National Endowments for the Arts and the Humanities Elimination Bill

[12th Doctor]

Well, I would voice my personal opposition to this measure, but I see little point.

[12th Doctor]

I would just like to say that anyone who votes "yea" on this bill has taken a step towards seriously diminishing the rich cultural, philosophic, historical, political and intellectual fruit that comes from this nation.

[12th Doctor]

Siege40

Well, so much for me saying "Mr. President, I urge a veto."


Sigh, looks like the only alternative to watching NASCAR every Saturady will be just not waking up.

[12th Doctor]

I would just like to say that anyone who votes "yea" on this bill has taken a step towards seriously diminishing the rich cultural, philosophic, historical, political and intellectual fruit that comes from this nation.

These groups should solicit private donations from individuals and foundations.

It should not be the burden of the average Atlasian to foot the bill for these programs of such limited scope and audience.

I'm sorry that you, and so many other people, have not taking time out from watching Texas Hold'em on ESPN to acctually go to an art museum or read a book not written by some hack.  Sad that people don't apprieciate how art and ideas enrich our lives.

[12th Doctor]

While I respect your position that it is the responsibility of the government to make sure that you have museums to visit that could be funded by private investors instead, I disagree that we should waste money on such things, especially during a deficit.

Just remember, a government that provides everything for you is also a government that can take it all away.

First, it is not only so that I can enjoy these things, but also so that others... so our children might have the benefit of being able to expirience wonders of art and knowledge, if they so choose.

Second, endowments do exist, but most of their resources are strained as is.  The simple fact is, the type of philanthropist mega-tycoos that once founded the arts and humanities in this country simply do not exist anymore.

[12th Doctor]

You admittedly want the government to fund "art" and "books not written by some worthless hack."

Who are you to define a worthless hack?  What if Bandit wanted a grant to write his book, because he considered it a new idea or enrichment of knowledge for the public?

A simple disagreement over the very meaning of "art" is enough to stop the government from putting any taxpayer money towards this stuff, in my opinion.  You don't think the government should fund art that depicts sodomy?  (Or do you?)  Well I don't think the government should fund art.

The political figures (some might call them "philosophers") who sell the most books in this country are, generally speaking, those who shout the loudest about the most extreme beliefs.  Examples:  Ann Coulter, Micheal Savage, Micheal Moore and Al Franken.

I think that it is up to the viewer to deside what is art and what is not.

From Michealangelo to Shakespear, art has, more offten than not, survived because it has been commissioned by the government and, in rare cases, because some fabulously wealthy patron has invested something into it, which they can usually expect to see absolutly no return for.

[12th Doctor]

so our children might have the benefit of being able to expirience wonders of art and knowledge

I hope citizens will not rely on their government to supply and to define wonder for them.

Perhaps you do not believe this, but I think that there exist, in the minds and heart of all humans, basic ideas and images that fill us with awe and inspire us.  Having had the privilage in my life to have seen the wonders of Michelangelo, Rapheal and Rembrandt first hand, I would very much like for others to be able to expirience them and for future generations to continue to produce new wonders.  No one is definining anything for anyone and there is so much more than the government provides for you and invests into your pure entertianment.  I dare say that if you have ever watched a baseball game, even on TV, in a stadium that was paid for with tax payer money, then you, sir, are a hypocrite.

P.S.  Ever had Tang or used velcro?  Well, then you are a hypocrite.  Public dollars invented that.  Who is the government to say what is and what is not science?

P.P.S.  Indeed, who is the government to determine what is a sport?  What is entertianment?  What is beneficial?  What is in the common good?  What is art?  What is science?  What constitutes an act of war?  Who is a threat to the nation?  What do we mean by "nation"?  What is moral?  What is constitutional?  But these are the types of questions that we answer, as a people, every single day.  We can do this, because common standards do exist, here, as in everywhere else.

[12th Doctor]

You admittedly want the government to fund "art" and "books not written by some worthless hack."

Who are you to define a worthless hack?  What if Bandit wanted a grant to write his book, because he considered it a new idea or enrichment of knowledge for the public?

A simple disagreement over the very meaning of "art" is enough to stop the government from putting any taxpayer money towards this stuff, in my opinion.  You don't think the government should fund art that depicts sodomy?  (Or do you?)  Well I don't think the government should fund art.

The political figures (some might call them "philosophers") who sell the most books in this country are, generally speaking, those who shout the loudest about the most extreme beliefs.  Examples:  Ann Coulter, Micheal Savage, Micheal Moore and Al Franken.

I think that it is up to the viewer to deside what is art and what is not.

From Michealangelo to Shakespear, art has, more offten than not, survived because it has been commissioned by the government and, in rare cases, because some fabulously wealthy patron has invested something into it, which they can usually expect to see absolutly no return for.

With all due respect Mr. Secretary, I believe you are dodging points I made in my original post.  You did not address the fact that Bandit, whose book was not about politics, but his own personal life and how it related to the private schools he attended, could have said that his book would enrich society and could have applied for a federal grant somehow.  Please answer this question:  Do you support taxpayer money going to Bandit so that he can write his book?  If no, why not?

If it is up to the viewer to decide what is art and what is not, then why is the government using the viewer's money to fund it?

You also did not address my point that the government could use your money to fund artwork which depicts things you would be morally opposed to.  A painting showing two men having sex would be just as eligible to receive funding in the name of art as any other painting.

In regards to calling my colleague Senator Q a hypocrite, I believe this personal attack is completely unjustified.  Just because one has used velcro, that does not mean they support any sort of governmental funding into science or the arts.  You can take advantage of the findings of the past without advocating using the same methods in the present.

I'll answer this in detail tomorrow, but I will say that my comments about Senator Q are not meant to chastize him, but rather, hopefully, to make him think about the broader picture.

