Texsox

QUOTE(Rooftop Shots @ Jan 27, 2007 -> 07:31 PM) Tex! I thought my one-liner was good with the oriental doctor, but man........you did me in with yours. Still laughing as I type this. One of the best one-liners I've heard in quite a while. Had an extremely tough physical and emotional day at work today. NEEDED a good laugh. Got it ten-fold with your post. Thanks!!! Recycled joke. But thanks.

Almost every group has a social commentary. It is the NRA telling us what gun laws we should have. The Sierra Club telling us how to protect the environment. Artists commenting on every human experience. And the Church commenting on social and moral issues. They all are tossed into the mix. You wouldn't expect the NRA to stop because a NRA member used a firearm illegally, or if the Sierra Club had a member who worked for a company that polluted. Why some people are threatened by the Church speaking out on moral grounds, but can tolerate other groups and their dissenting views, doesn't make sense to me. And it is ironic that the Catholic Church owns arguably one of the greatest collections of art anywhere. So the Church supporting the arts is a long and deep tradition. As you can probably tell I have sat and listened to debates on the meaning behind art and the artists inspiration. My writing is more utilitarian. Writing outdoors articles for various small publications, newspaper stuff, and now writing a newsletter for Scouters. I don't consider it art. Just communications. What shapes my view and over all theory on creativity could be rooted in the phrase "giving birth" to a work of art. Like giving birth to a kid, the artist has lost control once it is exhibited, no matter what the audience. So if society does draw an absolute line, it has to be enforced in the beginning, not in the end. Once Pandora's box is open, it can't be closed. The tension in all this is the relationship between the artist and the audience. As you are siding with the artists and I the audience. I wrote a feature for a newspaper once on what was said and what it means. One of the lines that struck a nerve and actually drew a response was The artist said "the audience can't understand my work" it means the work sucked. I had seen too many artists complain about the audience when, in fact, their work sucks. I have amended that belief and now would say the work appeals to a very narrow audience, perhaps just himself. How many artists have you met that loath the audience? The hate the unwashed masses that can't grasp their art, but crave the accolades, the feedback. A good audience brings themselves to the art. I believe an artist that believes that theirs is the one true interpretation has taken the audience out of the equation, and that doesn't reflect reality. There is a singular point in time and place when someone is experiencing the work. No two object can occupy the same space at the same time. Meaning changes with time. It also dismisses what the audience brings to the experience. They are not blank tablets. They have had their experiences. Their vocabulary, their vision (actually how well they see color and shapes). I agree that cutting out the original visionary in any work is fraught with danger and almost always results in a degradation of the project. There may be some value in someone schooled in the new medium to help with the process. But for the most past give me the original. You didn't mention this example but it hits hard to this point, I much prefer a well crafted song being sung poorly by the writer, then well by someone who paid for the song with money and not their blood, sweat, toil, and tears. Context is important, actually critical, from a quality of work standpoint but not from a legal point of view. Taking the stuff that society tells us we can not produce, I'll continue to use child porn because it is one of the few absolutes we have. No matter what the context, you can't show penetration with a minor. We have censored that up front, everyone knows it, it's a line that can not be crossed. We do not allow the artist to produce that work and then judge. We know in advance, it's wrong and you are going to jail. If society found other absolutes, they would have to be similarly enforced. Not after the fact, but clearly spelled out before. Every person self-censors, some better than others. Every person has a belief about a higher power. Some believe that their is a high power and that guides their behavior. Some believe their is no higher power and that guides their behavior. Why should society be told to only listen to those who believe that there is no higher power? What makes their beliefs on moral issues superior to all others?

