Letters To The Ethical Spectacle

Writing fiction is the most exciting thing going right now--this month's Brooklyn of Dreams wasn't planned in advance but just happened. Unlike the essays I write and forget about a day later, I seem to live for an entire month with the characters in my mind; even after I am done writing stories, I retell them to myself every night as I fall asleep.

There is a single link between Brooklyn and Kazoo Concerto of a few months ago; I seem to be constructing an immense story space for the reader to explore. Next up (don't know when): a linked nine story series about two brothers and a sister in the software development business. It will have one character in common with Brooklyn of Dreams.

This month, I had my first hard disk crash ever, after seventeen years of computing. Out of pure luck, I lost no text, but I lost a lot of Spectacle mail. If you wrote me in January and your missive isn't here, it vanished in the crash; please write me again.

As always, Jonathan Wallace


Flame of the Month


Clear those marijauna-clouded minds!

Patriots are Republican! Join the fight against Big Government(more like Big Brother). STOP the banning of free speech by politically correct liberals! STOP the failed socialist in the Democratic Party! STOP criminal cuddling by the liberals! PRESERVE our right to bear arms so we can resist the oppresive bueacracy foreseen by our ForeFathers like Jefferson, who where Republican.

JOIN THE REPUBLICANS AND PRESERVE THE INDIVIDUAL!

Frank Young #fyoung3@ix.netcom.com


Defund the NEA


Dear Mr. Wallace:

This is in response to an article from your netzine, vol III, No. 9, September 1997.

from Jim Ray's Article "Defund the National Endowment for the Arts":

Unlike performance artist Karen Finley, I think the federal government should get out of the art business altogether and completely defund the NEA.

Okay, as an artist, I'm willing to disarm, but not unilaterally. I am all for defunding the NEA as soon as all farm subsidies, wasteful arms spending and Black Budget, the War On Drugs economy, Newt Gingrich's limo service, free ads for milk, tobacco subsidies, etc. etc. etc. are terminated. And they'll have to go first because they waste way more money and do much less to improve my life.

As Ray points out, the market economy rewards some forms of art quite well. But certainly not all forms. As Austrian economist Ludwig Mises pointed out in Human Action, truly advanced artists and philosophers, not just people making pottery or whatever people want to buy, will often have serious economic problems. But the bright side for capitalism as a whole is that such individuals are so driven to create that they will do so under whatever circumstances they have to put up with, so they'll still "deliver the goods" in the end. Example: Van Gogh who never sold a painting in his life.

And let's face it, certain forms are art are elitist in nature. Most people will never develop the auralization and conceptual skills to fully appreciate the late Beethoven quartets, just as some people will not develop the ability to understand the calculus, or the business analytic skills to determine the most cost-efficient country to find labour to manufacture sneakers. Art that makes such demands has always been, and remains a niche market. Beethoven will never be able to compete with Michael Jackson, as Nietzsche will never be able to compete with Dave Barry.

I don't have a problem with that. Ray is certainly correct that the government is unlikely to fund art which challenges the status quo. But are corporations any different? Is Shell Oil going to fund an opera on the tribulations of the Ogoni tribe? I don't think so. Anyone who believes major corporations are the next Medici patrons of great art is welcome to point out the new Michelangelos who now shower the public with great art on corporate commission.

I am sympathetic to Ray's deep sense of injustice at being taxed for things that don't benefit him directly. As an electro-acoustic artist, in the late 1980s I was quite upset by the DAT royalty tax which was passed by an essentially secret agreement between the major record labels and the US congress. This tax was based on the premise that anyone who buys a blank DAT tape intends to use it for illegal copying, and so should pay a royalty. So I and many other "underground" artists were paying taxes to Michael Jackson and co. when we bought blank DATs for our original work. Funny but I don't recall too many libertarians expressing deep concern about that particular tax, at the time or later as they directed their attention to more relevant issues about how Karen Finley was ripping them off.

Eric Lyon eric@iamas.ac.jp


Jim Ray replies:

Eric Lyon said:

Okay, as an artist, I'm willing to disarm, but not unilaterally. I am all for defunding the NEA as soon as all farm subsidies, wasteful arms spending and Black Budget, the War On Drugs economy, Newt Gingrich's limo service, free ads for milk, tobacco subsidies, etc. etc. etc. are terminated. And they'll have to go first because they waste way more money and do much less to improve my life.

