Do I Really Live Here?

[EvanMoore]

Click

"....oh, say, does that star-spangled banner yet wave?
"O'er the land of the .... free? .... and the home of the ... brave?"

This is just ... not right.

Evan

[Gunny]

time to dust off the interrogation camps used for the Japanese during WWII!! WHOOO!!!

[Eva]

INS spokesman Arcaute said those arrested had violated immigration laws, overstayed their visas, or were wanted for crimes.

[Daki]

And they would need large scale camps if they went after every single person who has over-stayed their visa.

[Gunny]

I wonder if this will turn into a media mess or if it'll just go away like so many others before.

[EvanMoore]

We seem to have forgotten the roots of what made our nation strong...

Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame,
With conquering limbs astride from land to land;
Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand
A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame
Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name
Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand
Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command
The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.

"Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!" cries she
With silent lips. "Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore,
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me.
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"

Lady Liberty must change her tune...

Evan

[MooCow]

As 32 pointed out, they were arrested because they had violated the law. If I were guilty of a crime, and I walked into the police station, would anyone be surprised if I was arrested? This should be added to the files of "Stupid Criminals".

Yes there are lots of people with over-stayed visas. But those people don't hand themselves over to the authorities. What was INS supposed to do?

[Eva]

As 32 pointed out, ...

Dude.

[The Traveler]

I think the matching avatars confuse him.

[EvanMoore]

I think the matching avatars confuse him.

But dey aw so coot! An' smugwy! An' my witto giwls jus' wov 'dem!

<shaking myself out of it>

Okay, I'm much better now....

Evan

[Cain]

It doesn't really matter. They're being held without bail, without a reading of the charges, without Habeus Corpus or any Due Process.

If the FBI/INS came forward with a list of exact charges for specific people, that would be different. But they have no intention of doing so. If they intended to hold arraignments in open court, this would be different. But, they're not going to.

This is WW2 all over again; with innocent people being herded up and shipped off to "internment centers" simply because they are of an unpopular descent. And, like then, in order to prove they're not terrorists, innocent people need to go in meekly and let themselves be arrested.

Dear gods, the usurper has just proven he has no concern for even basic human rights.

[MooCow]

Dude.

Whoa.... My sincere appologies. Yes, the matching avatars confused me. I will now go kill myself.

It doesn't really matter. They're being held without bail, without a reading of the charges, without Habeus Corpus or any Due Process.

If the FBI/INS came forward with a list of exact charges for specific people, that would be different. But they have no intention of doing so. If they intended to hold arraignments in open court, this would be different. But, they're not going to.

Well, the funny thing is, these people aren't citizens. As I understand it, they aren't guaranteed any rights.

This is WW2 all over again; with innocent people being herded up and shipped off to "internment centers" simply because they are of an unpopular descent. And, like then, in order to prove they're not terrorists, innocent people need to go in meekly and let themselves be arrested.

As I understand my history, those people were citizens. Different story.

Dear gods, the usurper has just proven he has no concern for even basic human rights.

And those people showed no concern for basic laws.

Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore,
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tost to me.
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"

Yeah, well that was one of the stupidest things we ever did. We stuck a statue up that said "send me your tired, your weak, and your poor". You know what? They did. The problem is the poor are ussually so because they have no job skills, The tired don't want to work, and the weak can't work. Why would we want these people?

I'll bet the other countries saw that statue and were like "WooHoo! Found the solution to *our* homeless problem!!"

[Cain]

Citizenship and imigration status doesn't matter. Due Process and Habeus Corpus cannot be suspended except during a declared war. While Bush may go on and on about the "war on terrorism"; the fact is that Congress hasn't offically declared war on everyone.

If an immigrant (even an illegal one) were to commit a crime, he would go through the same court system everyone else uses. The only difference is that deportation could also be considered, if the INS reccomended it. What's happening here is a complete and total disregard for Due Process, one of our strongest safegards against abuses of power.

