In other news: "Progressives Lack Impulse Control Like Addicts: Study"

Being Alive Linked to Eventual Death: Study

Not in his lifetime it didn't. Not all art is commercial viable, but that doesn't mean it isn't good art. You have to admit, even in the face of great art, many people don't see any "utility" in it.

As a contrast: Pick any popular singer (Brittany Spears, Lady GaGa, Beyonce, etc): All their music is very commercially viable. Is it good "art"? Don't think so.

Yeah, Van Gogh sucks.

I have less of a problem with government funding of the arts, than I do with it being the exclusive funding for a particular artist, especially at this point in history. I like how the Ahmansons approach arts funding: they will not be the sole or majority funding source for any one artist. They'll help out, but they won't be somebody's paycheck. But, you can't argue that government funding of the arts is worthless as a concept, since there have been many great works produced by it. The first one that comes to mind is Das Boot. A huge chunk of money came from the German Government to make that film, arguably one of the greatest war movies ever made.

The problem now is that the Left completely owns the art world. And who's fault is that? I lay the blame partly on my fellow conservatives, who have long shunned the arts, and thus silenced anything that might be portrayed from that perspective. As the saying goes, you can't win, if you don't play the game, and conservatives have all but forfeited the arts game to the deconstructionist Left.

However, even Camille Paglia believes that the Left has run out of ideas in the arts, and that the future of the arts lay with religious. This is good news for the arts. But the artistic community is decidedly left-wing, and thus probably wouldn't buy much of that work, making it's commercial appeal limited. Should government not have anything at all to do with funding that perspective? I think it should.

If you really want to see the arts flourish with perspectives that match your own, then be a patron of the arts. Don't just tell artists to go find money if you're not willing to be part of that solution yourself. Sponsor an artist, so they can continue to develop their skills and create works for you - that's what patronage is. Everyone thinks conservatives are greedy capitalists. So be it, but in the spirit of capitalism, throw some capital in that direction to invest in changing the artistic landscape to reflect your own values!

Groups that try to preserve the purity of a language always end up marginalizing it, and hastening it's demise in the long run, because you end up running out of speakers of that pure language. To keep a language alive, you have to be able to add new words to keep it relevant to the speakers of that language. That's why English has taken over as the world's common tongue. It's very receptive to the addition of new words completely made up, or from any other language, especially if it encapsulates an idea well.

This is why the Dems are going to be dragged through the streets in November.

Unfortunately, it seems like a great idea except for that it fails on a fundamental level, and belies the same linear and flawed thinking that Dems engage in all the time. Human behavior always adapts to changing circumstances, and what will happen is that high-paid state employees like doctors & nurses (who work for state universities and hospitals), lawyers, scientists, etc will just leave working for the state/gov't, rather than take a 20% pay cut. This will create a huge shortage of employees that are necessary for a wide variety of services, and the only way to draw them in will be to pay them more, which is why federal pay was structured the way it was in the first place - pay them well and give them benefits and tenure, so that they gov't can attract the best and the brightest (that didn't work so well, but it was the original idea). The only thing consistent about human behavior is self-interest, and self-interest will steer people away from those jobs. It's why Canadian doctors (most of whom are employees of the gov't) come in droves to work in the US - they can make more money.

In CA, the state has cut employee pay by up to 10%, and that is already causing higher paid, necessary professionals who work for the state to consider leaving. At 20%, you'll have a mass exodus.

Not only mixed messages, but mixed tenses: the article's title should read "shot and killed" or "shoot and kill". Or, it might be correct (in common verbal usage) if it said "Police done shot and kill armed man near Capitol", but not for print. Things continue to slip at the AP.

To me, you answer your own question in your three critical paragraphs. Shockingly bad CG and bad writing make for a bad movie, period. I had no particular expectations going in to this movie, other than the assumption that it would be professionally done. Big mistake. Any script that contains the phrase "Let's do this!", right before a big sequence, should be immediately cast into the Lake of Fire. CG gunshot wounds that don't track properly (e.g., move around on the protagonists head) - Lake of Fire! And there are so many other Lake of Fire moments! You also forgot the mix was terrible. There was a massive drop in volume on every big explosion (esp. the helicopter crash). It's called compression, and you're not supposed to notice it. I'd put this on the same level as Terminator 3, which was also a pile of horse hockey.