I get all the touchy feely stuff your saying, but you are missing the bigger picture friend. When you look at all the stress on our economy right now and the fact that most of the displayed legal workers got displayed from low skill, blue collar industries, the last thing we need is an entire Country to our south trying to move here and compete for what few jobs are left in the low skill industries left: service, construction, manufacturing etc. This is presciently what is happening. The jobs we have lost are not from high tech industries that require B.A or Masters degrees. We are shedding blue collar manufacturing, and service industry jobs. If we had an entire Country to our South of well educated English speaking people bringing technology, innovation and business acumen to our work places we would welcome it and it would only enhance our economy. But this is not the case. What we have is an illegal population boom of low skill workers that are trying to compete at lower wages to take jobs away from the low skill legal working class that we have here. This is where the problem lies and anyone that doesn't see this for what it is, is a fucking moron!
If "Latino" is who comes to mind when you hear the word "illegal", maybe that's because so many illegal aliens ARE Latinos? And THAT says volumes about the disrespect that Latinos have for the laws of this country.
Since my first day in Charlotte back in 2000, the Soundboard was the only reason to pick up a Creative Loafing. We would turn directly to that ever shrinkng section, and decide quickly if it was worth going out. If it wasn't listed on the Soundboard, it wasn't happening.
Facebook events introduced a new era for grassroots/independent no/low-budget promotion, only to bait and switch our entire creative culture with a brand new "pay to play/be seen" model.
With this recent betrayal of trust by Facebook, the Soundboard becomes even more essential to our city's cultural trust, both in media and it's struggle to appear "word class".
The first place to judge a city is in its local media event listings. With the DNC coming soon, aesthetically, it is a poor time to make this change.
Creative Loafing's readers should be able to trust, that if it is happening in the city, you are covering it.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment.
As for everything being made available online, take notice that there only 3 comments on this thread.
Mark- while you and the CLCLT team are "working" on an enhanced online version, why don't you keep the print version in your publication? The "soundboard" information is an important piece of content for musicians, venues, and fans alike. Please don't allow this content to "go dark" until you and your team get around to an online redesign.
You SHOULD devote the print space to what is going to prompt more people to pick the things up. You may as well lower your press numbers even more and just avoid putting them anywhere in Noda, Plaza Midwood, Southend, and ANY of the local clubs across the city.
Gays calling gayness a "difficult issue."
How fantastically absurb.
It's only difficult if you align yourself with political organizations (churches) who decide for you what the "difficult issues" are.
Boo hoo, someone thinks my church is crap! Most of the people walking this earth think your church is crap. Churchianity is a sham. Snap out of it and start thinking for yourself. Novel concept, I know.
"SirVicious". Wow, did that take you hours to come up with? What an idiot you've shown yourself to be; no wonder you won't provide your full name.
Must be a group meeitng of the ever so touchy, yet slightly adled artsy crowd going on. "J. Wilsom" doesn't read Tara the "hate mongerer" but knows that Brown is spot on in her critique. Amazing! He can assess that which he has not read! Neat trick there "J."
Oh, and "J.", I wouldn't position myself as an all purpose opponent of smear tactics and hate mongering if you're going to applaud that sour grapes letter by Brown: it was not exactly a model of reasoned criticism. (More like a hormonal storm. Kind of makes one wonder if all three of you weren't competing for the same man at one point or another, and you two lost!)
This is really getting prety rich: Brown made a fool of herself by visciously decrying visciousness; now you've jumped on her bandwagon by applauding her critique of what you claim to have ignored. I can't wait for your encore!
Well, I'm one of those who read and responded to your letter. I suppose you would like for me to use my real name, since given the tone of your letter it would seem that you'd like to find a way to get to those with whom you disagree. Mine is not, however, a name that you would recognize.
By the way, that is quite the non-sequitur there: "If you had balls. . .". I don't particularly lack courage, but then maintianing one's privacy is hardly a matter of courage, since it is hardly as though you are to be feared. Instead it is in this case simply a matter of keeping things in their proper perspective: I disagreed with the premise and content of your letter here, and you are free to react to my response here. You hardly need to see my passport to do that, now do you?
(One last thing: it is enough ironic that you refer to Servatius as "viscious" in one of the more viscious bit's of vitriolic criticism I've seen recently. That you react with such thin skin when your letter of criticism is itself criticized takes the concept of irony to new heights! Congratulations!)
to those brave souls who write in their own critiques: if you had balls you'd use your real name.
Vicious? Yup, that applies to the screed that is that letter. In fact's what's astounding is the degree to which Miss Brown's attack is personal. One is left with the feeling that she has great personal animus toward Servatius and used the commentary on public art as a vehicle to make it public. I don't know that I've seen such a display other than when there are great personal jealousies involved.
Thanks for telling it as it is!
