Given the 'quality' of some public art and its popularity with the public, that would be acceptable. Elitist art Nazis in positions of authority seem to have an almost vindictive attitude towards actual "popular" art and the benighted yahoos who like it (never mind these are the people who, you know, make up the "public").
And best of all the grant-granting department gets paid to assess proposals, the contract for preparing the public space for the artwork gets handed out to someone on a particular political campaigns' donors list, same with the contracts for moving and warehousing the newly 'protected' art. All working as designed, and everybody gets paid except the artists.
Interesting. It's gotten to be a HUGE world economy out there. There's a LOT of money and it would appear that there's a fuckton of money in herding and hiding services with an emphasis on "No questions" expertise. And MF didn't exactly have a monopoly. No, when MF dropped the sanctioned companies' accounts (Often when, after years of loyal association and service, someone applied the aggressive hacker technique known as "a Google Search" on them, for like, totally no reason.) that money just went somewhere else. Tips, icebergs...
Lot of info on that site, lotta malfeasance, but I found myself particularly unmoved by the plight of the ex-wives trying to get their "fair share" of some ill-gotten billions for no more puttin' out than any trailerpark babymomma. Somehow:
"Offshore law firm jokes in emails as they help husband “protect” assets against “unpleasant” divorce."
...doesn't really generate much outrage with me. On the one side, funds gained or used in all kinds of vile ways, on the other, a mindless system that makes mind-boggling transfers of wealth sans wisdom or even sometimes, much regard for reality...not really a happy-making read, at all.
Not very "punk" at all. More "managed to get rights to the name of a dead band, now how can we milk a few $$$ from the corpse?"-ish.
It's caveat emptor all the way down for bands you loved 30-50 years ago. Starting with the fact that even if the bands have the same personnel and have spent the intervening decades perfecting their craft...you still won't be 19 again. Dammit.
It's easy to be cynical. It's a laborious task to be as widely and darkly cynical as is necessary to accurately model the real world.
TechDirt readership gets top marks for not being surprised that this is going on with the progressive "good guys". Not one single comment on the lines of "This is what I'd expect from the Rethuglicans!" Good. Cynical and informed enough to realize that there are no good guys in that game.
(But that's the value to politicians of emotional-but-irrelevant "wedge issues". To make people feel strong identification with one as opposed to another of two politicians, when both would, if in power, prefer rule and self-interest over "leadership" or "public service".)
Conceded: Windows was, mostly has been (Win2K, 98 eventually and WinXP almost from the get-go, were okay), and currently is, a piece of awful, insecure bloatware; acquired by dubious means and promulgated through pure evil business practices.
Contested: That said, it was OPEN (both bug (security) and feature (user access!)), and, by whatever evile means 'twas done, established a standard OS which accelerated the march of home computing. This was a good thing, even if it was only ever a side-effect of making them filthy rich.
So yeah, the definition of "success" is even more complex than a simple "great product"/"got rich" dichotomy.
More than creating a clever piece of software at an early age, I will credit him with having a mountain of cynical brass. Also, of course, with a paltry character.
But I thought those things when I first heard of him. The latter aspect (lack of a human soul) is only now reinforced though, with this ugly, racist, disrespecting of a dead man.
Self-aggrandizement, seeking undeserved credit, those are not that uncommon, here or in India. Nor is doubling down on a lie when caught out. Cynically playing the race card for personal gain and attacking the recently deceased? Nah, that's reserved for the lowest of the low.
And if I were one of his Indian compatriots, I'd be backpedaling away from this guy top speed and claiming "He must've absorbed the decadent values of the West." (but then, the BJP is somewhere to the right of Marie Le Pen and racist as the KKK)
In fairness to the decision-makers at the DEA, how likely and how dire are they to expect consequences to be when the IRS basically used the "Dog ate our homework." defense and the DOJ and Congress just went "Darn that dog!'
Kind of Levyesque? "Do what thou with shall be the whole of the law."
So...are we to really be against censorship, or just censorship that affects works by right-thinking creators? Because it sure seems a point of emphasis here that this work is by a FEMINIST, conveying an approved message ridiculing/attacking/criticizing the patriarchy, (this=rightthink) and therefore the very kind of thing we especially want to protect
Do we really need to appeal to the valorization of victimhood, or apply some "Oppressed Group Membership Scorecard" to work against censorship, when it can be done from first principles and logic?
Why, we just need to vote for a candidate who gives us hope that they'll change things!
Oh hell, I can't really be so partisan...because: If you think the Dems are the good guys in matters like this, you're NOT part of the solution. If you think the answer is to put Republicans in office, you're NOT part of the solution (and a certified moe-ron, to boot).
We have been so sadly and badly misgoverned* for so long that there is no solution that involves either of the duopolistic, crony-kleptocratic parties we now have. *sigh*
*-that's misleading. If the goal were misgovernment, we should have to say it has been achieved very well.
Actually, Snowden was well aware of the fates of some whistleblowers whose unfortunate cases were of recent memory when he was deciding how to proceed. They were attacked, Government service careers ruined, etc., etc.
Look up Thomas Drake's story and see if that wouldn't scare you off even considering "proper channels".
Re: A ruling body that goes after people out of spite...
"...should be making people revolt instead of complacently taking it up the ass."
Amazing, isn't it? How can people be so naive, clueless...stupid?? I mean, they see this happening and instead of concluding the obvious, that it's the party in power, the president in office, and the permanent bureaucracy in DC, it must be a mysterious "someone running things behind the curtain."
Or are you really confused when someone finds it interesting that governments of both proud democracies are comparable in their total lack of commitment to honesty and transparency?? (their clear statements to the contrary notwithstanding)
I don't think it's inappropriate to note, in the context of this story, how Obama's promise to have "the most transparent administration in history" is possibly the farthest-from-honored campaign promise made in my long lifetime.
OTOH, to misrepresent the comment as somehow blaming Obama for the UK govs' actions...that's either the weakest defence of Obama's record ever, or just stupid.