SDA regular Gord Tulk has pointed out what appears to be a very well coordinated letter writing campaign to the CRTC CBSC. It’s concerning this interview: Part 1 & Part 2.
Was Krista Erickson’s behaviour really that egregious?!? The Reasonable Person Test suggests not. Therefore, why the thousands of “complaints” to the CRTC? Could it be that the members of Leftards.ca don’t want the rot of corruption within public arts funding to be exposed to the Canadian public?!
Might it be that a tiny minority of well connected “artists” have had their proverbial snouts in the public trough for a LONG TIME and don’t want the tap to be shut off? Might it be that this portion of the interview hit just a little too close to the bone in the hearts & minds of Canada’s Left?
Update: Blogger A Dog Named Kyoto has discovered a key component of the Astroturfing Coordination.
Some of the comments on the Facebook page of Margie Gillis are truly despicable. One of the most repugnant comes from “Professor” Colleen Franklin of Sudbury’s Laurentian University:
What an embarrassing, entirely un-Canadian thing to say by any citizen of our country, let alone a professor. Why is it that so many supporters of totalitarianism occupy the once esteemed halls of academia?
Incidentally, it should be no surprise that Ms. Franklin also supports the destruction of the Canadian economy. I wonder if that includes her own salary?
Well Davenport it’s pretty hard to compete against other subsidized magazines unless you take the subsidies yourself. Same deal with tv shows, movies etc etc. The attention this is getting Sun News will only help their already stellar ratings. This is like putting gas on the fire baby. Loving it.
james: “Well Davenport it’s pretty hard to compete against other subsidized magazines unless you take the subsidies yourself. Same deal with tv shows, movies etc etc.”
Sure, fine, whatever. I have no problem with public subsidies for the arts — whether they go to Margie Gillis’s company or Quebecor’s magazines. What I do have is a problem with hypocrisy, like Quebecor criticising others for receiving art grants while simultaneously accepting arts grants for themselves, or blog writers/readers who attack arts organizations they don’t like for same while giving their favoured institutions a pass.
So pick a stance and stick with it — if $1.2M over 13 years for a dance company is outrageous to you, then demonstrate equal outrage for millions in grants annually for a media company that happens to own your favourite news channel.
Totally agree, Davenport. End subsidies, period.
By that standard the CBC should quit reporting about anything the government does right? Since you know it’s part of it after all.
Ms. Gillis is quite the artist. Here’s a short clip of her work that may inspire you.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c9aZ-kNb1Qg&feature=related
I could feel the plasticity between my ears oozing while I watched.
As he has proven in times past, Davenport is a DISINGENOUS LIAR!!!
No true conservative believes in unending welfare … of any sort, be in individual or corporate. The notion repeated in the Leftist Bubble Chamber (where Davenport is a chief Grand Poo-Bah) continues to repeat the LIE that folks on the right support more corporate welfare.
Furthermore, when we get to brass tacks, all Leftards like Davenport believe in Redistribution of Wealth to “less fortunate” individuals like Margie Gill… oh wait.
Another Leftard theory ripped to shreds. Shocker!
Somebody needs a hug…
Oh, and Davenport +1
I think what is being lost in the trivia of CRTC vs CBSC is a basic question: Why should taxpayers fund ‘the arts’?
I don’t see why they should. As I noted above, ‘art’ is by definition, self-defined; it’s not objective. Furthermore, because so much of Canadian ‘culture’ is government funded, the arts community has become a clique, a cabal of cronyism, self-serving, self-defining..and living off, not the acceptance of the taxpayer, but forced taxation of that taxpayer.
We citizens don’t get to vote on their funding; indeed, for much of the ‘art’ so funded, a majority of Canadians are disinterested and even hostile (eg, to the CBC).
So, why should this small cabal of self-defined people who call themselves artists, live off the taxpayer? Cut their funding.
wallyj,
thanks for the link. I think it shows that Gillis plagiarizes the works of others as I’m sure when I was at university I saw another student perform most of the same dance moves after ingesting ‘shrooms.
Robert W. (Vancouver): “No true conservative believes in unending welfare … of any sort, be in individual or corporate. The notion repeated in the Leftist Bubble Chamber (where Davenport is a chief Grand Poo-Bah) continues to repeat the LIE that folks on the right support more corporate welfare.”
Then, by all means, insist that SDA to go after corporate welfare as intensely and unwaveringly as it goes after individual welfare or grants and subsidies for organizations it doesn’t like. After all, if all welfare is bad, then oil company subsidies, and Big Agriculture subsidies, and banking sector tax breaks, and economic incentives for tech and engineering firms, etc etc. are bad. I see folks here spending a lot of time griping about arts grants and green energy subsidies — “lefty causes”, in a word — but where are they on stuff like this or this?
Tax breaks are not a subsidies! Not having revenue or income confiscated by the government is not the same thing at all as having the government *give* you a fat cheque. Subsidies are about taking money from someone (through taxes) to give to someone else. We oppose that.
If these “interpretive dancers” actually made money and the government didn’t tax them on that income I’d be the first person to applaud that ok. That’d be great. I hate the dancing but whatever.
