Beck just makes things up about Smithsonian exhibit
Glenn Beck falsely suggested that "tax dollars" were being used to pay for a Smithsonian art exhibit that included an image of what Beck described as "Jesus with ants on him." In fact, donations from companies, foundations, and individuals paid for the exhibit, not tax dollars.
Please upgrade your flash player. The video for this item requires a newer version of Flash Player. If you are unable to install flash you can download a QuickTime version of the video.
Beck claims "tax dollars" funded Smithsonian exhibit
Beck: "And then you have the tax dollars funding this wonderful art display. It's Christmas at the Smithsonian." On his Fox News show, Beck said of the exhibit at the Smithsonian's National Portrait Gallery, which is titled "Hide/Seek: Difference and Desire in American Portraiture":
Perfect storm. Eroding values. Hard work, sacrifice, thrift, honor, truth, God. As a nation born out of faith in God, how's that going today, huh? Twenty-five percent of those under 30 years of age describe their religion as atheist, agnostic, or nothing in particular. Now, as you get older, it goes down. Thirty to 40 years old, only 19 percent. Ages 40 to 50, 15 percent. If you're over 60, less than 10 percent say that.
And then you have the tax dollars funding this wonderful art display. It's Christmas at the Smithsonian. Here's this wonderful -- oh, look, it's Jesus with ants on him. They describe it as the first major exhibition to focus on the sexual difference in the making of modern American portraiture.
What? You got to be kidding me, right? What does this have to do with the birth of the baby Jesus, and why is he now covered in ants? Whose values are these? And you wonder why there's the breakdown of the family. [Glenn Beck, 11/30/10]
FACT: The exhibit is privately funded
Smithsonian lists contributions from private individuals and institutions. The National Portrait Gallery website lists the companies, foundations, and individuals who contributed to the exhibit:
The exhibition has been made possible by The Calamus Foundation with the leadership contributions of Donald A. Capoccia and Tommie L. Pegues, and The Andy Warhol Foundation for the Visual Arts. Major support is provided by the John Burton Harter Charitable Trust, E*TRADE, Ella Foshay, Vornado/Charles E. Smith, the Wyeth Foundation for American Art, Catherine V. Dawson, Robby Browne and Madison Cumnock, The Durst Organization, Ashton Hawkins and Johnnie Moore, The Robert Mapplethorpe Foundation, Occasions Caterers, the David Schwartz Foundation, Frank J. Sciame, Jonathan Sheffer and Christopher Barley, and Jon Stryker. Additional significant support is provided by many generous friends of the National Portrait Gallery, including Tonio Burgos and Associates, Cambria Estate Winery, Lisa and Porter Dawson, Craig Kruger and Eric Michael, the Toby D. Lewis Philanthropic Fund, The Morrison & Foerster Foundation, Skidmore, Owings & Merrill, David von Storch, Alexander and Bonin, H. van Ameringen Foundation, Lisa Bodager and Rebecca Linder, the David Bohnett Foundation, Dan Critchett and Greg Slimko, Mr. and Mrs. James R. Doty, Charles C. Francis, Sidney Lawrence and Thomas Birch, Weston F. Milliken, Leo Mullen and Helene Patterson, the Jerome Robbins Foundation, James Sharp Brodsky and Philip E. McCarthy II, William Sofield, Peter and Barbara Thompson, Paul Travis & Mark Fichandler, Paul Washington and Stan Sagner, and Diane Wondisford. [National Portrait Gallery website]
Wash. Post: Smithsonian "receives public funds" but "does not use that money for exhibitions." The Washington Post reported:
The exhibition, which opened Oct. 30, was funded by the largest number of individual donors for a Portrait Gallery show. The show, which cost $750,000, was also underwritten by foundations that support gay and lesbian issues.
[...]
As part of the Smithsonian, the gallery receives public funds. Overall, the Smithsonian gets about 70 percent of its annual budget from the federal government, but it does not use that money for exhibitions. [The Washington Post, 11/30/10]
CNSNews: Smithsonian says "federal funds are not used to pay for Smithsonian exhibits themselves." The conservative CNS News website reported:
The Smithsonian Institution has an annual budget of $761 million, 65 percent of which comes from the federal government, according to Linda St. Thomas, the Smithsonian's chief spokesperson. The National Portrait Gallery itself received $5.8 million in federal funding in fiscal year 2010, according to St. Thomas. It also received $5.8 million in federal funding in fiscal 2009, according to the museum's annual report. The gallery's overall funding in that year was $8 million.
