Replies

Increasing funding for the filthy anti-American piece of phflegm NEA is reprehensible - no two ways about it.

I consider it wrong but not necessarily "reprehensible." Admitting up front that I believe that no government money should be spent on "art," there are thousands of good, thought-provoking pieces of art created for every "Piss Christ" we hear about. The NEA can no more be painted as wholly "anti-American" any more than FreeRepublic can because the occasional troll and disruptor posts here from time to time.

Most of the great works of art throughout history have been sponsored by non-Constitutional government funding sources (the church, wealthy patrons, subjects of a satrapy or monarchy). And truly great art has to be created by its creator. If artists need enough money to buy a Mason jar, a crucifix, and enough beer to produce a few liters of urine, then let them work for it by flipping burgers or schlepping boxes in a warehouse - the government should not be picking up the check for such trash.

Baloney. The NEA is a liberal piece of crap - all you have to do is look at who its biggest supporters are, e.g. Hollyweird, etc.

It has now reached the point where I have zero trust left in Bush. So much for Christian moral principles and the Constitution!!! I could not be more disgusted and ticked off than I am right now.

I agree. My family makes most of it's dough from working in art...(on a blue collar paycheck, I should emphasize...we aren't grant recipients).
The grant stuff has a tendency to create crap, anyway. I totally support the arts, but not with the government throwing money at garbage.
It seems like it's the same arguement with us conservatives, that it's not that we don't support real good training in art and music....
The point were I have trouble is when I think of the schools. I am one person who's art training definitely helped me in other studies. But then that opens a whole nuther can of worms, with the state of our school now, and what should be, etc.