When my resources were different I suppported several artists through grants and gifts, so I've seen plenty of non commercial art. All would produce some emotional or physical reaction. You speak of understanding. Each person walks away with their understanding. It doesn't have to match what the artist believes it to be. When you are experiencing a work of art, it is a singular moment in time and space. You and the artist can not occupy that same space, so each reality has to be different. Once an artist steps away from the work, it becomes the worlds. I think the audience has a responsibility to experience the work as the artist intends, I refuse to judge a painting, for example, by looking at a photograph. Same with any sculpture. The interplay of light means so much in those venues and to see a flat lit, two dimensional "mis"-representation is unfair. This links back to your last paragraph. If you (not necessarily you, but in general) don't know the inspiration, how can the artist really know the true meaning? You could have a past life that is coming through. An experience that is being reveiled. We may think we know why we have done something, but it isn't always a match. Help me with your context point. Show me something that is clearly forbidden in our society, that could be OK in the proper context? And this really all comes down to boundaries and limits. I believe in them, that they can be absolute, and can be set ahead of time. You believe boundaries exist to tell us if an artist has crossed the boundary, but they should be free to cross whatever boundary, and we'll worry about the effects and affects, later. What am I doing? First I'm defending my right, through my Church, to speak out. When I see myself being told I can not speak out because some idiot broke the law and another person covered it up, it seems wrong. When one billion people are told to STFU because of a handful of people who should burn in hell, I'm going to stick up for my free speech rights. But honestly, getting a glimpse into your thinking on art and it's interpretation is far more interesting than this movie.

QUOTE(Alpha Dog @ Jan 27, 2007 -> 06:40 PM) No, it isn't the most important part of the story. But to deny that it IS important is simply putting your head in the sand. Cerainly important enough to be mentioned before the last paragraph of the story. I also hope he gets the full punishment allowed. Who is it important to? Scum like this are scum no matter which party they belong to. I guess if someone wants to extract political gain in all this it's important. I'm certain the victim will be happy the GOP could maybe put the hurt on Dems for this. Then it will all be worthwhile. Just shoot me if I ever put some kids life behind political revenge.

If someone needs to know what they are doing to appreciate someone's art, then the artist hasn't done their job, not the other way around. I thought art was about conveying meaning, moving people either emotionally or physically. 99.99% of the Church worldwide, both lay people and clergy, are outraged at what the Church allowed to happen and covered up. If the good people of the Church are taking over and condemning that practice, isn't that a good thing? Why should 99.99% of the people remain silent and .001% in effect be the ones that are talking? Isn't that admitting defeat and allowing the guilty to take over? You can censor without meaning. The most obvious example is child pornography. No meaning in the world will allow that. If you always allow the artist to create and display, there are no boundaries. So you would have to reject the whole testing boundaries argument. We also open an unenforceable situation where you can't stop me, that's not what I meant. That child in bondage represents the new Iraqi government and that missile shaped object next to his butt is Iran. Of course that segues into the "community values" argument that we will both agree is crap. Editing yes, but rarely would a filmmaker start with a movie about a honeymoon in Vegas and wind up with a summer camp horror movie. But we're splitting hairs here and non productive. Back to the true meaning. With the mystery of the creative process, do you always know where your inspiration is coming from? If you don't know what is truly inspiring a work, how do you even know the meaning? Further to the point, it is a rare an artist doesn't view a work differently years after creating it. So meaning becomes fluid in the synopsis of our brains.

Bob, Part of this is how you define the Church. The Church is people like Queen Prawn and myself. Does a dozen artists taint the entire artistic community? Besides pedophiles that may dislike hearing a message that abuse is wrong, how does it hurt anyone? Should Americans stop doing anything about torture around the world because we tortured prisoners? Walk me through this. Artist creates work. The public is outraged and it is decided that that work clearly crossed a boundary that shouldn't be crossed. Another artist is working in the same area, is it wrong to speak out before she starts or do we wait again for that work? As far as not knowing, it will depend on the media being used. A film maker better have a pretty good idea before starting, someone who creates in the digital world would not. It's not there because the artist says it isn't there? Are you telling me that the only interpretation that is valid is the artists? Isn't part of art how it captures and influences individual people. If I laugh and someone else cries at a painting, is one person wrong?

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Jan 27, 2007 -> 02:34 PM) It's not a generic bulls*** answer, it's yet another specific example of the bias. BTW, Balta's post pretty much hit it right on. Anytime a Dem isn't front page for a possible misdeed or a GOP isn't front page for a possible good deal, you get all outraged and mention media bias. What this is is a specific instance of it not being front page. I'm not certain why you would want to bump 4 soldiers being executed in cold blood off the front page. The front page is what sells newspapers. If there is a chance that a who's who of political figures could be indicted on ethics stuff you know it will be played out over and over again. BTW, Here's the Santa Rosa Press Democrats front page today Connecticut Post LA Times They didn't mention Bush is a R but the article was positive. Arkansas Democrat Gazette Scanning the front pages at http://www.newseum.org/ it seems that Bush, the recent deaths in Iraq, and local news is getting most of the play. How does that show specific instances of media bias?

