The argument presented in my unsolicited and possibly naive point of
view is conservative rhetoric which is total rationalization and is much
akin to the "welfare Cadillac" myth used against social programs. At
least in the USA. Just my opinion, I could be wrong. As could the
article. In any case, I think it takes us too far afield. We are
dangerously close to the brink of political policy arguments here.
Don
On Thu, 27 Jan 2011 09:15:56 +0800, Karl Shah-Jenner
<shahjen@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Trevor Cunningham
I was wondering when this would get political.
On 1/26/11 3:21 AM, mark@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
I really don't object to politics in art per sey, but I do have a
problem with using tax dollars to do it /*(left or right)*/. No one
should be taxed to advocate a position, especially one with which
they do not agree.
I found the matter against public funding - with examples of why -
put in a pretty convincing way here:
http://www.grumpyoldsod.com/arts%20funding.asp
k