[12th Doctor]

Additionally, I am saddened to hear that you now support federal funding of embryonic stem cell research.  While it is out of the boundaries for the government to define this as science, it is not out of their boundaries to fund it, according to you, anyway.  I had always considered you pretty pro-life on the abortion issue, but now I see that I was wrong.

I'll answer the rest of this after class, but I want to say, quickly, that you seem to have totally missed my point which is not that the government should not make these decisions (which is what you are arguing in this case) but rather that it does make them every single day.

[12th Doctor]

You addressed the "Who is the government to decide what is science and what is not?" question to Q, not myself, so your point couldn't have possibly been directed specifically at me.  Either way, of course the government decides what science is and what isn't.  I wasn't arguing that it can't.  I was arguing that it's silly to put taxpayer funding towards it, because people will disagree on the definition, not the government.

I was not saying that my point was addressed to you, I don;t know where you got that from.  If you don't agree with scientific or arts funding, then do you think we should disband NASA?

[12th Doctor]

You referred to him as a hypocrite, and assuming that Senator Q has had Tang or used velcro, your statement would be accurate, if people subscribed to your logic, which I would hope they do not.  I reiterate that one can utilize the findings of the past without supporting using the same methods in the present.  That is, Senator Q is free to use velcro or have Tang without supporting the use of federal dollars to fund artwork.  In addition, you ask, "Who is the government to say what is and what is not science?"  I counter that by asking, "Who is the government to fund science?"  You apparently don't hold a high enough value in the government that it can define science, but then you suddenly turn around and support funding of science, even though it is unable to define it?

My statement was rhetorical, and hardly a real attack.  My only point is that I am certain that he makes use of things all the time that are government founded or were invented on tax payer's dollars, thus, simply using the argument that "The government should not found art on tax payers money" is not sufficient to argue against the exclusion of art from the other multitude of things that the government does do.

Now, as I said my point in all of this is, government makes decisions on what is science, what is moral, what is beneficial, etc. all of the time.  Why can we not have reasonable founding of the arts?

[12th Doctor]

I’d like to congratulate the Senate, Senator Ebowed and Governor Bono on a job well done.

And to everyone who opposes this bill, why can’t local governments or independent organizations fund art?  Why does it have to be the Federal Government?

So, let's thrust more on local governments so that they can raise taxes?  Not likely that they will take the mantle here.

And, there are organization, called "endowments" which do this kind of thing, but, like I said, they have strained resources as is.

The only reason that we have much of the art we have now, the works of da Vinci, Shakespear, Greek dramas, Michelangelo, Rapheal and others is because governments funded thier work.  Otherwise, we would not even have art to begin with.

[12th Doctor]

Not to mention that much of this money goes to the shows that air on PBS.  So you guys basically just killed Public Broadcasting.

[12th Doctor]

I’m sorry, I really don’t understand to much about art and stuff, but how hard can it be to draw this?

I understand that most artwork, and most probably the artwork Sec. Soulty was referring to, isn’t like that.  But I still don’t really understand how expensive it can be, I do lots of drawings on paper everyday, why does the Government need to devote resources to this when we have a catastrophe in New Orleans, a deficit and a war?

Not to mention that much of this money goes to PBS.  So you guys basically just killed Public Broadcasting.

*shrug* Do thy ever really have anything good on?

I guess you never watched Where in the World is Carmen Sandiego, Wishbone or Bill Nye the Science Guy?

[12th Doctor]

Not to mention that much of this money goes to the shows that air on PBS.  So you guys basically just killed Public Broadcasting.

The Corporation for Public Broadcasting (which deals with PBS mostly) is not included in this legislation; it is a different admistrative branch.

However it was cut from the budget in July, and all cuts from then will become final in October.

The actual broadcasting of PBS is done seperatly, however, the money that goes into the acctual creation of the shows comes from grants from the AEA/AEH.  It says so at the end of almost every show.

[12th Doctor]

Does anyone else now think that on reflection making the Senate work out a budget was a bad idea?
It's not exactly made this thing anymore enjoyable and it certainly hasn't made it anymore realistic (quite the reverse actually...)

And yes, this is a u-turn...

I agree with keeping the budget, but it certainly seems to have given the libertarians a platform to power.

[12th Doctor]

The mistake was electing people to public office who would cancel Sesame Street.

Not sure if that is a joke, a show of support for us, or a sacrcastic remark.

[12th Doctor]

The mistake was electing people to public office who would cancel Sesame Street.

Not sure if that is a joke, a show of support for us, or a sacrcastic remark.

Well, Al said the mistake was creating a budget, and my basic answer is that the mistake was not having a budget, but what voters have been willing to tolerate in terms of what public officials do to that budget.

Oh, and to Senator Proce, you can't say Supersoulty doesn't belong in this debate because its not over an economic bill, he is the Treasury Secretary, so ALL spending is in some way under his purview.

Understood.

As for the second, I was unaware that he challenged my ability to participate.  Well, as John said, I am the Treasury Secretary and a concerned citizen.  Not only that, but I have withheld most of my remarks until after the final passage of the bill, so I am not interupting debate.  Why are you so offended that I speak out?  Why are you trying to invoke some non-existant rule, based on a false premise, to force me out.  I'm just speaking my mind here.  Well, think of me as the populace responding to the Senate's actions.

[12th Doctor]

Oh, and to Senator Proce, you can't say Supersoulty doesn't belong in this debate because its not over an economic bill, he is the Treasury Secretary, so ALL spending is in some way under his purview.

With all due respect Governor, I stated that Secretary Supersoulty is "more than welcome" to state his objections to this bill.

In that case, I appologize for my remarks.

[12th Doctor]

Abolishing the budget = bad idea


Electing people who will do what you want on economic issues= good idea