QUOTE(Alpha Dog @ Jan 27, 2007 -> 02:11 PM) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carlyle_Group It is a broad spectrum of political affiliations to be sure, but since you all seem to know the ones associated with a R, some associated with the D are: - George Soros - billionaire and very liberal political backer - William Kennard, Chairman of the U.S. Federal Communications Commission (FCC) under President Bill Clinton, Carlyle's Managing Director in the Telecommunications & Media Group from 2001 to the present. - Arthur Levitt, Chairman of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) under President Bill Clinton, Carlyle Senior Advisor from 2001 to the present - Mack McLarty, White House Chief of Staff under President Bill Clinton, President of Kissinger McLarty Associates, Carlyle Senior Advisor from 2003 to the present - Arthur Levitt - former Chairman of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (A clinton asppointee) And this little tidbit sure to go unnoticed by many, Former President George H.W. Bush retired from Carlyle in October 2003. George W. Bush served on the Board of Directors of early Carlyle acquisition Caterair. Bush left the board in 1992 to run for Governor of Texas. Of course when there is money to be made, politics takes a back seat. Bush resigned and Feinstein was never involved, yet here we are discussing it.

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Jan 27, 2007 -> 02:01 PM) It will NEVER happen. And to me, that's the biggest problem with our government today. I don't listen to those s***bags you're talking about Tex. Nuke found it, not sure where he heard about it, but the media goes after ® people like flies on s*** when stuff like this comes up. I love your generic recanned bulls*** when this media stuff gets brought up. And I love your generic recanned bulls*** when this media stuff gets brought up. And I still love you Kap.

QUOTE(Alpha Dog @ Jan 27, 2007 -> 12:08 PM) You miss the point, Tex. The general masses might only watch a small amout of news in any given day, and it usually comes from the big 3, not Fox, etc. Or they read the major newspapers. If the story isn't mentioned there, how do they know about it? What she is doing appears to be similar to what Hastert did here, but how many average joes in Kansas know what she did? Did they hear about it on the ABC news? Nope. But they sure heard Hastert's name mentioned on national broadcast. Reporting DOES have a say in public perceptions of people, parties and our government as a whole. Both sides can br crooked as hell, but if the general public only hears about one side being bad, it tends to skewer public opinion in a rather slanted way. Well we all heard about it. I know a lot more people that parrot what they have heard from Rush, but not too many people parrot the evening newscast. The GOP has insulated themselves from criticism by always shouting media bias when they screw up and it gets reported. They also try and gain traction on any story by screaming media bias when it is a Dem. The end result is they will not have to be accountable. And that is bad for this country.

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Jan 27, 2007 -> 11:17 AM) It's different because if she had a ® behind her name, it would be on the front page of the NY Slimes and the top story on every Sunday morning TV show in America. She may not have done anything wrong, we don't know yet, but again, if she had an ® instead of a (d), it would be enough to run full throttle on this story. Don't worry I'm certain Rush, Hannity, O'Really, Colson, Fox News, Dobson, Ingram, and the Wall Street Slime will be all over it. Of course the coverage is far more important to GOPerheads than what actually happens. If GOP wrong doing can be excused as media bias and Dem non stories can be blown up by rallying the troops against media bias, all is right in the world.

QUOTE(Rex Kicka** @ Jan 27, 2007 -> 10:45 AM) Ummm, hell yeah this should be investigated. Did these companies that Feinstein had "ins" with get no-bid contracts? Or did they go through the bidding process? That's my big question... Because if they had to go through a bidding process, there may not be much to investigate there. The story seems to show some smoke. If there's fire, I'm all good for removing her chairmanships and kicking her out of the Senate leadership. I'm with you there. If the Dems did not learn from the billions in no bid contracts that Chaney's cronies received, they should be kicked out on their asses for doing the same thing. Damn right I'm indigent as should every American who is paying to destroy and rebuild Iraq. I'm not certain why Kap believes this is somehow different, it sounds the same to me if true. If he's won fairly and squarely as the low bidder in a competitive situation, I don't see a problem. I am also certain if there isn't a problem, the GOPerheads on the board will give us a chorus of media bias trying to dig up dirt on the Speaker.

