Friday, August 19, 2011

art and government

The latest news around town is that someone looked up some old songs I made and is going around playing them for people in the neighborhood, suggesting that the song or songs proves something or have some kind of relevance to whether or not the town government is well run or some song is supposed to be relevant to whether or not the town has a legitimate reason to have spent $60,000 prosecuting me. Sound, light, and gravity decay at the inverse square of distance, meaning the charge against me is impossible, even if some people do not understand art.

Shakespeare wrote Richard III but he did not murder his nephews. Nevertheless, the theaters were closed by religious zealots in 1642 and the Globe theater was destroyed by puritans.

Satire, character, context... the zealots didn't care about that. When you read an individual sonnet, for example, you can be sure Shakespeare is Christian, Protestant, Catholic, Pagan, atheists, gay, straight... if you take an individual piece out of a play you could say he was a murderer, insane, a liar... etc.

And no I didn't say I produced art as great as Shakespeare's. I wasn't trying to. But you can't hear the songs and not notice satire, humor and character, can you?

But that Shakespeare is beyond reproach, or suppression, was not obvious to everyone in 1642, was it? Lot of people hated Shakespeare and the theater in general. Actors will little better than prostitutes, in their opinion. Yet here we are 500 years later and we kind of know who was right. Not the zealots.

So someone is going around playing some song which supposedly proves something in order to try and stop people in the neighborhood from supporting me against a town that is spending tons of money to get me for legitimate reason.

Which song is it? And of these? You see some of where whatever song they have or don't like is coming from...

I wouldn't waste my time on this problem but it kind of shows malice to me, with no real legitimate issue for people to complain about. I didn't make them go download a song they don't like... they hate it so much, they are going around playing it for neighbors.

Sigh. All I want is to run a small business and be able to exercise my constitutional rights at the same time. I would like open, accountable government. I would like the government to treat all people equally and fairly. I would like due process and the rule of law. I would like the economy to grow and small business to be able to invest without interference from intrusive government.

While were at it, I would like art to be off limits as a reason for a government to deprive me of my property.

Members of the government are aware that the people who filed complaints on "dog barking" originally are the same ones downloading and sharing the song. They can do that -- share the song -- but the government is obligated to note the fact that the legitimacy of the original "dog barking" complaint is extremely suspect. If the government continues to work with and promote the agenda of people who have outed themselves as having a malicious and personal agenda, well, that would be a problem. The government should say, well, maam, you seem to have changed your story or have an agenda with no public interest. We only do things that have some kind of public interest. Sorry, the constitution does not allow us to work with this complaint any more.

See? If you say you hear loud dogs, you cannot then say you're real problem is you do don't like some song. Or you cannot make racially charged comments on the internet. You have to stick to your story, which is dog barking. If the government doesn't care that you changed your story, then the government is in error. If the government spends $60,000 to make your charges stick even though you keep changing your story, that's a problem too.

The government has the burden of proof. The government has obligations to treat all fairly under the 14th amendment.

You call the cops. You say Fred stole your horse. Fred says no, it was always my horse and shows the receipt from when he bought it and a photograph of him on the horse from 5 years ago. Then you say yeah, well, but Fred tried to hit on my wife or he is just such an ass... at this point the cop is supposed to leave, not hire a special prosecutor from the biggest law firm in Albany and figure out if there is a secondary charge they can get Fred on now that the horse stealing situation isn't panning out...

The government long ago should have walked away from a cabal of complainers who have no legitimate complaint. The opposite happened in this case. In fact, it may be worse than the analogy with the horse above. The cop may have asked you to report Fred for something before it had occurred to you to file a complaint.

No comments:

Post a Comment