St. Thomas told CNSNews.com that federal funds are not used to pay for Smithsonian exhibits themselves, including the "Hide/Seek" exhibit. The federal funds received by the Smithsonian, she said, pay for the buildings, the care of collections exhibited at Smithsonian venues, and museum staff, including the salaries for curators of exhibits. The exhibits presented at Smithsonian museums, including "Hide/Seek," are funded by donations from individuals or institutions. [CNSNews.com, 11/29/10]
Beck previously suggested that he could not "just make things up and remain on the air"
Beck: "[D]o you really believe that I could ... just make things up and remain on the air?" On his Fox News show, Beck said:
What is it that we make up? I would ask you to just take a moment here -- do you really believe that I could -- or anybody here at Fox News could -- just make things up and remain on the air? No. [Glenn Beck, 11/29/10]
(Scoured, politically correct version of my censored post)
9
As all progressives know, words hurt. They hurt really, really, REALLY bad.
Sanctioned by MMFA Censorship Department of Censorship, as stipulated in section 427a.211:
"Swearing, or overtly destructive, derogatory, or defamatory language will be censored and / or restricted, with the following exceptions:"
EXCEPTIONS ARE AS NOTED:
1.) When referring to Fox News (HEREAFTER to be known as "FAUX NEWS");
2.) When referring to any Faux News personality or guest;
3.) When referring to Faux News specifically, or in general;
4.) When referring to any person who may come to defense of aforementioned Faux News.
5.) When referring to any principal of Faux News, including, but not limited to Mr. Ailes, Mr. Murdoch et al.,
6.) When referring specifically to Mr. Beck, any and all swearing, derogatory, and defamatory language is not censored and / or restricted. MMFA encourages and supports this.
Pursuant to section 427a.212
Thank you in advance for you cooperation, sheeple.
Respectfully,
Your MMFA Overlords
≈
They are making sound as if the ENTIRE gallery is going to contain just this exhibit, which of course, is not true. I think they WANT people to think it will only contain this one particular exhibit, but anyone who has ever been there knows this.
It's a big place, with LOTS of exhibits. One could go there and not even SEE this particular exhibit, and could also just AVOID this exhibit if they wanted to.
What breakdown of the family is he talking about? Did the divorce rate skyrocket past what it already is when we weren't watching?
You know what tax dollars were spent on MR. Beck? Your rally that not too many people attended, or cared about, and yet, we, the taxpayers, paid for it, or part of it.
I'm sure that this will turn out to be another attack on the NEA going forward as well.
Yes, mag, the divorce rate has skyrocketed. And do you know why? Because painters depict Jesus covered with ants. Duh!
Although the "traditional" nuclear family is becoming less prominent its not fault of things like gay marriage, popular culture or multiculturalism (if anything the latter may lead to an increase in prominence of the extended family).
and?
SOROS!
Has can ANYONE think a guy is right who has to lie THIS MUCH?!
-----------------------------------------
We're living in an Idiocracy
What they seek is the power to compel an apology from somebody. And liberals, being reasonable people, will probably comply. It's all about power, and debasement.
My own reaction would be to tell them to perform an anatomically impossible act on themselves.
Your suggestion reaction has become my reaction to just about everything nowadays.
I know, because Charlton Heston was in the film version.
http://www.organicconsumers.org/rbgh/akrewins.cfm
"Think about the Washington Post," [Chris Edwards, director of tax policy studies at the Cato Institute] said. "They don't have to publish every op-ed that they get, right? They own the platform. In this case [the Smithsonian Institution], the taxpayers own the platform and so the taxpayers should decide what is presented on that platform."
So what about Beck's rallies on the mall in D.C???
The taxpayers own the platform, shouldn't the taxpayers get to decide what is presented on that platform?
Mr. Beck, What causes divisions and breakdowns in my family are lies and making stuff up in order to pit one against the other. When fairness, integrity and truth is replaced with a disrespect for doing the right thing, pushing untruths and creating a rift and tension among family members for no good reason except to get some leverage or inflict damage on another family member.
That is what breaks down families.
(sorry, couldn't help myself)
Nah, She has the main floor, I have the basement.
Let me tell you, I have been on this 6,000 year-old flat earth in the center of this universe long enough to know when I leave my bomb shelter filled with gold and seeds to hunt my own food, there is a chance the government black helicopters could grab me and my family and make me a slave to the socialist, communist, facist, racist black President. Then where would I be? Beckie is the only sane voice of reason in this world.
Now excuse me while I sit in my own excrement and fix my aluminum foil hat to get better reception for His show.
No one is going to steal my purity of essence!