Libertarians agree on all these things, but your "you first" demand is a no-starter. Everyone want's the other's pork cut first, the only possible compromise is all at once (which I'm fully for). A radical step, but the prosperity we'd get from leaving people be would (IMO) be incredible.

As Ray points out, the market economy rewards some forms of art quite well. But certainly not all forms. As Austrian economist Ludwig Mises pointed out in Human Action, truly advanced artists and philosophers, not just people making pottery or whatever people want to buy, will often have serious economic problems. But the bright side for capitalism as a whole is that such individuals are so driven to create that they will do so under whatever circumstances they have to put up with, so they'll still "deliver the goods" in the end. Example: Van Gogh who never sold a painting in his life.

I don't recall, but I don't think any government of the time was intelligent enough to give him a subsidy (and his heirs and the heirs of his friends are doing quite well, which is worth something, though not to the artist himself). I'm not sure whether this leads to an argument that modern governments are made up of smarter or more-honest or more tasteful people than those of Van Gogh's time.

I doubt it, but then, I live in Miami, whose politicians are still working to make Orange County CA in the late '80s look fiscally responsible.

And let's face it, certain forms are art are elitist in nature. Most people will never develop the auralization and conceptual skills to fully appreciate the late Beethoven quartets, just as some people will not develop the ability to understand the calculus, or the business analytic skills to determine the most cost-efficient country to find labour to manufacture sneakers. Art that makes such demands has always been, and remains a niche market. Beethoven will never be able to compete with Michael Jackson, as Nietzsche will never be able to compete with Dave Barry.

Agreed. (Few can come close to The Dave, in my book!:)

I don't have a problem with that. Ray is certainly correct that the government is unlikely to fund art which challenges the status quo. But are corporations any different? Is Shell Oil going to fund an opera on the tribulations of the Ogoni tribe? I don't think so. Anyone who believes major corporations are the next Medici patrons of great art is welcome to point out the new Michelangelos who now shower the public with great art on corporate commission.

Corporations, I doubt. I don't trust them when they get big. I'd trust INDIVIDUALS to put out challenging art. One recent example is Dr. Kevorkian's painting, which is interesting. Another is my brother's stuff, which is finally beginning to sell.

I am sympathetic to Ray's deep sense of injustice at being taxed for

Actually, it's more well-hidden sarcastic annoyance than injustice. I'll see Mapplethorpe using a bullwhip in a (AHEM) unique way and think, "pity you didn't stick that NEA check up there." I try to sound more mature than my initial thoughts upon seeing these fruits of April the 15th, and that's what most folks see instead. Perhaps I shouldn't restrain myself so! :^)

things that don't benefit him directly. As an electro-acoustic artist, in the late 1980s I was quite upset by the DAT royalty tax which was passed by an essentially secret agreement between the major record labels and the US congress. This tax was based on the premise that anyone who buys a blank DAT tape intends to use it for illegal copying, and so should pay a royalty. So I and many other "underground" artists were paying taxes to Michael Jackson and co. when we bought blank DATs for our original work. Funny but I don't recall too many libertarians expressing deep concern about that particular tax, at the time or later as they directed their attention to more relevant issues about how Karen Finley was ripping them off.

You may not recall it, but it happened anyway. For one thing, I'd not rely on the major media [or even the Libertarian party] to get or accurately report all of libertarian thought. For *multiple* examples of what you don't recall, check the cypherpunks archives from that period. Karen is actually ripping more than just me off, she is trying to steal a word, censorship, to describe what is NOT censorship by any stretch of the imagination. She is free to do her artwork on someone else's dime, the givernment is stopping her from doing it on mine. As I said, the controversial stuff like her or Mapplethorpe is easy, I wanna defund it ALL as a matter of principle, and various artists' stretching of the bounds of good taste to the point that the fatcat community notices and slaps her wrist by defunding just her or Mapplethorpe has no effect on this principle.

Most people who disagree go off on all sorts of tangents. The DAT thing was a new one, mostly it's "You must support all sorts of military waste, then," as if one thing (forced speech) has anything to do with the other ("the united States shall maintain a navy") AFA the U.S. Constitution is concerned. It's evidently hard to defend the idea of an NEA in a vacuum, which is telling, IMO.

Thanks for reading and commenting, Jonathan has permission to use my part of this if he finds it useful.