An odd word for one to use while while writing tripe that can accurate be described with terms such as narrow minded, judgmental, elitist, intolerant, mean spirited, aggressive, condescending, illogical, and ill informed. Your FATHER was a good writer, Brown. You, on the other hand are hardly qualified to critique the editorial writing of someone far more skilled in that arena than you. That piece utterly rings of raw emotion. Unfortunately emotion is no substitute for mature balanced perspective, and the emotion that comes across most clearly is petulent, childish frustration that those with whom you disagree are even allowed express themselves.
Pay careful attention Linda: see if you canm wrap your head aroudn the following slice of reality: your ideological perspective does not imbue you with natural superiority. There are to be found among those whose views you find so valueless both persons far less informed or intelligent than you, and those who are far more intelligent and informed than you. I rather suspect that Servatius is among the latter and that it simply irritates the devil out of you.
Perhaps you should just lock yourself in a room with David and tell each other how visionary you are. It will save you confronting the reality that your opinion is of no more value than anyone else's.
Linda Luise Brown said in her diatribe: "Artists and designers modify forms as they manipulate them...[which] creates a style, and enables people who are visually alert...to say: "That must be a Moore. That must be a Rodin, a Picasso, a Gehry."
I would have to concur. Being the visually alert Charlottean that I am, I skirted along the South Boulevard rail line the other day, looked at the modified forms and manipulated shapes
and said to myself, "This must be a piece of s**t."
I do so love reading the self-congratulatory ramblings of the intellectually dishonest, self selected elite!
Only an artist or an arts expert is qualified to comment on art. The rest of us just need to shut up an dpay for it.
Take the challenge, Linda: define art with out using the word art or a derivatve thereof, in such a way that anything can be identified as art or not art using your definition. When you fail at that, you'll (if you're honest) have taken the first step to recognizing that Ms Servatius or anyone else is fully qualified to judge what is purely a matter of individual subjective perception: art.
Kudo's though, on having a menopause moment in print. It really was entertaining.
You don't know what you're talking about Fark. Look it up. There is a federal hate crime law that applies to this very incident. Since you want to excuse the violence perpetrated on the Black students then it's obvious you are an out and out racist so further dialogue with you is pointless. When you are dead you beliefs will die with you hopefully.
And as for Amber two wrongs don't make a right. Blacks never would've been sold by Africans into slavery if whites had not created the demand for it with your own laziness and fallacious ideology of white supremacy. You are both scum of the earth and your time will come. In fact it is near with all the Mexicans and others coming here and your population numbers dwindling all over the planet, including Europe. Better soak up some sun and try to look as Black as you can in the near future.
Maybe the first place you can go to for reparations is the African tribes who rounded up and sold or traded away your ancestors. A practice that continues today.
1. There is no relevant Federal "hate crime" law.
2. The six black attacked someone who by all accounts was in no way involved in the noose incidents nor in attacks on black youth. That is not retaliatin, since he did nothing agsint which to retaliate. By all accounts and indications he was attacked because of the color of his skin. No one, least of all a black man, should be exxcusing racial violence.
Thompson, if you are indeed black, you really ought to silence yourself before you feed the racist clowns who believe all black men think as you appear to. But I imagine that you are not black, but rather a white racist trying to paint a caricature of dull witted, racist blacks.
Until you walked a mile in a Black man's shoes you should just shut your trap Mr. Zapisocki. It always intrigues me how white privilege warps the already deficient judgment of white people to where they only hear what they want to hear. The noose incident was a federal hate crime. Black students were attacked after the noose incident on three separate occasions before the six Black youth retaliated. How much abuse were they supposed to take? Turning the other cheek died with MLK.
This entire escapade should've been handled within the jurisdiction of the school system but because white people are so scared of the wild, oversexed, violent Black male, the criminal justice system had to get involved. Why do white people refuse to recognize the facts as they exist in objective reality? Perhaps whites just don't care about the facts. You continue to create your own false reality just like the one that says you are superior to other races because of your skin color. I've said it before and I'll continue to say it. Black people need to permanently and physically separate from white people on our own land we obtain from slavery reparations. White people will never embrace justice and equality as long as white privilege exists to give them the advantage they need to maintain this socioeconomic caste system. Black people are still in the midst of the African Holocaust of our fallen ancestors. Whites should ask themselves: If you are superior to everyone then why do you need unfair advantages all the time? When it comes down to it this is all white fear and mostly fear of Black male sexuality.
The writer of the letter above apparently is not familiar with CL or Grooms. Perhaps Mr. Grooms' effort at a logical and balanced response will make it clearer. I fnot, allow me to help: John Grooms has some talent for writing and at least average intelligence, both of which are, from time to time, completely hidden by the ego that allows him to believe that his politics provide the basis for the only proper view of the world, and that to disagree with him means he must try to "win" the discussion, even at the expense of any intellectual honesty.
Powered by Foundation