when the rhetoric says we can't afford such spending, and the reality
has distinct polarity, all i can think is that someone is upset that
some wealthy investor isn't in on the deal...gosh, imagine the
government makin' a buck or two to try and make the country better or,
perhaps, buy a soldier some body armor to help us protect our freedom
and energy rights...anyway, the notion that good business should be
restricted to the private sector is balderdash
indeed, having the debate about what is right for a nation is important
for its growth...but, if we privatize the arts, education, or anything
else not nailed down, only a small number of very like-minded people
will be able to participate in such a dialogue
gotta stick to the topic...art...hitler was an artist, right?
On 1/26/11 9:09 PM, mark@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
Now some things are best to local control. IF a community values a
public art museum, and that community values it enough to pay the
bills more power to them. But if someone really made 18 bucks for
every buck invested, don't you think that's enough that it could
support itself? It makes no common sense. Now if the "minks" want to
pay for it, companies are willing to sponsor it for the advertising
benefit or the improvement in life of the community of which they are
a a part great.
It's one thing to have tax dollars to pay for an item with which you
don't agree. That happens every where and all the time. You might
not think a road, ect insert the item here, is not necessary, and
that's part of a republic. You will not agree with everything all the
time and that's good. Where I see the big difference is having your
tax dollars advocate a point a view with which you do not agree that
advocates policy. Having the debate is important. But should tax
dollars be used to fund either side of the debate. IMHO No no but
*$%# NO. Art is often the debate and that's the problem.