[MooCow]

If an immigrant (even an illegal one) were to commit a crime, he would go through the same court system everyone else uses. The only difference is that deportation could also be considered, if the INS reccomended it. What's happening here is a complete and total disregard for Due Process, one of our strongest safegards against abuses of power.

In which case I stand corrected.

However, I don't think that the INS is not doing anything it isn't supposed to do. They may have gone a bit overboard (actually they have), but that's why the ACLU exists. The ACLU has stepped up and said "exscuse me, you guys are on crack". I'm confident the situation will work itself out.

And if not, we can always have another revolution.

[EvanMoore]

but that's why the ACLU exists. The ACLU has stepped up and said "exscuse me, you guys are on crack". I'm confident the situation will work itself out.

Never trust an organization that claims to defend something (the constitution) while shredding out of it the things it disagrees with (the right to keep and bear arms). It is like saying, "We will protect this damsel in distress... oh, you don't nead a heart, damsel..." RIIIIP!

I only trust the ACLU to do what it takes to survive and gain power for itself. Nothing more, nothing less.

And if not, we can always have another revolution.

Now this sounds interesting... Another civil war...

In which case, you realize, Bulldrekkers will be the first ones against the wall, don't you?

Evan

[Gunny]

fuck that. we'll be with the ones pulling in the profit. war pays very well.

[MooCow]

In which case, you realize, Bulldrekkers will be the first ones against the wall, don't you?

Maybe you will. Me I'll sell the rest of you out, and make mad profit off the war. And once it's over, I'll make mad profit rebuilding the infrastructure. Yeah, War rocks.

[Gunny]

and besides... Canada isn't THAT far away for some of us.

[Anguirel]

Now this sounds interesting... Another civil war...

Civil Wars are what they're called when you lose. Viva la revolution!

Side note on the right to keep and bear arms: If you're referencing the Second Amendment, that protects the right for State Run Militias to keep and bear arms, not any crazy guy with a hard on for weaponry. For those unaware, it was placed as a safe-guard for the States (which acted as independent countries at the time) against the federal government cracking down on their power and essentially treating any one of them like a colony again. The States essentially didn't trust larger bodies of government and didn't want to end up with another King and Parliment handing out unjust laws and such. Too bad the states are essentially worthless as nations these days. Anyays, those militias are still around. If you want to excercise your Second Amendment Rights, go join the National Guard, that's what's become of the State Militias.

So... The ACLU will protect that right, certainly, if it ever comes under attack. But your personal right to keep and bear arms? Doesn't exist, so there's nothing for the ACLU to protect.

[EvanMoore]

The ACLU will protect that right, certainly, if it ever comes under attack. But your personal right to keep and bear arms? Doesn't exist, so there's nothing for the ACLU to protect.

And therein lies the rub. The ACLU has taken a very, very, very narrow reading of that section. Their opinion is the minority viewpoint--so why don't they take the majority viewpoint on the Constitution? Isn't this a democracy? Ruled by the majority?

<chuckles>

A well-regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

It all hinges on that comma. The ACLU reads it as one statement--the majority viewpoint reads it as two.

Only six state constitutions do not have specific grants to the keeping and bearing of arms by private citizens--and four of those (California, Iowa, New York and New Jersey) all have provisions that allow for it, without providing specific protection.

It was also clear that the original framers of the Constitution intended it to be separate--because they had a third item in place and a 2nd comma at one point.

The ACLU is definitely taking a very, very narrow and very, very tenuous position on the matter--especially for a group who claims to be "protector" of the Constitution.

Evan

[Anguirel]

And it hasn't been, yet. citizens are still welcome to keep a blunderbuss, a hunting rifle, most handguns... However, as Jefferson said, the Constitution needs to be taken in the spirit in which it was written, not the words on the page. Unlike the divinely inspired Word, they knew they were fallible humans writing words that could be poorly interpreted. At the time, they were protecting the right to maintain a Militia, not the right to bear weaponry in general. In most places outside of major cities, every sane man had at least one hunting rifle, and there was no reason to imagine a time when that wouldn't be the case.