So, taxpayers funded Beck's "thousand moron march" and you were OK with that? Try keeping your faux outrage straight.
Sweet! Now if we could just get the number up to 100% the future of this planet will improve dramatically.
Praise the Flying Spaghetti Monster and Magic Sandwhich so they will make it happen!
One Nation, INDIVISIBLE...with nothing in between those words like it originally was writen.
Boo! God is watching you...
And its spelled "ignorance" just so you know. Well played. Well played.
When you say, "I know that most of you on this site can't think for themseleves," It should be "yourselves."
Again, I couldn't have made up a better response to make fun of than the one you provided me with. Thanks for proving my point. You are priceless!
Hugs and kisses!
"They have? Do tell. So, they spend all that time getting a teaching degree that they then use to get a job not teaching? Sounds a mite fishy to me." - proud
Perhaps there is another explanation for the statement above? I would LOVE to hear it. I think we all would love to hear it. What is it you think teaching degrees have to do with college professors?
Most of my professors had jobs in the real world while they were earning their degrees. Many of them also went through the revolving doors between universities and industry. Starting at the university then going to industry and coming back later. Damn near all of them earn additional income consulting in the real world while still employed as faculty.
Now, whats your problem?
Can't answer for anyone else, but my problem is that you don't know the difference between teachers and professors nor apparently the difference between a teaching degree and the credentials required to be come a professor.
It's been a while since I earned a Master Degree in Botany, and at that time, I had 2 choices. I could go the thesis route which would allow me to enter the workforce as a college professor. However, if I wanted to teach K-12 I would have had to go extra time in order to pick up a teaching certificate. I opted for the thesis route as I was not interested in teaching K-12.
As for MOST professors coming from the workforce to teaching, I'm not so sure of that. Most of my professor friends have done nothing but teach since earning their degrees.
Not having 'outside' or real life work experience doesn't make them any better or any worse when it comes to teaching. All it does is surprise the heck out of them when they do join the outside workforce and see just how 'easy' they had it with summers off and short work days. I'm not saying that their jobs are any easier than mine. I'm not sure I would like to have tons of papers to read and grade, art projects to grade, etc.
Sure the headline and subject of the story don't quite match up. Everyone is so used to Beck spewing out lies, misinformation or heavily distorted "facts" it makes it so much easier for MM to jump on anything the guy says.
So I like to just sit here in the middle and watch the insanity and make smart-aleck comments about it when Im in the mood. If I couldn't laugh at how outrageous the extremes get in this country, I would cry. The 15% of the Left and 15% of the Right run this place, and its annoying when most of us don't fit into either demographic.
Getting rid of the invisible sky-fairy would be a good start to the healing IMHO. And it starts with good education, something the Right sure seems against. Gee, I wonder why?
The Right would rather a child open up a Bible than a science book. And you say they support education? Don't make me laugh again. Or just reply so I can laugh again. Your choice. Ooops, I'm sure you think it should be "you're" choice.
And just so you know, I think schools need a lot of work, both sides are failing there. But I fear the Right having more say in education than the left. You do know what is going on in Texas by fundamentalist Conservatives? Re-writing text books and implementing religious teaching (creationism) in the classroom. THAT is scary. And it is not the Left's doing.
MM is just a distortion machine playing to a progressive audience, that doesn't have the brains to do their own research. Instead, they rely on others to form their own opinions.
Pot, meet Kettle.
Are you done embarassing youself yet?
Wow. Just....WOW. is this satire? Are you sure you really want to be the mouthpiece on this topic for the right? Do you see any of your errors in the above post? Anything? Anything at all?
This is what happens when someone thinks they went to a college taught only by professors that had teaching degrees. That was grade school, proud, not college.
You really are the gift that keeps on giving.
Followed by...
I would attempt to "tell", but you don't even know what point your making.
You really don't see any reason why someone criticizing the education of others may want to take another look at this post? Anything? Give it another read and see if anything pops out at you.
"By the way, I never said ALL college professors had teaching credentials. Most do, though, don't they?" - proud
I think you are confusing teaching degree with Phd. Or, perhaps you are just confused in general.
So a false suggestion can't be a made up thing?
And the quote from beck is...
That would be untrue. Or... if you prefer... made up.
You are the one splitting hairs as I clearly demonstrated above. I guess you are one more con that can't read for comprehension. Home skooled?
I'm not sure but I assume so. Would they be receiving the same pay if this exhibit were not there? I would assume yes. (oh now I see - you think "paid" is spelled "payed" - sorry about that).