QUOTE(bmags @ Jan 27, 2007 -> 10:52 AM) I was referring to the times when the Catholic Church had so much power as to kill or jail anyone that tried to publish (galileo, descartes always started out with an appeasement to the church) and such. Silence before publishing is wrong, and IMO, this is just them trying to reassert their authority. OK, I'll agree that centuries ago there was that abuse of power. But this is even more egregious than those who wish the US to pay for damages to the decedents of slaves for what they went through. Those events happened centuries ago and are not happening today. Explain how to silence after it has been produced. Then it's too late. I don't see a problem with seeing the path we are on and speaking out about further events down that path. Wouldn't it be unfair to after the fact say, we saw this coming, and have had a response planned for months or years? To stand up today and say that producing films for profit that depict children being abuse should be carefully monitored and in many cases are wrong? They are calling their followers to action. Just like those who believe that society and the pedophiles should be spared the lecture that child abuse is wrong are trying to assert their authority. Why is your assertion more valid than people like myself and Queen Prawn who are Catholic? (Not to draw her into the debate, but putting faces on "The Catholic Church").

QUOTE(bmags @ Jan 27, 2007 -> 08:47 AM) i think we can all agree that when the Catholic Church set the limits on morals it wasn't exactly good for the gander. They set a standard for over one billion Catholics and all but maybe a thousand lived up to that. How low should they set the standard? What message does it send when the Church refused to speak out against abuse? Wouldn't the same people who call them hypocrites now claim the Chuch is not taking a strong enough stance? Abuse is wrong, we all know it. Why should any voice be silenced that proclaims that? By silencing one billion people, who does it help? Why hasn't anyone answered this simple question? The Church is stating that child abuse is wrong, y'all think they shouldn't say it. Who does that help? I agree that the Church, and all of society, could do much more to protect children. I also believe that society needs to continue to speak out against the hardships and horrors that some children face in their daily lives. Poverty, abuse, violence, wars, famines, persecution.

This morning a Gary, Indiana kindergarten teacher explains to her class that she is an Indianapolis Colts fan. She asks her students to raise their hands if they are Colts fans, too. Not really knowing what a Colts fan was, but wanting to be liked by their teacher, their hands flew into the air. There is, however, one exception. Susie has not gone along with the crowd. The teacher asks her why she has decided to be different. "Because I'm not a Colts fan" she reports. "Then," asks the teacher, "what are you?" "I'm a Chicago Bears fan," boasts the little girl. The teacher asks Susie why she is a Bears fan. "Well, my Dad and Mom are Bears fans, so I'm a Bears fan, too" she responds. "That's no reason," the teacher says. "What if your mom was a moron, and your dad was an idiot. What would you be then?" Susie smiles and says, "Then I'd be a Colts fan." Go Bears!!!

I believe there are plans for reconstructive surgery. The iguana will be undergoing an adadictome later this week.

QUOTE(BobDylan @ Jan 26, 2007 -> 08:58 PM) Off the top of my head, the limit is when people get hurt. Sure you might say, "THIS MOVIE HURTS THE KIDS WHO SEE IT!" Sure, but then again, kids aren't supposed to see R rated movies, and it's the parents job to set them straight after they see it. And if it's an adult that is offended, as an artist, here's my response: "Sorry, pal. Don't check out my next exibit (or film, or album, or painting, or book or whatever) then. I'm sorry you were offended by it, but that's not my problem. I'm not responsible for your interpretation of my work." So I say the limit is when people are phsyically hurt. And the people who decide the limits are the public. That's pretty well understood among artists. We create work so we can get criticized and praised alike. "And the people who decide the limits are the public" How does the public decide the limits? When a group complains, like in this case, they are told to STFU, it's art, and art has to push beyond the limits. We're are the spot on the spot where a circular argument begins. The debate doesn't start until *after* the work has been created, at that point it is too late. And our society has determined that it is, in many cases, our responsibility to not be offensive. So it is your problem. We restrict obscenities, racist remarks, etc. You can't stand on a street corner and offend people as they pass by. We have enacted laws to stop people from being a nuisance. Again, highly subjective and arbitrary, but the intent is clearly to protect society from being offended in some cases. So to say as an artist you are above the law, would be poor hubris, and I doubt you would. But we should recognize that you do have that restriction. Perhaps that is the central tenant of my belief that one can not justify any behavior as "it's art" and protected. And who determines when someone is harmed? We both know that is highly subjective. Even experts in the field will debate at what point anything becomes harmful. If the limit is physical harm, you are rejecting any psychological harm. That would leave the door wide open for a wide range of indecent, immoral, works. For example, paintings of child pornography would not create any physical harm, yet are clearly something our society has ruled as too offensive to produce. Again something that I am certain you wouldn't defend, but it is the crack that allows psychological harm to creep into the debate. And finally, the slippery slope of interpretation is another land mine in all this. Whose interpretation is valid? A majority? The Artist? A Panel of experts? The most vocal? The most influential? And we could debate forever the role of the artist in interpretation. Is the artist's opinion of his own works important? Do we really need to know anything about the artist to understand the work? I've always felt the artist should be allowed the freedom to break out of himself. I believe the artist / author should remain a mystery and allow the work to stand on it's own merit. Others believe to know the work, one must know the producer.