I'd personally rather see the laws regarding gun control enacted at the state level, similar to car registration and licensing, rather than as a federal bill. If guns were completely outlawed, I suspect the ACLU would still step in.

Assuming you have the correct interpretation, though... removing specific classes of weaponry from the general populace, such as LAWs, Assault Rifles, Tactical Nuclear Warheads... I think that makes sense. A line needs to be drawn, I don't think too many disagree with that sentiment. And once you grant that a line needs to exist, then you've already put aside any hold on that right and all that remains is a discussion of where to place it. If you want it to hold in sum total, though... A Tactical Nuke is an arm, and according to you... the right to keep and bear it shall not be infringed upon. Silly, yes, but accurate. Is this where the quote about "anyone who puts aside freedom in favor of security deserves neither" is supposed to go?

Sidenote: That was my view. I'm not certain if that's the ACLU's official stance or not, so please don't take it in that sense.

[EvanMoore]

as Jefferson said, the Constitution needs to be taken in the spirit in which it was written, not the words on the page.

Which, if the ACLU would accept that view, would clearly indicate that they meant for individual citizens to keep and bear their own arms which they maintain themselves, keep in their homes and use for the self-defense of family, home and community. And how do we know? Because that's what they said in letters to each other and--the capper--that's what a miliitia is. It is not a state organized group--it is citizens who have banded together for the protection of their communities. Much like the "block watch" programs in neighborhoods today. The state didn't maintain or issue the firearms--the people did that for themselves.

So, to argue that it means only a state militia is *still arguing for citizens to own their own firearms for their own protection*. State militias at the time were incredibly loose-nit groups, handed the equivalent of badges by the state and "deputized" to carry out law enforcement.

In most places outside of major cities, every sane man had at least one hunting rifle, and there was no reason to imagine a time when that wouldn't be the case.

And, fascintatingly, we find that this is still the best way to reduce crime...

If guns were completely outlawed, I suspect the ACLU would still step in.

Considering that most of the membership of the ACLU have stated this as a goal, I don't think they would agree with you.

Assuming you have the correct interpretation, though... removing specific classes of weaponry from the general populace, such as LAWs, Assault Rifles, Tactical Nuclear Warheads...

And "assault rifle" is just a hunting rifle with a bigger clip. I have a Mini-14. It is functionally identical to an AR-15/M-16 except it has a wooden stock. Fires the same ammo. Has the same rate of fire. Can use some of the same clips.

If the point of the law--as you said yourself--is provide state militias to protect the states against a federal incursion (or, let's say, a terrorist incursion), and militias are bodies who take their firearms and keep them in their homes so they can be ready like the Minute Men--ready in a minute--then they would be taking home military grade firearms.

Sidenote: That was my view. I'm not certain if that's the ACLU's official stance or not, so please don't take it in that sense.

It's pretty clear you haven't read or studied much on the ACLU--particularly on this topic. Living as I do in a family full of hunters and NRA members, it's hard to escape hearing about it. (Especially when one side of the family are liberal vegans and the other side are card carrying NRA hunters...)

Evan

[ratlaw]

that's what a miliitia is. It is not a state organized group.

State militias at the time were incredibly loose-nit groups, handed the equivalent of badges by the state and "deputized" to carry out law enforcement.

Uhm. Hello, contradicting statements. So are militias organized by the state or not? If they're "deputized" or "officialy recognized" then they /are/ state organized groups. Otherwise they're called criminals, or gangs, or vigillantes, or lynch mobs.

And, fascintatingly, we find that this is still the best way to reduce crime...

Which explains why the United States has the highest rate of violent crime among first wolrd countries, most of whom don't allow their citziens to own firearms.

