If there's any residual sarcasm in bluehawk's post, there's none in mine. Go.
According to draft legislation seen by Reuters on Friday, the government would set up a National Cultural Council,
headed by a minister, with the task of “setting priorities and directions to be followed in Hungarian culture”.
“It is a fundamental requirement for activities belonging under the auspices
of this law to actively defend the interests of the nation’s wellbeing,” the bill says.
Yes, often with full houses. But not because we are so ****ing cultured here; 90% of theatregoers are shallow, pretentious ****s, usually of the old types, who go to theatre to show their status or something (I don't fully understand their motivation for it, but it's not curiosity towards the piece). 8% are relatives of the artists and workers of the theatre, and about 2% who are actually interested in the play.Captured Joe said:People still go to theatres?
And that's nothing new, that's how culture worked during the commie times. There were three categories which every cultural things fell under: supported, tolerated and forbidden.According to draft legislation seen by Reuters on Friday, the government would set up a National Cultural Council,
headed by a minister, with the task of “setting priorities and directions to be followed in Hungarian culture”.
“It is a fundamental requirement for activities belonging under the auspices
of this law to actively defend the interests of the nation’s wellbeing,” the bill says.
Captured Joe said:People still go to theatres?
Adorno said:Theatre is doing well here in Denmark. I see all kinds of people, both young and old. Not many working class people, though. School teachers and up, or something.
You can always get an audience with Shakespeare, Molère, or Holberg (you don't know him).
I thoughht I was being helpful, so the reader wouldn't start wondering about a person mentioned right after two famous people.Densetsu said:I find the “you won’t know this/him/it” thing hilariously autistic. To say something like that in normal conversation always comes across as condescending and annoying.
Hundreds of confidential interviews with key figures involved in prosecuting the 18-year US war in Afghanistan have revealed that the US public has been consistently misled about an unwinnable conflict.
The 2,000 pages of documents reveal the bleak and unvarnished views of many insiders in a war that has cost $1tn (£760bn) and killed more than 2,300 US servicemen and women, with more than 20,000 injured.
Two major claims in the documents are that US officials manipulated statistics to suggest to the American public that the war was being won and that successive administrations turned a blind eye to widespread corruption among Afghan officials, allowing the theft of US aid with impunity.
“Surveys, for instance, were totally unreliable but reinforced that everything we were doing was right and we became a self-licking ice-cream cone.”