Kat, when I read your first post my reaction was "Who in the hell thinks culture is subject to congressional definition?" Culture happens, like weather happens--but then I remembered a discussion Chet W. and I had a year ago, soon after I found Mudcat: {I'll try not to misrepresent you here, Chet} We were arguing over whether rap music was political speech--I was arguing that it was, and thus worthy of first amendment protection. He argued that the creators of gangsta rap were not only apolitical, their product was destructive of their community--and that it was fostered cynically by corporations who were using the destructive message to line their pockets. This may seem like a digression, but it is true that culture doesn't develop freely, that corporate interest determines what cultural artifacts get public exposure--and corporate interest often has little in common with public interest.

But somehow I doubt if Senator Brownback has in mind questioning corporate effects on our culture--or on our economy. What we can expect from the good senator and his colleagues on both sides of the aisle of our corporate whorehouse is more attacks on minority rights, especially women's and gay rights, calls for more draconian drug laws and expansion of the death penalty, cutting the budget of the National Endowment for the Arts and public media, legislating prayer in school, et cetera et cetera et cetera.

--seed