Frankly, of all the rights we have in this country, the one I'm least worried about loosing is the right to bear arms. Why? Because if it comes to the point where I need to actually execute that right then I've already lost. Waco and Ruby Ridge should have proved this to everyone: if the Federal government comes after you, no amount of weaponry is going to help. You've got a gun that's the same as an M-16? Great. Fat lot of good that does you when an Abrams comes down your driveway. If armed resistance is ever going to succeed in this country, it will be with the support of a sizable chunk of the armed forces, who won't have any need of your M-16 clone or your Glock 17 or whatever weapons you may have purchased.

The ACLU does a better job of protecting my rights than the NRA, simply because the ACLU focuses on the ones that actually matter while the NRA has deluded itself and it's followers into fighting a useless battle over a dead issue.

[EvanMoore]

that's what a miliitia is. It is not a state organized group.

State militias at the time were incredibly loose-nit groups, handed the equivalent of badges by the state and "deputized" to carry out law enforcement.

Uhm. Hello, contradicting statements. So are militias organized by the state or not? If they're "deputized" or "officialy recognized" then they /are/ state organized groups. Otherwise they're called criminals, or gangs, or vigillantes, or lynch mobs.

"Organized" by the state and "recognized" or "deputized" by the state are two totally separate things. A militia is *not organized* by the state, but it is *recognized* and *deputized* by the state. They do not have uniforms (typically) and purchase and maintain their own weaponry. Sometimes they are trained by the state, but they also typically pay for their own way through. They are *volunteers*, not on the state payroll.

There is no contradiction, you simply didn't notice the difference.

And, fascintatingly, we find that this is still the best way to reduce crime...

Which explains why the United States has the highest rate of violent crime among first wolrd countries, most of whom don't allow their citziens to own firearms.

In every incidence where a community has required gun ownership (Kennesaw, GA and a few other communities) their crime rates have all not just "diminshed", but "crashed".

When Florida passed its law allowing citizens to carry concealed weapons, the crime rate remained the same--but crimes against Florida residents dropped by a huge percentage, replaced by crimes against foreign travelers to the state.

Look at it from the criminal mindset: Molest someone who may have a gun and kill you? Or pick a target who is from out of state--and therefore zero chance of carrying a gun. And that's exactly what happened.

Evan

[MooCow]

"Organized" by the state and "recognized" or "deputized" by the state are two totally separate things. A militia is *not organized* by the state, but it is *recognized* and *deputized* by the state. They do not have uniforms (typically) and purchase and maintain their own weaponry. Sometimes they are trained by the state, but they also typically pay for their own way through. They are *volunteers*, not on the state payroll.

I'd like to note that you are using these terms like this is a present day thing. It isn't. Militias haven't been around for many, many years. Times change, deal with it.

[EvanMoore]

I'd like to note that you are using these terms like this is a present day thing. It isn't. Militias haven't been around for many, many years. Times change, deal with it.

Moo,
I agree with you. However, Ang said that the constitution protected militias and I was pointing out that by protecting militias, it was protecting private ownership of firearms. Defining what a militia is and was proved that point.

In other words, it negates the ACLU position that the 2nd Amendment does not protect private ownership of firearms and only militias--which is still private ownership of firearms.

Evan

[Cain]

Look, guys, The ACLU defends people civil rights, when no one else would. They argued in favor of cross-burning, just a little while ago, even though I know of no ACLU member who actually condones it. They will take on civil-rights violations that go against their own personal beliefs. That's a far cry above and beyond any other group.

But we shouldn't need the ACLU. Due Process is supposed to guarantee that we are treated fairly in all criminal cases. Habeus Corpus prevents us from being held in jail indefinitely without cause. The fact that the ACLU has to exist, and step in for these cases, is just wrong.

Heck, the fact that these arrests even took place is wrong.

[ratlaw]

Well argued Evan, and I'm not going to debate the organization of early American militia till I can find more specific information, but you didn't address why this right matters in the present day. Or why the ACLU should spend any effort defending what is effectively a dead right rather than focusing on much more important things like Habeus Corpus, due process and freedom of speech.