Then where is your sense of personal responsibility? Why are you blaming others? And how is it that others who have received a public education are not nearly as stupid as you? Why are you not taking time to upgrade you education? That's not very conservative of you.
In ONE post, h3ll, in 5 sentences, you managed to contradict yourself.
So anyway, if you realize your education was lacking why don't you take personal responsibility and improve your education?
So when you posted this...
We're you being disingenuous? Or perhaps all that fancy book learnin' is for OTHER cons as you are enjoying your ignorance?
And your Jim Crowe argument holds no water. Do I really have to get into the "ideals of the old southern democrats are the same as modern day republicans" debate? Dude, bring something new to the argument or just quit wasting internet kilobytes.
Your move exlax.
Oh my, the depths of teh stoopid. That building exists. It has employees. These are apparently paid for by the government (taxes). There are other exhibits at the museum. These monies would be spent with or without this particular exhibit being there.
Leftwing education indeed.
Now try once, just once, to answer this question, would the same "public tax dollars" have been spent regardless of what exhibits (there are apparently more than on at any given time) were housed in the museum?
So the other exhibits (which I'm sure you have no idea the content of) are ok - you are upset with this particular exhibit.
Will you answer the question, if that exhibit had not been housed at this museum, would those same operating costs still have been paid by taxes?
I'd say "no". If taxes are going towards public museums/galleris, I don't want the content of those exhibits to be subject to political interference from people with an ideological (political/religious) ax to grind. Leave it to the curators - that's what they're there for. As for individuals with obejections such as yours, as your type are fond of saying - then don't go (i.e. change the channel).
Projection at it's finest. You don't love big brother - you want to BE big brother and tell everyone else what they can see at the Smithsonian.
By the way, I am in favor of the government getting out of the way. I have no desire to be big brother, nor do I support big brother. You, on the other hand seem to feel that the government and it's employee's have the right to dictate what I or people like Beck have to say about their actions.
No - I support the arts. I appreciate the government does as well. I want folks who are professionals in their fields (curators, musicians, etc.) to run things like museums, galleries and what not. I don't want political and/or religious interference in the programming.
Now you are lying. You want the government to censor this art exhibit. Once again - big brother is fine by you as long as he's doing your bidding.
No, I do not want the government to censur anything. What I do want is for our government employees to not allow bigoted displays on government property. Apperantly you support bigotry in government, so long as it is against christianity or conservatives, is that what your position is?
Why do you insist on lying?
Lying again? I probably just wouldn't go to see it. See 'cause I realize what I consider to be "bigotry" may not be what others consider "bigotry"
And finally two contradicting sentences back to back...
Distilled to - I want to be able to dictate what is shown in taxpayer funded galleries and museums.
I know this may be hard for you to understand, but our tax dollars DID NOT fund the exhibit. The money for the exhibit came from private donors. Kinda like how PBS and NPR are funded. Therefore, these extremist Xians really have no right whatsoever to force anything to be pulled from the exhibit. Especially when they refuse to educate themselves as to what the artist was representing with said art.
Wow! Ignorance such as this is simply intolerable.
Ok, then how about this: Do you like pro sports? Ever go to a football/baseball/basketball game? Did you know taxes paid for good chunks of those big, modern stadiums? But does the government pay for the players or the employees? Does that analogy work for you?
Now sit down junior.
I am surprised that you on the left support bigotry in our public spaces. No wonder your side is losing support.
Wait - he DOESN'T watch beck.
Have you figured out yet that college professors do not have teaching degrees?
I happen to know more than a few college professors. The all have teaching credentials. I guess you were educated by non educated teachers, is that what you are trying to say?
answered by...
Keep going - I haven't laughed this much in a loooong time.
Is that the same as a degree from teacher's college?
Wow. Now, we are race-baiting? Pathetic. You are flailing.
So, once again, all of your college professors have teaching degrees? You sure you want that to be your final answer?
And how is it race baiting when I am just informing you that you know longer have the right to dictate my actions. Like I said, I left the liberal plantation long ago. I no longer have to abide by the liberal way of doing things.
The Pew Religious Survey published in the Washington Post has some very different numbers.
This guy just makes up so much stuff it's hard to catch it all.
Instead, they seem intent upon sowing dissension, fear and loathing - setting neighbour against neighbour. It's a short step from being intolerant of your neighbour to being intolerant of your spouse.
If they were really Christian they would know to love themselves and love their neighbour - no conditions or caveats.
I'm getting a little bored of the mad conspiracy theories and absurd exaggerations made by conservative pundits.
Glenn Beck June 2010
Well, I'm waiting.....