may say so. The central issue here is that the Harper government, agreeing with a crusading right-wing fundie, is trying to obtain the legal right to use non-artistic criteria in its allocation of funds to practising artists. Do you agree with that?
(I'm a little suspicious, by the way, that as a supposed example of what we're "letting in" now, the film *White Lies* was deliberately mischaracterized and made to sound like a neo-Nazi propaganda effort. "Tangential?" Not at all. It was deliberately led as "evidence" that Something Must Be Done.)
Why does Dr. Dawg scream "hypocrisy" about what he sees as an inconsistency between those who are anti S. 13 and supportive of restrictions on arts funding when his own views on both issues are just mirrors and therefore equally inconsistent by definition?
I guess we'll have to wait until Mark Lemire tries to make a movie to find out.
Now, Peter, I was just waiting for that.
You know I support a high bar for sn.13(1). Let's not go through that again. But in the case of arts funding, where the state wants to impose so-con criteria on who gets funded, and its baying supporters deliberately mischaracterize a film about neo-Nazis to make their dubious point; where a prominent neo-con blogger wants a reporter fired for being critical of so-cons; where the neo-cons support corporate SLAPPing of political activists--then, I would say, any "inconsistency" on my part pales by comparison.
Dr Dawg:
I agree the issues are quite different, but I'm not the one saying you are inconsistent and hypocritial. Just wrong.
Do you remember Gordon Churchill, the old Conservative dinosaur who was Dief's buddy? In the artistically crazy late 60's, when the Libs were trying to establish and fund the National Arts Centre, they sought and finally got all-party backing. Chuchill made the supportive speech for the Tories and expressed the hope that the Centre would restrict its fare to wholesome family fare like Oklahoma. What I want to know is, where have all such giants gone? :-)