Freedom of Speech


I fully agree with an article (authored by you?) stating that libraries installing Internet blocking software are violating the Constitution. However, what do you think about this scenario? A local public library, in full agreement with your analysis, installs Internet stations without blocking software, but also installs a separate Internet station with blocking software, to allow for the choice. Recently, a book (I don't remember the title) came out with two editions--one geared for adults, and the other geared for children. The library purchases both copies, and makes both available for any age group...as with the Internet stations. Are these cases analogous? What do you think about libraries making both options available? As long as both are available to patrons without age restrictions (or any other), wouldn't the availability of Internet blocking software then be constitutional?

Catherine Lord cathlord@kcls.org

The case you raise is a more difficult one, but I think it would still be unconstitutional. Quite aside from that, I don't recommend this approach from a policy standpoint.

1. Constitutionality. Although the use of filters would be optional, the library would still be delegating its decision-making to third parties using vague standards (illegal under the MPAA cases) and censorship of a good deal of speech not meeting any imaginable criteria would still be occuring.

Try this analogy: if the Christian Coalition objects to a lot of content in your library, would you create a Christian Coalition room containing only CC-approved content? After all, its use would be optional.

2. Policy. Pursuant to ALA standards, librarians have always rightly resisted the implication that it is their responsibility to babysit kids--and many have said that when they are forced to do it, they do it badly. (For example, the only book a librarian ever denied me as a child was Oscar Lewis' La Vida, a sociology book I needed for a research report.) Putting an optional filter on one machine makes the librarian responsible for worrying about what children can see using that filter, children using the wrong machine, etc. I would prefer a policy that required parental consent before the Net could be used at all by children under a certain age (13, say), then gave unfiltered access--this is much cleaner.


An Auschwitz Alphabet


Dear Mr. Wallace:

I am a education student trying to pull all the resourses that I can togeither on a Soicial Studies unit concerned with the Concentration camps of Nazi German. I was very impressed with you web site and was wondering if there is any way that I can get a hard copy for use in my class. Please let me know what I would have to do or other options concerning this information. Thank you for a well presented web site and a educational reminder.

Sincerely,
Jerry Amundsen amundsen@unionky.edu


Dear Mr. Wallace:

I am an eigth grade English teacher in Ohio. My class is just now finishing up the young adult novel "The Giver" by Lois Lowry. It will take us into a unit of the Holocaust. We will be reading "Night". Do you have any suggestions? Or is there anything that you feel is important to share with the kids that is not ordinarily taught in a Holocaust unit? I found some valuable information off your Alphabet. Very painful. I must share that I do believe there is a God, but I understand your convictions as well. Your help would be greatly appreciated, and thank you for your contribution to educating others. Take care.

Sincerely,
Amy Jo Speaks tespeaks@erinet.com


Greetings,

I don't know if I really have all that much to say, except for that I'm truly sorry for how you have been treated over the years. To say that the Jews killed Jesus...Well, what is there to say to such stupidity?? Not only was he Jewish himself, but if these biblical stories had taken place elsewhere, Jesus obviously would have been killed by the inhabbitants of that particular country. I also must say that I'm ashamed of how my own country, Sweden, acted during the second world war! To say that we were neutral is nothing but a terrible lie, and we even turned our backs to our neighbouring countries. What scares me more than anything is the fact that man never seems to learn from history, that we still today have nazies walking down our streets!

All the best,
Anne anne.backlund@lund.mail.telia.com

ps. I visited Israel last year, and Jerusalem is one of the most interesting places I've ever been to. Bless you..


Miscellaneous


\ Dear Jonathan:

I check your site with some regularity, and generally find its contents interesting and informed, especially the materials related to internet censorship.

An exception is Motherhood, Maidenhood and Modernity. I'm not sure what it's doing there, since it seems to have little connection to the issues you generally pursue. As a polemic it is poorly conceived (pun intended) and poorly executed. Sy is entitled to his opinion, but we, the readers, are at least entitled to well-supported and well-reasoned opinions, or you're just wasting our time. Instead, there's a lot of uninformed generalizations and bald assertions on topics ranging from sex to sociology to history to early childhood development. Many or most could be refuted - but why bother? Life is too short, and it would take too long. Besides, the facts are clearly irrelevant.

