One of my daughters is a professor of art history, and we have talked many times about this artist or that artist, especially the ones whose work I just don't exactly understand.
She is patient with me.
A question I have never asked her: What is the purpose of art.
I suppose I have not asked that of her because I've actually never really thought about it.
This morning I was reading "Home" by Marilyn Robinson, the sequel to "Gilead." And I came across a passage that stuck with me (among many wonderful pages in this marvelous novel): It is the purpose of art to ward off the demons.
That sounds right to me.
I will have to discuss it with my daughter.
Many years ago when I was a reporter for an Amarillo TV station, I tried to challenge what I saw as a very disturbing trend in the Texas hospital industry. Starting in Amarillo, a very astute senior administrator who yearned to do the business of a publicly funded hospital out of sight of the media and the people paying his bills, found a way to do so. He created a hospital foundation that ran the daily business of the facility and leased the building from the public.
Thus, he had the best of both worlds. He could hide from public view in a public building and perform a publicly funded service.
I thought that was wrong. But, my bosses didn't, so we didn't take it to court, which would have been an expensive remedy.
After the administrator did this successfully in Amarillo, he moved on to Wichita Falls and other cities, converting public hospitals to private ones using publicly funded facilities.
The worm, as they say, may be changing.
Jonathan Peters reports in a recent edition of the Columbia Journalism Review online that two state high courts in Indiana and Ohio have ruled that private entities that perform public functions are subject to state open records laws.
That's a victory for all of us who want our government agencies to be held accountable.
Google is apparently giving in to authorities in Europe on the right to be forgotten.
Mack Freeman of the American Library Association writes on his blog that the new Google policy, created in reaction to a European court ruling, has been posted by Google Europe, and it amounts to a capitulation to mass confusion.
Here is how Freeman foresees the policy working, assuming someone in German files a Right to be Forgotten request to have their name removed:
+ The listing would be censored for those in Germany, using any version of Google;
+ The listing would be censored for those in the EU, using a European version of Google;
+ The listing would not be censored for those outside Germany but within the EU, using a non-European version of Google;
+ The list would not be censored for those outside the EU, using any version of Google.
Wow. The end is not very pretty.
Plus, it adds a level of censorship that, in America, at least, would not be needed under common law.
Page 29 of 105