[Patience]

But your personal right to keep and bear arms? Doesn't exist, so there's nothing for the ACLU to protect.

Anguirel, I think I am developing a mad crush on you.

[Icepick]

I'd put money on the fact that if it was hispanics, that nobody would have cared at all.

[Serious Paul]

If an immigrant (even an illegal one) were to commit a crime, he would go through the same court system everyone else uses. The only difference is that deportation could also be considered, if the INS reccomended it. What's happening here is a complete and total disregard for Due Process, one of our strongest safegards against abuses of power.

Which is wonderful of course. I mean the prison system isn't overflowing to the brims or anything, and deciding to use it as a safe haven for every Ma,woman or child who couldn't cut it at INS for whatever reason is brilliant.


It only costs an avergae of about 40,000 dollars US to house them, and its great that we get to educate them and if they can't get any one back in Shitholeland to mail them money, and they can't get a job well, by golly we'll pay them. Either 180 bucks a year to go to GED courses till forever (Because you don't have to take the test or graduate or even show progress of any sort...) or just plain give them seven bucks a month for being poor. Yea!


Why would we ever send any one home?????


[Look, guys, The ACLU defends people civil rights, when no one else would. They argued in favor of cross-burning, just a little while ago, even though I know of no ACLU member who actually condones it. They will take on civil-rights violations that go against their own personal beliefs. That's a far cry above and beyond any other group.[/quote]


So because the ACLU can't get a regular gig, and they take every high profile case they can get their paws on, I should respect that?


I mean taking on all these cases with out caring about the ramnifications of their actions except that the ALL mighty "Free Speech" is protected, cause its jeopardy for sure, is well worth it yeah?


I am so happy people can burn crosses. I am so happy people can piss in jars and with pictures of Jesus and get federal funding. I am so happy that all the remnants of common sense are steadily being stamped out and my right to say Fuck that, and No, are being happily eroded in the naem of the Freest of Speech. Yea us!

But we shouldn't need the ACLU.

We don't.

Due Process is supposed to guarantee that we are treated fairly in all criminal cases.

Is that what the law says? Fair? Wow.

Habeus Corpus prevents us from being held in jail indefinitely without cause. The fact that the ACLU has to exist, and step in for these cases, is just wrong.

I'd almost agree with you here. Almost. Sure the system is run by people who tend to be biased and bring their own preconception with them. Sure we have some shitty stuff happen in the past. And yes maybe, the ACLU has tackled some pretty serious legal matters that have made my life better.


I can dig all that.

What I don't dig is the death of common sense in law, that people like the ACLU has helped so far along. Thanks ACLU, and similar organizations. I really wanted everyone to have the right to do anything. Yea! Oh and while we're at it can we just forget that whole INS and immigration laws thng? Obviouly these people just need help, I mean why make up regulations for gets to enter the country? None of them will ever do anything wrong right??? They all mean well, right???

In fact why have laws at all? Why have a government? Why have let any of them enforce what ever has been passed as law?In fact why don't we make the, change their laws and make up new laws just cause we can?

Forgive me if I retch on this thread.

[TheScamp]

I am so happy people can burn crosses. I am so happy people can piss in jars and with pictures of Jesus and get federal funding.

So am I. Only I actually am happy about it.

Is that what the law says? Fair ? Wow.

That's exactly what it says. Or rather, that's exactly how the Supreme Court has consistantly interpreted it; the phrase "fundamental fairness" comes up all the time during due process cases.

[Cain]

Paul: WTF??

It sounds like you don't trust the Government... so why the heck are you ragging on groups who make sure it's doing it's job?

You may not like the ACLU, or agree with some it's causes-- but what it does is defend our civil rights, from within the system. I'd love to see a conservative organization that did the same thing, but there just aren't any as big or as good.

You seem to think that government is corrupt and bloated. The ACLU sets out to prevent that corruption from hurting people like you.