Joan Bertin bertin@ncac.org


Dear Jonathan,

I have just come accross your pages while researching on the subject of sociobiology. Didn't have much time to read it all, but a few screens and your biography prompted me to send this letter.

I may not personally agree with all your opinions on ethics or anthropology (will decide after more investigation), but one thing I know for sure, they will surely be considered in the book on education I am writing now, since they represent a profound and sincere effort towards understanding, and a most intelligent one.

I thank you for letting us cybernauts share your thoughts. The Internet is a warmer place after reading your prose.

Best regards,
Hugo M. Castellano webmaster@nalejandria.com


Dear Mr. Wallace:

I read the section of your page on Orwell and I disagree with you. 1984 is not a portrayal of Soviet Russia, but a description of life under any totalitarian system (exagurrated slightly for interest purposes). The government of every large country today is, in effect, totalitarian. This includes America, because being able to vote for the beuracrat of your choice is not democracy. The upper class protects itself much like it did in 1984.

Do you really beleive that because Russia has opened up that there is hope for the Russian people, or people in general for that matter. It's Ingsoc compared to Death Worship, or Capitalism compared to Communism, it is all the same. this is what Orwell is saying. Just because Russia has adopted our version of totalitarianism does not mean they will be any better off.

While I would love to see a world of equality evolve because of what you call human natures resiliance, it is not going to happen. Human nature is whatever the Party and Big Brother say it is. Thank You for your time.

Robert B. davirosa@rosey.com


Dear Mr. Wallace:

I'm reading your pages on Hiroshima. You might be interested in:

http://titan.iwu.edu/~rwilson/hiroshima

Regards,
Ray Wilson
Professor Emeritus, Ohio Wesleyan University
rwilson@titan.iwu.edu


Dear Mr. Wallace:

Bob Wilson's article, The Conservative Military, was interesting and a seemingly accurate portrayal of Clinton's disregard for the military, except for one point. His statement, 'Consequently, the current commander in chief would not be a suitable candidate for commissioning as a second lieutenant. As an enlisted man, he would not be considered for access to classified information.', is inaccurate. In the Air Force, prior service marijuana use is rarely a disqualifying offense for a security clearance, commissioning, or nuclear weapons duty. The service academies may have different rules, but not all prior service drug use will disqualify someone for sensitive positions that require a top secret clearance.

Except for this minor point, Mr. Wilson pointed out some of the reasons why the President is not always very popular with many service men and women.

Jim Bragge
jimb@lvdi.net


Dear Jonathan Wallace:

I came across the Ethical Spectacle and was attracted by various of the things that you have written. However I find some of your contributors and contributions incredibly right wingt. That is from my perspective as an English Liberal.

On this side of the Atlantic some of the views expressed would shock. On issues such as capital punishment, abortion, euthanasia you provide links to websites which are appallingly reactionary. Often they cloak prejudice and lack of coherent argument in layers of religious and political abuse.

Is this how the average US citizen thinks or does the Spectacle just attract a lunatc fringe?

John Tilley johntilley@cix.co.uk
Kingston upon Thames
England


Dear Mr. Wallace:

I've done quite a bit of reading tonight throughout your Spectacle Web pages (mainly featuring the Holocaust).

One brief word of constructive criticism. You need to double-check your punctuation, as you're misusing the pair of words, "its" and "it's."

"Its" = a possessive (no apostrophe, as with "his" and "her").

"It's" = a contraction for the phrase "it is."

Using the wrong one makes writing appear amateurish. It would do very well if you were to fix all such errors in your on-line "reprints" from various essays in the past found in Spectacle, that you have provided on the Web.

If need be, you can double-check by saying "his or her" in place of all uses of "its" and saying "it is" in place of all uses of "it's" when you review your material that you plan to make available. If you have chosen the wrong member of the pair, making the substitution I suggest here will reveal the mistake by the nonsense that typically results.

Other than this, your material is great (I've been here many more hours than I originally anticipated!).

Best Wishes,
Dave Simpson SIMPSOND@ELSX.DECnet.az.honeywell.com


Dear Mr. Wallace:

yesterday I heard a song on an oldies station, "four dead in ohio".. I couldn't quite understand what it was about. I looked it up on the web and found your Kent State page:

I am 21, and you can deduce for yourself my prior knowledge of this.. it was quite eye opening, thanks!!!

Steven Loomis srl@monkey.sbay.org