Cutting the Arts

[ysabetwordsmith]

The Dumpling is now bragging about saving money by defunding government oil paintings.  Which is to say, cutting a vital support of the fine arts.  >_<  

Comments

Even more skeevey than that...

[capri0mni]

...This is the man who took $20,000 that donors paid in good faith to his bogus Trump Foundation (thinking they were supporting research into children's cancer) to buy a six-foot tall portrait of himself.

Paraphrasing Lady Paulina from The Winter's Tale:

I'll not call him 'tyrant,' but this egotistical greed something savors of tyranny that makes him scandalous to the world.

Re: Even more skeevey than that...

[cmcmck]

"Why, but there's many a man who hath more hair than wit."

The Bard has it right so often! :o)

Re: Even more skeevey than that...

[ysabetwordsmith]

I don't have a problem calling him a tyrant, as he meets the behavioral profile of one. While his rule is widely considered legal, it is tainted by all manner of misbehavior, from his hobby of violating women to the meddling of Russia. These contaminations, like his beliefs and personality, are also in keeping with those commonly found in tyrants.

Basically, if a character performs the techniques of a villain, I'll classify him as a villain, even if the author has labeled him a hero. That doesn't make him a hero. It makes him a villain the author is rooting for. Tyrants can be quite popular, although this is rare -- you have to watch out for the smarmy charmer subset, and not think they're all hated murderers.

Re: Even more skeevey than that...

[capri0mni]

Well, in that scene, Lady Paulina is saying this directly to the king's face, and if she calls him "tyrant" to his face, in so many words, the king can order her killed on the spot and they both know it.

So she's saying: "I'll not call you tyrant... but based on your behavior (and how you're treating your wife), you sure stink like one, and everyone in the whole world can smell your $#-+iness."

Which is basically what I'm saying about the current squatter in the Oval Office. He may have been elected according to a narrow reading of the letter of the law, but everything he does and says STINKS to high Heaven of tyranny.

Here's the whole passage of her rebuke:

LEONTES

I'll ha' thee burnt.

PAULINA

I care not:
It is an heretic that makes the fire,
Not she which burns in't. I'll not call you tyrant;
But this most cruel usage of your queen,
Not able to produce more accusation
Than your own weak-hinged fancy, something savours
Of tyranny and will ignoble make you,
Yea, scandalous to the world.

[johnpalmer]

I dunno. I'd imagine tyrants start popular, for all the usual reasons.

Trump's rule probably isn't legal; the problem is, ordinary law enforcement and the courts aren't able to rein in a President who takes bribes, self-deals, conspires with foreign powers, and allows his people to profit directly and indirectly by his rule. That role is supposed to be taken on by Congress, but Congress isn't even pretending to care - not even holding sham investigations, in most cases.

This part - that Congress isn't even going through the motions - is what scares me most. I've seen numerous news stories mentioning, casually, that the GOP Congress doesn't want to harm their party by causing trouble for their President. That shouldn't be casual. That should be, like, "and Congress, whether due to cowardice, corruption, or cronyism, is completely ignoring the huge risks to all aspects of the national interest; never before has partisanship extended to this level, to the clear detriment to the nation and the rule of law."

Thoughts

[ysabetwordsmith]

>> I dunno. I'd imagine tyrants start popular, for all the usual reasons. <<

The smarmy ones do. But some are all about brute force from the beginning. They attract a lot of followers who enjoy hurting other people -- juntas are basically large-scale bully rings.

>> Trump's rule probably isn't legal; the problem is, ordinary law enforcement and the courts aren't able to rein in a President who takes bribes, self-deals, conspires with foreign powers, and allows his people to profit directly and indirectly by his rule.<<

Sadly so.

>> That role is supposed to be taken on by Congress, but Congress isn't even pretending to care - not even holding sham investigations, in most cases. <<

Well, if they turned up hard evidence, they'd have to do something about that, and they don't want to.

>>That shouldn't be casual. That should be, like, "and Congress, whether due to cowardice, corruption, or cronyism, is completely ignoring the huge risks to all aspects of the national interest; never before has partisanship extended to this level, to the clear detriment to the nation and the rule of law."<<

Most journalists prefer to present themselves as more objective than that, instead of taking sides on an issue. This is sometimes a wise course, and other times destructive -- but it's usually the only option permitted in journalism classes. Learning when to stand the fuck up for an issue, and then write about that, is something students have to figure out on their own. There are, of course, partisan magazines and newspapers; but the bigger a venue, the more likely it tries to present itself as "balanced." Which may or may not be accurate.