Friday, May 02, 2008
Come on, Sandy ... take that next step.
Over at Sandy Crux's Stephen Harper Booster Society and Glee Club, Sandy and the rest of the lunch-time coffee group are adamant that they don't want their hard-earned tax dollars being shovelled into gratuitous violence and pornography and, why yes, they'll be happy to be the judges of what constitutes exactly that. In the meantime, someone's certainly getting a free pass.
Canada's conservatives: Because outrage is always context-dependent.
BY THE WAY, I would be fascinated to know what the Tuesday Afternoon Prissy Scolds Club would think of tax breaks for something like Mel Gibson's "The Passion of the Christ." The last time I looked, that was one blood-soaked bit of Christian gore. Would Sandy and her pearl-clutching harpies be equally offended by that flick? Or does anything that glorifies Christianity automatically get a free pass as well?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
Oh, but it's completely different, you...you...statist.. A cultural product of arguable taste or artistic value automatically contributes to the moral corruption and delinquency of people (Sandy Crux, propagandist on the public dime being an example herself), whether they ever see the production or not. Whereas...uh....carbon dioxide is natural.
Now about we pull the plug on Sandy Crux's pharmacare?
Great post, Kate!
MaryT
Oops, sorry, wrong thread.
MaryT
Of course anything that glorifies Christianity gets a free pass. This is a Christian world after all. Everybody else is out of luck.
Amusingly enough, I remember reading some old school history about how the exhibition of sex was treated.
Plays would show very graphic sexual content. Orgies, bestiality, cuckoldry and so forth.
And as long as the play at some point showed all those people going to hell or having some other godly punishment for their wanton ways, the play would be allowed to continue. Otherwise, the play would be immediately shut down by authorities.
I'm of the opinion that all creative expression has value and should be fostered. Whether I like it or not. I think the fecal material Jesus that was created at one point was completely disgusting, appalling, grotesque and undoubtedly offensive to Christians. However, I wouldn't have tried to pull a Rudy Giuliani on it because I believe in the value of art even when I don't like it and I believe in freedom of expression even when I don't agree with what's being expressed.
Unfortunately this often leaves me standing with horrible people like Fred Phelps on occasion. But in the end I'm ultimately protecting everybody. Once one person's right to expression gets taken away, everyones rights are affected.
The idea that a government could offer to help subsidize SOME artistic works and not others solely on the basis of whether or not a segment of the population likes them or not is laughable. Either subsidize everyone equally or subsidize no one. Equality isn't a hard concept to understand. It just that so many people ( like the neo-con hordes ) believe that they should be more equal than everyone else.
Anything status quo usually gets a free pass. It just so happens that here, Christianity is status quo.
Although you wouldn't know it from reading some of that right wing nonsense. They always read to be so afraid that their Judeo Christian society is being menaced by the Muslims, by the poor, by the immigrants, by the Indians, the pro-choicers... There seems to be no end of vulnerable people to be afraid of.
Subsequently they love Americans of all fucking people. Now there's something scary.
nifty observation, lko. of course, it went in one ear, bounced off a couple of walls, then shot right out t'other....
KEvron
Isn't it true that Passion of the Christ would get tax credits anyway, being made by foreigners? I thought it was only Canadian productions that would be affected by the C-10 censor board.
Those same foreign productions would, of course, not be interested in making teen porn here, since our age of consent for making porn is 18. Which, fortunately, was not repealed and was completely unaffected by the new "age of consent" law.
Post a Comment