Morning thoughts: Internet Fame and Politics

[wolven7]

Kate Bush - [Army Dreamers]--- How to recognise famous people, on the Web: Following Numbers Vs Followed-By numbers.

If ratio is >, the person is most likely not famous. If ratio is <, the person is most likely famous. If ratio is =, Need More Data.

Also, I still haven't heard anything resembling a satisfactory answer from the Obama camp on their Faith-Based Initiatives position (FBI. Just realised that.)

The Little Willies - [Tennessee Stud]--- If, you remember, I sent a letter (seen Here), but all I've received for my trouble, thus far, is a form letter, saying they appreciate that I'm taking such an interest in the cause and, by the way could I maybe donate a few bucks? So, if anyone has a lead on the FBIs, in the form of a video, or a letter, or some as-yet undenounced mouthpiece saying something, I'd really appreciate it.

I'm tempted to start a grass-roots campaign among all the various magical practitioners I know, demanding to know if their particular group or org will finally be recognised, under the law, and therefore have available to them Money for programs, covered by Faith-Based Initiatives. (Cake - [I Will Survive]). I'm not saying this as a joke, or intending this as an Ironic or Sarcastic question. I really want to know how far, how inclusive, how realised his plans are. Because, right now, they seem to still be too liquid in the middle to actually pick up and eat. They're neither fudgie Nor cake-like...

Damn it. Now I want brownies.

But I digress. The point is, until I hear more concrete answers from him about these things, he's getting none of my money, and none of my vocal support. I know what you're thinking: "Well who the fuck do you think you are, that that would matter to him?" (Tori Amos - [Northern Lad]). All I have to say to you, is who the fuck do you think you aren't, that you couldn't level the same threat and make the numbers something to fear.

You see? This is exactly the kind of thinking that got us into this mess in the first place. "To get to the other side, we're going to have to jump off this cliff and swim across that river. You go first."

LUXT - [United State (Remix)]--- Alternately, "You'd turn the flashlight off, when I was only half-way across."

I'm out.

Comments

[mendori.livejournal.com]

The sign that we are in deep shit: If Thomas Jefferson was alive today, he would be climbing bell towers with a bull horn and a rifle.

[wolven.livejournal.com]

Yup. :\

[moonandserpent.livejournal.com]

By your math, I'm like the world's smallest web famous person.

[wolven.livejournal.com]

What're your numbers?

[moonandserpent.livejournal.com]

Somehwere around 30/60.

[wolven.livejournal.com]

Hmm. Yep. Internet famous. It'll only grow, with time.

[amazingmrparker.livejournal.com]

Ok, am confused...

I don't think that the problem is that the government is spending my tax dollars on some religous groups and programs and not on others. The problem is that the government is spending my tax dollars on ANY religious groups and programs. In the interest of keeping the church out of our government and the government out of our churches, shouldn't we be campaigning for the abolition of the FBI program in the first place rather than the inclusion of "our" group into an inherently flawed, corruptible, unfair, and exclusionary system?

On a slightly related note, it disturbs me that I've had to go to a church every time I've cast a ballot. What's wrong with elementary school gyms?

[wolven.livejournal.com]

My polling place is an elementary school.

And my point is only that, we've already shown that there are these programs. They are exclusionary, yes, but any government program to any specific group is. Education, the arts, the aged, whatever.

The fact of the First Amendment is to prevent the establishment of a State Religion. Having escaped from England, and the Anglican church, this was the thing they feared most of all. With that in mind, I would rather they give money to All religious programs, rather than showcasing Evangelicals and Fundamentalists.

That's all I'm saying.

[amazingmrparker.livejournal.com]

I agree that the program showcases evangelicals and fundamentalists - I'm not saying that's right or ok by any stretch of the imagination.

I understand what you're saying, that we already have the programs and the programs should be all-inclusive. I'm saying that we SHOULDN'T have the programs in the first place.

The federal government is supposed to exist to be responsible for two things, and two things only: common national defense, and protecting my/your/our rights. That's it. Any services beyond that should be left to the discretion of the states or to private enterprise.

Coming from a former art student and current working art-ish person, it may surprise you to know that I'm equally for the abolition of the NEA as I am equally for the abolition of the FBI program. The government is sponsoring and leaving to the discretion of some bureaucrat what is supposed to be left to the will of the consumer and the free market.

If an entrepeneur can't drum up business for his sandwich shop, he does not get $15,000 in tax dollars to continue making sandwiches. Similarly, if Andres Serrano was unable to find a buyer for "Piss Christ," he should not have received $15,000 in tax dollars from the NEA. This is not a First Amendment issue - Serrano has a right to photograph a crucifix suspended in his own urine and market it as art just as much as I have the right to ignore him and not look at the art in question - but the NEA forces me to spend my money on it anyway.

I'm aware that this prompts the "I don't have kids, why am I paying taxes for education" and "I don't support the Iraq occupation, why am I paying taxes for it?" line of debate, but this remark is about to be long enough as it is and I'm getting off-topic...

I'm not saying that the government can't buy art - I'm sure our elected representatives want their offices to look nice, or whatever. We have a fucking gold dome on our capital building, they had to pay an architect to design it and a contractor to build it. That's no different from the government (as a consumer) buying tanks on a federal level or Glocks on a city level or Bic pens on a county level. Commissioning a nice painting of George Washington to hang in front of the elevator in City Hall is market-specific, the government is acting as a consumer in that case, NOT spending tax dollars to fund a CAUSE.

Coming back to the FBI program, if Americans collectively are not sufficiently giving people to support the charity industry...then maybe those in the charity industry should seek other lines of work instead of forcing the government to spend my money on them where begging has failed.

We're supposed to be working and spending in a free market. The FBI and NEA are not how it works.

[raidingparty.livejournal.com]

Ten points to you for pointing out the hypocrisy of expecting commercial businesses to deal with an open market and religions to be given government grants.

One questionmarkpoint for the quandary of how to measure the "product" for religious institutions and/or charities.

[necrophonic.livejournal.com]

I'd rather be universally exclusive than universally inclusive when it comes to religion and government. Mass government sponsored pluralism is as sure a way to screw up education as is mass government sponsored evangelism, or mass government mandated atheism. This can only bring poopy stuff...

[wolven.livejournal.com]

All I mean is the following: The NEA is open to any and all forms of art, yes? But it doesn't mean that anyone Has to view it, or participate.

The same is true for education initiatives and social security benefits.

The FBIs appeal to another blanket term group, "the religious" or "faithful." I simply want to have that group be inclusive, and that inclusion explicitly stated, not that their expression be Required, in any other forum.