The discussion on the NECD terms of agreement, which I created at Richard Dawkins.net forum has been at the top of the google search page for the phrase "New England Cultural Data Base", but as of today that topic is so far down on the list that I can't even find it after flicking through about twenty-two pages. It is no accident. It appears that there is a powerful constituency that has manipulated the disappearance of dissenting voices from accessible positioning by the Google search engine. I can only speculate on who the power elite, with such extensive powers, might be. My response to the evidence of such a power is to continue to encourage the media to shine a light on the New England Cultural Data Base Terms of Agreement, which effectively usurps the individual rights of artists, while requiring the signer to agree that The New England Foundation For the Arts is beyond the law and beyond moral petition. The disappearence of my topic from the Google results testifies that someone with interests in the NECD read my views and responded only with an attempt to silence my voice rather than addressing the concerns expressed in my postings. This only further convinces that the usurption of the rights of the individual by the bureaucratic organization is the clear intent, rather than merely a poorly considered effort to protect The New England Foundation For the Arts from legal suits.
I was mislead by the new order of the Google listing into believing that The Maine Arts Commission had recently issued a promotion for The New England Cultural Database, when, in fact the promotion was made in the spring of 2004. That listing is currently occupying the position that my discussion formerly enjoyed. This makes posting in Richard Dawkins Forum less effective. The good news is that NECD totalitarian goal to become a database and sales outlet for all artists and cultural organizations in New England hasn't materialized. If one believed the data posted on NECD, one would think that non-profit art organizations out number private art enterprises, but, on the basis of personal knowledge, I can quickly calculate that the majority of private art enterprises are missing from the data base. The bad news is that I don't hear any other voices of protest against this state-sponsored Terms of Agreement and the threat that such a "model" of an on-line agreement presents to individual rights.
Maybe there are other voices but no one hears them. I don't know of my letter being published in any of the newspapers to which it was sent. The Boothbay Register hand-delivered an editors edit of my letter via the a messenger, I hadn't realised that editors are in the practice of editing "Letters to the Editor", I liked the tone the editor set, and she correctly interpreted many of my thoughts, but I felt the impact of the content was diminished in the editors version.
During the two week interval since I had sent the letter, I had researched the matter in greater detail and so I rewrote the letter and sent it back, a few hours later. I haven't heard anything since and my letter is not published in this week's paper. You can find the revised letter below. The editor's version deleted all direct quotes from NECD, but I re-incorporated actual quotes in a conversational context. According to the messenger, what I had written was "too technical" for the
general public to understand.
The editor is either under-estimating the general public or else there is another issue, unspoken, that is impacting the editor's choice not to publish my letter. If the public is not capable of understanding the language of the Terms of Service Agreement, then, on that basis, shouldn't the public decline to sign the agreement? Shouldn't a Terms of Agreement that is "too technical " to be understood by the general public render the database ineffectual ? What is the rational behind such a statement and the associated deletion of direct quotes for the NECD Terms of Agreement? In the age of the Internet, we, the public, are constantly being presented with terms of agreements that we must testify to having read. Isn't that supposed to mean that we did read the agreement, i.e, that the agreement is understandable to the general public and written in a generally accessible language?
The editor's revision deleted mention of this blog, which I included in my revision. This blog is an attempt to bring the issue into greater public awareness, and as far as I have been able to discover the only venue for bringing attention to the issue of the state-sponsered, federally financed data base and it's associated terms of agreement.
I recently received an email from the head of The Maine Arts Commission, lobbying the public to write to our representatives in support of increasing the budget for the National Endowment for the Arts. The email annoyed me, both because I am aware that The National Endowment For the Arts is funding the New England Cultural Database, but also because the head of the Maine Arts Commission didn't think it necessary to give the public any reason why one should support the increased budget for The National Endowment for the Arts.
