On government funding for the arts

A common objection is that cutting government funding for the arts will leave artists without funding. This is nonsense. Whether given through public or private means, the money doesn’t cease to exist.

The issue is whether your money should be redistributed by largely unelected, unaccountable government bureaucrats. I say shitcan the bureaucrats, cut taxes, and let the people decide where they want to spend their money.

Bubbles Galore box cover

One response

  1. Is there a thinly-veiled homo agenda behind government arts funding?

    From The Myth of the Magical Arts Bureaucracy:

    “The NEA also uses its grant money to endorse alternative lifestyles, such as homosexuality. Current NEA chief Jane Alexander vocally defended an NEA-funded performance by Ron Athey in Minneapolis in which the HIV positive Athey sliced into another man’s back with a knife and cleaned up the blood with towels which were then sent on clotheslines over the audience. Alexander also recently told a homosexual magazine, The Advocate, that she intended to use the agency to ‘introduce people gently to gay themes all across the country. And I mean gently, because if you start with a kind of very overt thing, people get scared. You gently bring in gay people and introduce them to the world through art.'”

    Between statements like these and movies like Bubbles Galore, one has to wonder.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: