See what others have said

Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.

Trackbacks

1. The National Endowment for the Arts squeals for its bailout — But As For Me
2. The American Pundit » Blog Archive » NEA Starts Begging for Its Bailout
3. Who Doesn’t Deserve a Bailout? NEA, NPR and PBS « Rantings of mine
4.   Woo Hoo! Welfare For Artists. — Just Some Poor Schmuck
5. Obama, how ’bout stimulating the Military? « Riggword Weblog
6. Marcel Duchamp’s Fountain « Balustrade’s Blog

Trackback URL

Comments

1. #101
   On January 29th, 2009 at 5:09 pm, Dexter Alarius said:

   Why, Dexter, you mean you were only in this for the money all along?! I’m shocked, I say, SHOCKED!

   One must eat.
   Have you seen the price of wagyu lately?

2. #102
   On January 29th, 2009 at 5:15 pm, lottadawg said:

   Does this mean that President Obama is going to get a lot of black and white pictures of bullwhips for the Oval Office?

3. #103
   On January 29th, 2009 at 5:15 pm, frostrt said:

   On January 29th, 2009 at 5:09 pm, Dexter Alarius said:
   Why, Dexter, you mean you were only in this for the money all along?! I’m shocked, I say, SHOCKED!
   One must eat.
   Have you seen the price of wagyu lately?

   ————————————-

   Yes, it is rather pricey. And, of course, one must have arugula to go with it . . .

4. #104
   On January 29th, 2009 at 5:41 pm, Member-VRWC said:

   As noted in the NEA study Artists in the Workforce (May 2008), there are two million trained, entrepreneurial working artists across the country who are assets to their communities. Representing 1.4 percent of the U.S. labor force, artists constitute a sizeable class of workers — only slightly smaller than the total number of active-duty and reserve personnel in the U.S. military (2.2 million).

   I haven’t seen a lot of art done in the last several years that I couldn’t live without. My tastes run toward the classics.

   Bailout money??? H3LL NO. DEFUND THEM —- TODAY.

   Those who work for the NEA aren’t fit to shine the shoes of the US Military.

5. #105
   On January 29th, 2009 at 5:46 pm, wighttrasch said:

   hahaha Dexter Alarius

6. #106
   On January 29th, 2009 at 5:51 pm, shooter said:

   Errr, maybe they just painted themselves into a corner, or around one.

   I mean how many circular ‘obama zero’ logo’s can one country have?

7. #107
   On January 29th, 2009 at 6:10 pm, James Otis said:

   I have nothing against art. I do have a problem with subsidized art. Typically an artist will get a grant, create, say paintings, then have a “show” at a subsidized art gallery. I won’t even go into the amount of art that is anti-Republican, pornographic, narcissistic and many other things.

   In a nutshell, a business that is not financially sustainable on it’s own should not be paid for by taxpayers.

8. #108
   On January 29th, 2009 at 6:16 pm, Papa Louie said:

   This NEA bailout mirrors liberal thinking when it comes to charitable donations. They talk a lot about helping the poor, but they only want to do it with someone else’s money. Liberals not only donate less to charity than conservatives, but when they do donate they don’t give to the poor, they give to the Arts and to universities that cater to the rich.

   This is not just my opinion, it comes from the New York Times. Here is a quote from “Bleeding Heart Tightwads” by NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF:

   “Arthur Brooks, the author of a book on donors to charity, “Who Really Cares,” cites data that households headed by conservatives give 30 percent more to charity than households headed by liberals. A study by Google found an even greater disproportion: average annual contributions reported by conservatives were almost double those of liberals.

   …if measuring by the percentage of income given, conservatives are more generous than liberals even to secular causes.

   …liberal donations frequently sustain art museums, symphonies, schools and universities that cater to the well-off. (It’s great to support the arts and education, but they’re not the same as charity for the needy. And some research suggests that donations to education actually increase inequality because they go mostly to elite institutions attended by the wealthy.)”

9. #109
   On January 29th, 2009 at 9:10 pm, desertdweller said:

   How can any plan to support more art be successful if NOBODY’S BUYING?

10. #110
    On January 29th, 2009 at 10:00 pm, Anton said:

    Some background: Dana Gioia was appointed to the NEA by President Bush (or, to be precise, at the recomendation of Laura Bush). His charter was to eliminate (as much as possible) the offensive elitist garbage that many of you remember from the 80’s and 90’s. He has largely re-cast the NEA as a supporter of community arts organizations; the kinds of people who run your kid’s theater and fine-arts classes.

    Gioia is considered a dangerous aesthetic conservative by many on the left. He writes and advocates well-structured poetry that often rhymes (i.e. the new formalism). I have no idea of his political leanings, but his artistic outlook is conservative.

    Most on the left would consider me a paleo-con. But I’ve got to disagree with this general thread. If Dana Gioia says he needs some additional money, I’m inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt.

11. #111
    On January 29th, 2009 at 10:36 pm, sbw999 said:

    I love the smell of socialism in the morning. It’s as exhilerating as say…a picture of a cross in a jar of urine.

12. #112
    On January 29th, 2009 at 11:47 pm, oldbuckaroo said:

    I propose that a life-sized sculpture of Ms. Dana Gioia submerged upside down in a pyrex cauldron of urine be auctioned to the highest bidder (I’m sure the San Francisco Castro district “arts” community can come up with the money) to raise funds for this much needed civic minded organization.

13. #113
    On January 30th, 2009 at 8:00 am, thelcabroadside said:

    I am an artist AND an art teacher and even I am against this. What happened to artists being independent people who did things for the love of it and found a way to make it happen? Now “artists” want to be given an allowance. Here’s a tip junior, get a job!

14. #115
    On January 30th, 2009 at 10:49 am, RogerCfromSD said:

    Both of my degrees are in Theatre.

    Eliminate the NEA. There is no need for it except to fund liberal dinner parties and showings of art of dubious quality.

15. #116
    On January 30th, 2009 at 11:40 am, Anton said:

    On January 29th, 2009 at 11:47 pm, oldbuckaroo said:
    I propose that a life-sized sculpture of Ms. Dana Gioia ..

    Please at least Google the subject of your post if you’re unfamiliar with the name. Stuff like this doesn’t help public perception of conservatives.

    Dana Gioia is a guy. He was a successful businessman who cashed out his stock options to pursue a life as a poet and writer. He is a very well-respected leader of “the new formalism,” which aims to bring structure, rhyme, and vitality back to modern poetry. As such he is considered a dangerous conservative (aesthetic) reactionary by much of the arts community. I have no idea of his personal politics, but do know that he was selected by President Bush to head the NEA and implement a program to eliminate the abuses that so many of us remember from the 80’s and 90’s. He has largely succeeded in orienting the NEA to support local arts organizations — the kind of people who teach your children art and theater.

    There is a principled argument to make about whether the NEA should exist at all. I’ve made that argument myself to enraged liberals. But as long as we have an NEA, Dana Gioia is the very best we’re ever going to have as its leader.

16. #117
    On January 30th, 2009 at 2:31 pm, mojo said:

    “Are there no garrets?”

17. #118
    On January 30th, 2009 at 2:35 pm, sillygatboy said:

    The NEA is a fraud.

    I’d rather give their share to Larry Flynt!

    Let Bill Moyers bail them out.

18. #119
    On January 30th, 2009 at 3:44 pm, Dimsdale said:

    Aren’t they supposed to suffer for their art? As opposed to us suffering from both the fact we are forced to pay for it, and the fact we have to look at some of that crap.

    Get a sponsor, like they used to. Solves two problems at once: funding, and gets the real garbage

19. #120
    On January 30th, 2009 at 3:45 pm, Dimsdale said:

    “filtered out.” Hit the wrong button!