The people screaming about PBS, the NEA, and the NEH are the same people who helped tear down the arts in favor of the ‘counterculture.’
The Trump budget is a big disappointment to anyone who wanted to see Republicans take a hatchet to federal spending. Trump’s request for $1.151 trillion in discretionary spending in 2018 is slightly more than the $1.145 trillion President Obama had projected we would need for the same year.
So why are people hyperventilating about it? Why is New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof wailing that this is what it must have felt like in the last days of the Roman Empire?
This is not about my hometown newspaper but about America.
The Los Angeles Times is a metaphor for the hysterical reaction to the proposed elimination of the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA). Friday’s front page included a photo of a young girl playing the violin, as the newspaper offered this subhead: “The NEA works; why does president want to destroy it?” What appeared to be front-page news was in fact an opinion column by Christopher Knight, the newspaper’s art critic, surely a disinterested observer.
The same day’s business section headlined “Budget plan could slow economic growth” over a photograph of NEA-funded art. The Calendar section’s headline was “A harsh note — Arts programs big and small across California would suffer” below photos of dance, opera, theater, classical musicians, and, yes, youthful violinists.
Maybe I missed something but I’ve been assuming for the last half-dozen years or so, probably a lot longer, that every word I spoke into a cellphone, every text and email I wrote, every letter I typed in my Internet-connected computers and, more recently, every utterance I made in front of the Amazon Alexa on my desk were being recorded somewhere. And if someone or some organization seriously wanted to find them, if they could wangle permission or even if not, they would be able to get all or most of it. My life, good and bad, is up there in the cloud somewhere, every last word and digit.
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is finally starting to think globally and act locally when it comes to reducing carbon emissions, with plans to examine “the carbon footprint of IPCC activities” themselves at the panel’s upcoming 45th session.
Well, maybe “acting” locally is putting it too strongly.
President Donald Trump asked Congress for $999 million to start building the wall along the border with Mexico this year, and wants $2.6 billion for the project in next year’s budget.
The White House asked Congress to add nearly a billion dollars to the Customs and Border Protection’s 2017 budget for “planning, design, and construction of the first installment of the border wall,” according to a supplemental budget request released Thursday. The supplemental request also asks for $179 million for road improvements, gates and bridges along the border and $200 million to deploy border security technology.
Upon assuming the presidency, many observers expressed reservations about what a Trump administration foreign policy would look like. More than any other representative of President Donald Trump’s government, United Nations Ambassador Nikki Haley has answered those critics.
At the UN, Haley has articulated a clear vision of how America would handle itself on the world stage: a stalwart friend to its allies, fearsome foe to its enemies, and consistent voice of reason in a forum often governed by the whims of authoritarian regimes and violent special interests.
The idea that guides USAID and much of our foreign policy is a part of the larger, progressive takeover of constitutional, republican government that has been in the works for a century.
In his new budget blueprint, President Trump proposed cutting 37 percent from the budget of the State Department and U.S. Agency for International Development (or USAID) to offset the costs of increasing defense spending. Many claim this would sacrifice diplomatic power for military power, but things are not always as they seem.
President Trump is proposing targeted cuts to one of the most progressive and globalist parts of our bloated government. The reaction to his proposal reveals just how progressive our foreign policy has become.
It’s not just the politics that are wrong. Government arts funding doesn’t even go to the needy. Arts grants tend to go to people who got prior arts grants.
Some have friends on grant-making committees. Some went to the same schools as the people who pick what to subsidize. They know the right things to say on applications so they look “serious” enough to underwrite. They’re good at writing applications. They’re not necessarily good at art.
Defenders of public funding say their subsidies bring things like classical music to the poor. But the truth is that poor and middle-class people rarely go to hear classical music, even when subsidies make it cheap.
Reality check: Public arts subsidies are also free PR for progressives, who dominate the arts. If the granting government really wanted to give poor people culture they care about, it would subsidize sports tickets. But poor people so often find the money for sports tickets anyway. What does that tell us about who public subsidy really benefits?
Won’t Americans miss the dreadfully earnest public broadcasters? Well, would we miss the CBC?
But caution!, never forget that most artsies today could not survive without subsidy from those who don’t care about their work but are forced to fund it. It is life or death for the artsies and they will play it that way. It’ll be loud.
See also: Irrelevance of traditional mainstream media quantified
The Department of Homeland Security says that apprehensions of illegal aliens at the southern border dropped significantly from January to February. DHS announced that people caught crossing the border illegally had plummeted from 31,578 in January to 18,762 in February.
“Since the beginning of February, they were some of the best performing weeks in the history of the brand,” Abigail Klem, the president of the Ivanka Trump fashion company, told Refinery29 in an interview. “For several different retailers Ivanka Trump was a top performer online, and in some of the categories it was the [brand’s] best performance ever.”
The news comes after Nordstrom announced it would no longer carry her line in their stores, citing poor sales. Other retailers like Jet, Belk, Neiman Marcus, and ShopStyle quickly followed suit, while employees of T.J. Maxx and Marshalls were told to throw away signs advertising the brand. More.
Reality check:Readers will recall that fashion and makeup firms have been boycotting the Trumps since the election.
Both Bigs (Hollywood and Fashion) have forgotten that people liked them when they portrayed other people’s stories and images. Once they chose to force us all to attend to theirs, they found themselves in competition with every bore on the planet. And we know how that goes.
The Trumps were the first to figure out the significance of their decline: Their disapproval does not matter the way it used to.
See also: Oscar Wrong-Envelope Debacle Correlates With Declining Public Interest Some back office dweebs have been fired. But, as a general rule, declining systems tend to be top heavy with dweebs, resulting in goofups. The extra publicity gained from the resulting uproar will probably not turn out to be an asset. Too many people will start wondering why they ever cared at all.
The former CIA director wanted Trumpworld investigated.
It is “our job,” not Trump’s, to “control exactly what people think,” gasped MSNBC’s Mika Brzezinski last month. This week’s gasp from the media assumes a slightly different form and can be translated as: It is our job, not Trump’s, to push stories about the government investigation of Trumpworld.
For months, the media, drawing upon criminal leaks from Obama holdovers, has been saying in effect: Trumpworld is under investigation for ties to Russia! Then Trump says essentially the same thing on Twitter and the media freaks out. Why does the latter merit condemnation but not the former?
Among his other accomplishments, Donald Trump, without ever intending to, has fractured conservatism – something that was long overdue.
The American conservative movement has come quite a distance since the middle of the last century, from a small coterie viewed with contempt by the larger culture to the front ranks of a juggernaut that set back the plans of this country’s left-wing collectivists to a degree that its founders would not have considered possible. (Recall William F. Buckley’s statement that the role of conservatism was to “stand athwart history, yelling “stop.” Incredible as it may seem, “history” did stop.) Today, in large part due to its own success, it is on its way back to coterie status.
Donald Trump is expected to sign a new travel ban on Wednesday, according to the Associated Press.
A senior administration official told the news agency of the plans to roll out the fresh refugee and immigration executive order this week, but spoke on condition of anonymity as they are not authorised to discuss the plans publicly.
The fresh travel ban was expected to be signed last week, but White House spokesman Sean Spicer claimed the President had delayed the order “to make sure that we execute this, it’s done in a manner that’s flawless”.