Manure spreader? Guilty as charged

I always enjoy the occasional well-written snark from a reader about something I write. A few days ago I received a doozy of a snark from a musician named Ken who took exception to last weekend's column, "Artistic parasites." I'll pause to let you read through his e-mail to appreciate the diversity and richness of his language.

While being careful to use as many multi-syllabic words as possible (assumedly to confuse and mystify this rural hick), Ken took me to task for a variety of subjects, not least being that artists and musicians should be encouraged to take government money (meaning, picking our pockets) so they might engage in their lofty pursuits. After all, artists answer to a much higher calling than the rest of us and, apparently, should qualify as an oppressed minority because they are government-funded.

At least I think that was his gist. But golly, he used so many big words that I got confused. My master's degree in the biological sciences is apparently insufficient to wholly grasp the subtleties of his logic.

As is typical when someone can't support a position, this gentleman felt the need to engage in name-calling, including the every popular "tea bagger" as well as a new soubriquet, "manure spreader." (Guilty as charged. See our garden.) Naturally, Ken never addresses the central tenet of my column, which is that the unwashed masses are being forced to fund somebody else's opinion of what constitutes "art."

Well, my husband got a HUGE kick out of Ken's e-mail. In fact, he sat down and pretty much wrote this weekend's column to rebut Ken's comments.

TRENDING: Satellite images show staggering size of China's new aircraft carrier, can rival American capital ships

So, ladies and gentlemen, I now turn you over to the extremely capable hands of my husband.

Dear Ken:

I don't normally get involved in Patrice's writing. Usually I'm too busy fixing fences, repairing tractors, chasing cows, or working on our own commercially successful craft business (with no government support – imagine that!). However, your recent e-mail about her WorldNetDaily piece of last week was so remarkable that I couldn't resist the chance to reply.

First, thanks for passing Patrice's commentary on to your numerous art contacts. It's always great when people recommend my wife's efforts to their friends. After all, it's the number of page hits that allows the WND editors to see how she's doing.

I'm sorry that you found her use of such terms as artistic parasite "extremely offensive and derogatory" when referring to those who profit from their art at public expense. I can certainly sympathize when those of us whom you refer to as "tea baggers" and "creepy christians" behave in such an uncouth manner.

I also must respect your restrained eloquence in lamenting those "self-appointed manure spreaders" (what an artistic expression!) who are "determined to dumb down and destroy every attempt to raise some arts above the lowest common denominator commercial level that pervades so much of our lives." While I congratulate you on your near-divine ability to determine which pieces of art deserve to rise above the lowest common denominator, I do want to assure you that we manure spreaders really have no interest in dumbing down anyone. We simply object to being forced to pay for anyone's artistic elevation even when that elevation is decided by someone as intellectually superior as yourself. No doubt this is a character flaw on our part, but what can you expect from manure spreaders?

You describe the urine/crucifix example used in Patrice's piece as "20 years out of date" and as a tool used to condemn "all artists and funding sources." Perhaps you missed the more recent example of the government-funded tide-pool polluter mentioned earlier in her article? Well, no matter. A simple search of the Internet will provide a legion of more recent examples. But I think it only fair that you reconsider your implication that we "rednecks" are "condemning all artists." After all, the point of my wife's article was to condemn only those parasites whose "art" isn't good enough to be of value to the people being forced to pay for it at, let's face it, the point of a gun.

I'm also sorry that, as an artist, you still have to deal with derogatory terms. I had no idea you felt discriminated against in a manner similar to, as you put it, "japs," "krauts," "spics," "wops," "kikes," "niggers" and "fags." But I do admire your tenacity in observing, "We still intend to sit at your lunch counter. And one day we will eat your lunch." There I think you have already succeeded – because thanks to the National Endowment for the Arts I'm already required by the IRS to pay for yours.

The rest of your commentary really has nothing to do with your continued desire to require unwashed yokels like us to pay for your artistic lifestyle, although I might point out that King David's Israel is even older than Andres Serrano's body-fluid masterpiece.

But I do want to make mention of your final statement: "Now, if I have not sufficiently insulted and offended you, please advise. I would be willing to try again."

Ken, after speaking to Patrice, I'm sorry to tell you that neither she nor I feel insulted or offended – just amused. I'm heartily sorry your professional work doesn't always measure up to the only standard which really matters: that someone is willing to voluntarily pay to hear your music.

And, since your letter neither insulted not offended us, I'm afraid your present writing talents must not have reached a sufficiently disturbing level to qualify for government funding. But do try again. We definitely want to keep you funded "a little better than minimum wage." And, of course, we look forward to paying your health insurance.

Sincerely,

Don Lewis
Wage Slave and Art Supporter (or is that redundant?)