I am certain it mattered to the kid.

QUOTE(NUKE @ Jan 26, 2007 -> 07:42 PM) Yeah, they should shut their traps and get their own house in order. Who benefits when they shut their traps? Who are you defending here? Sorry if someone preaching that abusing kids, or simulating the abuse of children, is a bad thing. One of the mistakes the Catholic Church committed was not being public, not speaking out, Now they are and you're complaining. Again I ask, who benefits when an organization with over one billion members worldwide is told to shut their traps and not speak about this? Shouldn't they be telling their members? Who is it hurting when they speak out against this? Bob, setting this particular movie aside. Is there a point when the limit can't be tested anymore? Is there a point when people say, we are not going that far? And who is to decide? The lowest common denominator?

QUOTE(SleepyWhiteSox @ Jan 26, 2007 -> 02:53 PM) So let me get this straight, any Catholic or Catholic-based organization should not ever speak out against rape, under-aged rape, or even the depiction of rape because it's too "ironic" and "hypocritical" for many of you?? Right they should "do something" as long as it isn't being critical of anyone. QUOTE(BobDylan @ Jan 26, 2007 -> 02:24 PM) Tex, you have to take art in context. The movie is more than just the rape. It's a story. The rape is only a part of it. The characters will develop, grow and learn in some way from it. It'll also propose more questions once you actually see the story instead of judging it before hand. For instance, in Taxi Driver, DeNiro's character had to kill people to get the 14 year old prostitute back home. Is that heroic? Is it not? And so on. The boundry isn't just depicting rape...it's putting it out there so other artists can use it in different ways so they can put some other amount of awareness out there. So they can pose more questions for the general public about the atrocity in child rape. This is why breaking boundries in art is important. The point I was poorly making is if one buys into the breaking down barriers argument, there is some goal, something that the artist or audience is heading to. So what is the goal in this? What couldn't be shown in 1990 that is being shown here? And, more importantly, what will be shown in 2020 because of this? I understand the testing of limits, but only if there actually are limits and when they are reached, they are kept.

QUOTE(FlaSoxxJim @ Jan 26, 2007 -> 05:04 PM) All snakes and almost all lizards have two penises, technically referred to as hemepenes. The alternate between them during successive mating events. The very primitive and highly endangered New Zealand tuatara, the last surviving member of the relict sphenodontid family of lizards, is the exception to the two penis rule. It has no penis, instead using a muscular cloacal opening as a primitive intromittant organ. Boy lizard junk is strang stuff. Not as strange as boy marsupial junk. In marsupials the testes are posiyioned anterior to the penis in all living representatives except the bandicoot. In laymans terms that means that the marsupial nutsack is teabagging the penis during copulation. This has been another exciting edition of Ask Mr. Animal Sex. I was actually following all that

QUOTE(Gregory Pratt @ Jan 26, 2007 -> 02:13 PM) I believe that parole should be a process that exists, and I do believe in rehabilitation the idea, but I can't understand how anyone can believe that a man who slit a five year old's throat can be "rehabilated" or deserves a "second chance." There's just a certain evil inherent in killing a defenseless person that makes denial of parole and life in prison a no-brainer. Exactly (with edit) It just sickens me that anyone could harm a child.

I never really stopped to consider that. I assume most cities are like that. This is what really interested me:

I can't understand the point of view that these boundaries in how child abuse is depicted in movies should come down. Why anyone would want to see more or that, and in greater detail, sickens me. I understand pushing some limits, but not in child abuse. Someone tell me just how much violence and abuse against children they want to see in movies? Is there really that great of a demand to see young children abused? Isn't it possible we have reached a limit? Maybe Taxi Driver was the edge?