I mean, what if some self-styled Patriot called you into the TIPS system, and you were arrested as a suspected terrorist? Would a normal lawyer agree to represent you? For free? If your civil rights were ever violated, you'd be glad to have the ACLU around. If you were ever arrested for saying "Fuck that" and "No", they're the ones who would take up your cause.

Now, about Due Process: It exists to ensure that everyone is treated the same, preventing local bias and inequal punishment. So, yes, everyone is to be treated fairly. A judge can't throw the book at you because he doesn't like your race, or your face. That's why we have due process, and that's wby such a blatant violation is so scary.

[Serious Paul]

Sorry I have taken so long to reply, but until today my machine wouldn't open this thread, kept crashing everytime I tried.

I don't completely mistrust the government. I understand the governemnt is made up of people, who in theory are supposed to represent other people. Therefore their actions will not always be in my best intrest, or for that matter any ones best intrests.

However I don't have a route hatred for the American Ideal, and the government. I believe this is the system. This is the way.

Problem is we seem determined to throw it al away.

The reason I really distrust the ACLU and its ilk is they are unguided weapon in my book. They, to me, signify the death of common sense and common courtsey. Now I realize my views are perhaps romanticized or...hell I don't know.

What I do know is we are tearing at the roots of the tree in the name of the leaves.

[Cain]

The reason I really distrust the ACLU and its ilk is they are unguided weapon in my book. They, to me, signify the death of common sense and common courtsey. Now I realize my views are perhaps romanticized or...hell I don't know.

I get what you're saying, but do you want to give some more specific examples?

As a matter of opinion, I feel that it's better to have them than not. Even if they do enjoy a good rant and argument, that doesn't make them any different than most of us here. And they perform a function that is, sadly, necessary.

If you can give a more specific example, then I can try to address your concern a bit better.

[Salvation122]

So am I. Only I actually am happy about it.

If you want to support the arts, give them money. I don't want mine going to someone who makes crochet penises or something equally stupid and utterly non-art.

[TheScamp]

I've been mulling it over for a bit, and have come up with a couple responses to what you've said. While they're obviously connected, I can't at the moment come up with good linkages, so I'm going to post them separately.

If you want to support the arts, give them money. I don't want mine going to someone who makes crochet penises or something equally stupid and utterly non-art.

Suck and deal. Taxes go to pay for shit that you don't like. That's why we have taxes; to pay for important shit that wouldn't get done otherwise. I don't like that my tax money goes to pay for the federal death penalty, but it does. I don't like that my tax money is, in the near future, going to pay for (another) war in/with Iraq. That's just part of being a tax-paying citizen.

And before you say it, art is most definitely important. Ever since man was living in a goddamn cave, we were making art.

If you want to support the arts, give them money. I don't want mine going to someone who makes crochet penises or something equally stupid and utterly non-art.

Hooray! There's no longer any need for museums or galleries, because Sal's here! I guess my girlfriend can quit her Masters program and just consult with you on everything.

Seriously, dude. Who are you to say what is and is not art? You can't. You can certainly say what art you like and don't like, but not whether or not it is art. You have absolutely no idea what may, in the future, become considered to be a very significant contribution to the art world. When it was first being done, Impressionism was widely considered to be 'not art'. Likewise with Picasso. Pablo fucking Picasso.

The only true judge of artistic merit is time.

[Serious Paul]

Well first off he is a tax payer.So regardless of how pissy it might make you feel as long as any art program spends TAX dollars he gets a say. Its called voting and lobbying.

Suck and deal. Taxes go to pay for shit that you don't like.

The point is he doesn't have to suck and deal. Niether do you. He can vote. He can lobby, he can run for office. As long as you connect art to government funding the government gets a say, which means so do we as citizens.

That's why we have taxes; to pay for important shit that wouldn't get done otherwise.

Except that Art is done quite often with out Government funding isn't it?

I mean I sketch all the time and I don't get tax dollars. 3278 makes music but its not on your tax dime.

I don't like that my tax money goes to pay for the federal death penalty, but it does. I don't like that my tax money is, in the near future, going to pay for (another) war in/with Iraq.

