National Endowments for the Arts and the Humanities Elimination Bill

[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.

[Ebowed]

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.

[The Dowager Mod]

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.

And yet another good program killed so we can afford a space elevator or some other worthless crap.

[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.

[Ebowed]

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.

[Q]

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.

[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.

[Ebowed]

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.

[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.

[The Duke]

It's simply wrong in my view to say that a government department had ought to abolished because some money is wasted on something like Bandit's book.  Billions are wasted over the years in Medicaid fraud, should we end health care for the poor?  Billion have been wasted over the years in the Defense budget, should we abolish the Marines?  What Proce has given is a very forceful argument to put someone competent and dedicated to the best interests of taxpayers in charge of the NEA/NEH, but this is no way resembles an argument to abolish the NEA/NEH.

But then again, I liked the Sisitne Chapel (government funded), so I guess there's no accounting for taste.

If you guys want tos ave some money, show some nads and go after farm subsidies, tax breaks for large corporations, the $22 billion in projects (read: pork) not approved through the traditional appropriations process, the No Child Left Behind mandate funding, and the Medicare drug benefit.  Have any of these things been touched?

[Ebowed]

I would have no problems with gutting a lot of that stuff, but I was just unaware of the laws respective to all of them.  I was planning on doing some research before introducing a bill to kill farm subsidies.

I realize some of you support federal funding of art, and I can respect your view-- but the Senate disagreed.

The main argument I have seen against this bill was that it would only save a small amount of money.  And I again reiterate that every little bit counts, especially when we're dealing with reconstruction efforts related to Hurricane Katrina.

[Ebowed]

I'd also like to add that it's disappointing to see rightwingers like John Ford and Supersoulty come in here and complain about my efforts to abolish federal funding of artwork, but they have nothing to say about CAFTA.  Why no worries over outsourcing and lost jobs in Atlasia?  Is it because that one was introduced by someone on the right?

[The Duke]

I'd also like to add that it's disappointing to see rightwingers like John Ford and Supersoulty come in here and complain about my efforts to abolish federal funding of artwork, but they have nothing to say about CAFTA.  Why no worries over outsourcing and lost jobs in Atlasia?  Is it because that one was introduced by someone on the right?

CAFTA has nothing to do with funding for the arts, why are you trying to connect the two?

I'd also disagree on the merits that CAFTA would cost us jobs, we heard the same predictions about NAFTA, and it didn't happen.  So that's one reason I don't complain is that I disagree with your premises about CAFTA.

[The Duke]

I would have no problems with gutting a lot of that stuff, but I was just unaware of the laws respective to all of them.  I was planning on doing some research before introducing a bill to kill farm subsidies.

I realize some of you support federal funding of art, and I can respect your view-- but the Senate disagreed.

The main argument I have seen against this bill was that it would only save a small amount of money.  And I again reiterate that every little bit counts, especially when we're dealing with reconstruction efforts related to Hurricane Katrina.

I appreciate your obvious zeal for fighting waste in government.  I'd support reductions in farm subsidies to the level of the late '90s, under the Freedom to Farm Act.

[Ebowed]

I'd also like to add that it's disappointing to see rightwingers like John Ford and Supersoulty come in here and complain about my efforts to abolish federal funding of artwork, but they have nothing to say about CAFTA.  Why no worries over outsourcing and lost jobs in Atlasia?  Is it because that one was introduced by someone on the right?

CAFTA has nothing to do with funding for the arts, why are you trying to connect the two?

I'd also disagree on the merits that CAFTA would cost us jobs, we heard the same predictions about NAFTA, and it didn't happen.  So that's one reason I don't complain is that I disagree with your premises about CAFTA.

I wasn't connecting the two as issues, only as things that are both being debated in front of the Senate.  Conservatives come in here and argue in favor of federal funding of the arts, an economically liberal position, but there is no outside opposition to CAFTA aside from Southeast Governor Bono.  I just looked through that thread and he was the only non-Senator rightwinger I saw coming in and voicing his opinion.  (And even then, Bono isn't a rightwinger really.)

Meanwhile, Supersoulty is in here saying he won't have anything to do on Saturday mornings because I got the National Endowments for the Arts abolished.  Well excuse me.  Apparently what he can do on Saturday mornings is more important than, say, jobs.

Outsourcing is rampant these days.  I think the fact that the manufacturing industry in Atlasia continues to spiral downward would counter the claim that we aren't losing jobs.

My main point is, Supersoulty, who I have seen argue in favor of protectionism in the past, should be sticking up against CAFTA.  If he wants to say why he thinks this NEA/NEH elimination bill is bad, he is more than welcome to do so.  I just think it would be appropriate, as he is the Secretary of the Treasury, to talk about other more important economic issues facing the Senate.

[Ebowed]

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.

Your comments were as follows:

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?

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?

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.

[Ebowed]

I appreciate your obvious zeal for fighting waste in government.  I'd support reductions in farm subsidies to the level of the late '90s, under the Freedom to Farm Act.

Well, it would be preferable to abolish farm subsidies altogether, as New Zealand did in 1984 (a country which relies on agriculture much more than Atlasia, and its economy did fine following the abolition of farm subsidies), however the repeal of the 2002 Farm Bill would be the first step in scaling down farm subsidies.  I'm working on a bill at the moment.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

O.K, O.K... I understand you all feel strongly about this, but could you all please cool it down a wee bit? This is just getting ugly and reflects very badly on the Senate...

Personally I think this godawful mess shows very clearly that our priorities are in the wrong place, but that's just my opinion and I'm not going to shout it from the rooftops when it won't effect a thing.

So can we all just try to calm down please?

[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.

[Ebowed]

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.

[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?

[CheeseWhiz]

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?

[DanielX]

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.

And yet another good program killed so we can afford a space elevator or some other worthless crap.

Frankly, I'd rather have a space elevator.