But, people ask me, is it right to smirk? Frankly, I see the smirk as a useful piece of social evolution. A smirk is a snarl with a few less teeth on display. When you smirk, Conservatives quiver inside.Classic Smirk
Sunday, February 11, 2007
Margaret Atwood Makes Me Smirk So Hard
Margaret Atwood makes the business case for promoting Canadian artists abroad, and laments Tory funding cutbacks. She also reams 'em good. A master of English prose, when you read this piece you will find the very language of it causes your facial features to curl into a Liberal Smirk, and by the last paragraph you will literally ooze contempt.
But, people ask me, is it right to smirk? Frankly, I see the smirk as a useful piece of social evolution. A smirk is a snarl with a few less teeth on display. When you smirk, Conservatives quiver inside.
Classic Smirk
But, people ask me, is it right to smirk? Frankly, I see the smirk as a useful piece of social evolution. A smirk is a snarl with a few less teeth on display. When you smirk, Conservatives quiver inside.Classic Smirk
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
19 comments:
Margaret Atwwod is 100% right.
Canadian artists have a right to be subsidized, because they aren't good enough to do it on their own. They need the help, just like Dion is going to "help" women candidates by banning male candidates. Perfectly Liberaly logical .
Especially if they are left wing artists espousing the Trudeaupian socialist vision.
Ya, good use of our taxes.
So, for a Conservative subsidizing oil companies to the tune of billions is okay, giving a few pennies to artists is bad. Have you ever read a book?
actually BCL, to be accurate, the "subsidies" aren't really that; what the oil sands people have been granted (and I don't know whether the practice occured during the Chretien era or before) is accelerated depreciation of capital costs. In shorty, they're allowed to write off their capital costs prior to being in a taxabkle status.
It's similar to the tax treatment for CCA for computer software (100% annually) versus having to amortize the capital costs of, say, office furniture, by only 10% annually.
Not a nickel in tax is being avoided...it's simply being deferred to (presumably) allow for the enormous capital costs of developments of this type.
Although we are on differing sides of the political spectrum, you seem like a fairly intelligent guy (and I like your sense of humour)...as such, it's best to get your facts straight...
Oh and by the way, Kate has changed her picture on her blog...the face portrait has been replaced with a topless photo...of her in the bath, even.
You should check it out :)
Bruce
Corporate welfare goes by many different names.
And you lied about Kate.
Well, both my wife and I are probably considered to be high income earners. We max out our RRSPs every year. We're deferring taxes, not avoiding them. I hardly think that could classify us as "welfare recipients"...the taxes will ultimately be paid.
Heh...I didn't lie...I just didn't say the photo was from she was, ohh, probably about three...
And I'm assuming that in that era, in rural SK, the outdoor washtup WAS considered to be the bathtub...
Bruce
Canadian artists already receive huge taxpayer subsidies, it's called the CBC.
Add to that the Canadian Content broadcast requirements mandated by the CRTC. Maggie doth protest too much.
I love how the philistines on the Right rush to criticise high culture. Shouldn't these people be at a monster truck rally or frying bologna or something?
I don't understand the smirk...I find it very passive-aggressive and I prefer to insult people directly, with generous helpings of f-words, if need be. But, when it comes to troglodytes, you use what's in your arsenal, I guess.
...Shouldn't these people be at a monster truck rally . . .?
At least we don't demand, like petulant little children, that you pay for our tickets. Why should I pay for yours?
And ti-guy, I bet, like the true moron of the left you are, you think "Voice of Fire" is a masterpiece.
Actually, farmers beg for cash all the time. Business people beg for gov. cash...ALL...THE...TIME. Conservatives tend to want the free-market for others, Rat. They'll scoop up any money they can get their hands on.
Artists are business people as much as any Conservative, and they tend to ask for a lot less money. Why deny them?
I hope all the critics of funding artists have oodles of children who want to be in the arts....hmmm.
Not all kids play hockey - some paint, some play the piano.
About the monster trucks, car races, demolition derby's - they burn gas wastefully on "nothing" and pollute the air - boy isn't that clever. Just to hear big noise and watch garbage. How elevating to our society.
At least we don't demand, like petulant little children, that you pay for our tickets. Why should I pay for yours?
...he hissed, petulantly. Tickets to the theatah aren't free of charge, you know (actually, I guess you wouldn't know...)
And...OMG...Voice of Fire? You're still bitching about that? Lordy. Seek help...and lay off the fried bologna, you angry clod.
"Artists are business people as much as any Conservative, and they tend to ask for a lot less money. Why deny them?"
No, an artist is a business person if the SELL something, otherwise they are just a kept toy of certain elitists who don't actually want to spend their own money on the "Art" created. Why fund them? And if ti-guy wants to go see the vagina monologues again I figure he/she/it should pay the whole freight. If it is good then it should survive without my pocket book being raped.
No hidden agenda from Margaret, eh? I'm sure she wouldn't dream of accepting any welfare cheques for writing a book. I wonder if these subsidies were only for 'progressive' type authors, you know, socialists, communists, marxists, feminists, environuts, pornographers, etc.
Why would Atwood need welfare cheques to write a book? More importantly, why don't you read on, 'nonny?
LOL Middle-manager types talkin'bout art.
Post a Comment