Is not art a natural human talent? Than why are we the people giving money to support said artists? If in fact they have one artistic bone in their bodies?
Trust me, those with real talent don’t need to be carried.
Only the lazy need fear.
Well now, I’m pretty much convinced that Swan-hands must be indulging in way to many psychedelic drugs.
Hey couchpotato, oops davenport, when did the washington post and new york times become Canadian newspapers?
I wonder if any of the loons complaining about Krista Erickson (who can be a bit irritating) complained about Avi Lewis’s treatment of Ayaan Hirsi Ali?
Didn’t think so.
To be fair, 3,956 of those complaints came from Margaret Attwoods’ cottage on Georgian Bay.
Regulations and subsidies are not the same.
davenport – a lot of people have complained about the regulations that, for example, give Quebec dairy farmers the ‘cream’ rights (not subsidies) that give Quebec the majority of dairy farm rights (over 10,000 in Quebec, 7,000 in Ontario, and only 1,000 in Alberta)…with Quebec allowed almost 40% of dairy produce sales in Canada.
Then, there’s the CWB – yet another govt regulatory interference.
I think that regulations should be reduced. What about subsidies? Here, I’m conflicted.
Farmers in Canada receive, compared to the European and USA markets, the lowest subsidies of all.
The problem is: should the agricultural sector receive subsidies to enable/encourage farming? I’m of the opinion: Quite possibly: Yes.
Sounds strange, but, I’m looking at it from an ecological perspective. The ecological reality is that our environment (climate, rainfall, temperature, sunlight, soil type) means that we have a short growing season in comparison to, for example, the southern parts of the US or Europe.
So- to expect our farmers to be able to compete for food production when other areas of the world are, agriculturally, more productive – is naive.
We can produce a lot of wheat but fresh produce? No. And – wheat can’t be grown in massive amounts everywhere. Some areas are more suited to dairy, or to fresh produce..Only a few areas can produce grapes.
So, I think that the government has to encourage agriculture everywhere; We can’t import everything! – and this can be in encouraging greenhouse for year round fresh produce.
In 2000, farm revenue was 38.3 billion and operating expenses were 33.2 billion. Not much profit. Not much incentive to go into farming.
I’m all for getting the regulations out of farming but I think that our climate requires subsidies – or we’ll end up having to import everything.
File this under the ‘Nice work if you can get it’ heading?
Your tax dollars at work:
http://forums.anandtech.com/archive/index.php/t-666960.html
” CALGARY, Alberta (Reuters) – So this is art — for seven days Mexican performance artist Israel Mora ejaculated, in private, into seven glass vials.
After this and presumably after Mora, 33, had rested, the vials of semen were put in a white, refrigerated box, and strung up for exhibit between two trees at the Banff Centre, a cultural institution in the Rocky Mountain resort of Banff.
Titled “Level 7”, the exhibit has been on display for the past six days. Thursday is the seventh, and last, day.
Banff Centre spokeswoman Connie MacDonald said the performance is part of Mora’s seven-week residency. The cost, about C$4,000 (1,800 pounds), is being picked up by the centre and the Mexican government. The residency, called “SloMo”, has time as its theme and a number of artists are involved.
Mora’s cooler bears the label: “Warning: Contains 6 ml of semen extracted through masturbation, distributed among seven glass tubes.”
MacDonald said the exhibit had gone mobile one day as Mora “did an walk downtown with his cooler as part of the performance. (The temperature) was about minus 25, and a group of artists from the centre went along with him, and he was fairly discreet and he wasn’t trying to make a big show.”
The vials represent the cycle of life in Mora’s family.
“‘Level 7’ aims to examine the concepts of privacy and intimacy within contemporary society,” the centre says. ”
——
Here’s a thought; cut all arts funding, give the money BACK to the taxpayers, and let us decide if we want to fund this.
I’ll go out on a limb and suggest this wouldn’t be funded if we had a choice in the matter.
Or is this part of our culture that must be protected and nourished with our tax dollars because otherwise it would become a lost art?
The “artiste”, on her facebook page sez this:
Notify its advertisers (you’ll find a list and contact info below) that if they support the channel, you will BOYCOTT their business. This is particularly effective with profit-driven entities such as Quebecor, owner of Sun News TV.
This person who devours taxpayers money to do her own thing that few care about, is telling other people to damage a money making free enterprise that supplies the money she freely takes.
Actually the whole post of compaints is quite stupid for such a sophist.
Thing is, have many people here ever hear of this woman?
Have anybody had any desire to see what she does?
How would this freeloader feel if somebody started a campaign aganist her, in the same way that she just undertook.
Of course nobody will, normal people don’t do that, only socialsts/fascits types.
As for the professor, don’t nobody know that the professors have acquired all the knowledge and that there is none left for anyone else?
Quite a socialist/fascist, the professor.
ET, well said @ 9:10.
If Ms. Gillis could get each of the nice people who complained on her behalf to send her $10.00, then would she need her grant/subsidy/whatever from us?
Conversely, if she can’t get her supporters to support her, then why should I through my tax dollars?
parasite- good word.
SKANK ALERT!!!!!
I notice Ms. Gillis is wearing a sleeveless top, alert the storm troopers at the CBC!