Like you said:

That's just part of being a tax-paying citizen.

Except I'd add you get a say in all of that. With your vote.

And before you say it, art is most definitely important. Ever since man was living in a goddamn cave, we were making art

And Man made war long before he made art.Niether are less importnat because of whatever date they were started.

War has its place. Art has its place. Show me society with out either.

Hooray! There's no longer any need for museums or galleries, because Sal's here! I guess my girlfriend can quit her Masters program and just consult with you on everything.

Which is a bullshit retort, and you know it.

I am entitled to say I want my tax money to go places, the same as you are. Also is every gallery and art show and art program Government funded?

Let me ask a question Scamp.

If you get a loan from the bank do you have to give them a reason? Lets say you want to borrow five grand to blow on hoookers and drugs. Do you think if you told them that they'd loan you the money?

Banks loan money and expect to see business plans and payments and all sorts of controls, but because we fund a program with government money we should just throw common sense to the wind? Guess what man? Its government money. If the majority of tax payers say it isn't art, then by government standards it isn't, regardless of what your personal tastes are.

Seriously, dude. Who are you to say what is and is not art?

A man. A tax payer. Same as you. A citizen. A human being. What makes your definition or nondefinition better? Just because something may eventually be considered art by someone else I should change my definition? What a crock.

The only true judge of artistic merit is time.

Except that reeally contradicts what you've said earlier. Its art. No wait it might be art. Someday we may know a guy who knows a guy who saw a guy who heard of a guy who saw Art. Well who-fucking-ray.

Beauty is int he eye of the beholder, and when my money is involved guess what? I'll say yes or no, regardless of what sort of an asshole that makes me in the future.

[Jestyr]

If you want to support the arts, give them money. I don't want mine going to someone who makes crochet penises or something equally stupid and utterly non-art.

Well, fine, but that's not the debate, is it? I mean, I thought the ACLU's role in something like that is to defend the artist's right to produce a piece of art like that, rather than have it suppressed because it's obscene or immoral or whatever, isn't it?

[WillyGilligan]

Yes, but does the right to speak equal the right to be heard? You have the right to produce whatever you feel is art, but does anybody /have/ to put it on their walls because you say it's art?

On the one hand, if the government is funding some art, but not all art, that would be a form of censorship. The government shouldn't be classifying art, just as they shouldn't be regulating faith. So they should fund "Piss Christ" just the same as any other painting/photographs.

On the other hand, the 'average' folks that like to look at pretty pictures and don't want to be art snobs that can't appreciate a nice picture that isn't 'revolutionary' in some way (whatever that means) aren't really in favor of artwork like this. We fund these artists to be 'fair' and to gamble on what future generations will think of art produced today.

I figure we should get out of the whole business. IMO, it would leave art to people who are either commercially viable or truly passionate about what their doing, enough to spend their own money on their art. Those sound like artists worth something to me, whatever art they actually turn out.

[Kwyndig]

*Agrees with WillyGilligan, oddly enough.*

No money for art! Let those arteests starve in the streets for all I care.

[Gunny]

just a side note: it IS possible to get government funded grants for personal use, like making art.

[Anguirel]

The artists can either be good starving artists or they can sell out. The government doesn't need to support artists although the government should protect the artist's right to produce whatever sort of "art" they want to make (so long as that art doesn't directly do damage to others - "rights to swing fist end at my nose" and such)... On the other hand, I think the government should support museums and art collections which are run through donations. If you want your art to be seen, you donate it to a public gallery and if the curator likes it then he can put it on display rather than in a warehouse.

In short: support the repositories, but not the artists directly.

[Serious Paul]

See I feel its the governments job to do tangible things: build roads, feed people, shit like that.

Art doesn't do that sort of thing. Government and Art/Faith?Religion?Idealogy need to be kept seperate. I am also for minimal government.

Lets free that tax money up so people can choose to purchase/support art.