🚀 go-pugleaf

IOn 22 May 1996 23:19:59 -0400, rcu@acpub.duke.edu (Ray Ubinger)
wrote:

>Michael James Tino writes:
>
>> [I'll gladly read] an intelligent argument against public funding 
>> for the arts (something a bit deeper than "I'm a libertarian, so I'm 
>> offended")[.]
>
>I wasn't trying to make any argument.  I was just asking questions.  But 
>if you're requesting an argument, I'll give you one.
>
>In my opinion, the compulsory funding of the NEA violates freedom of 
>artistic expression, which I think is an inalienable individual right.
>People who positively disagree with the NEA's aesthetics have to pay anyway, 
>under penalty of jail, instead of being left free to spend their money 
>propagating their own aesthetics.  I don't see that as any way to keep a free
>country going.  I see it as federal officiating of cultural discourse
>at the point of gun.  Since all men are created equal, no man in my 
>opinion may rightfully compel another as to what to call culturally
>important or valuable or worth paying for.
>
>> In the meantime, please don't clutter our mailboxes with your open 
>> letters to appointed officials.
>
>I sent nothing to your mailbox.
>
>
>Respectfully,
>
>Ray Ubinger
>rcu@acpub.duke.edu


Mr Ubinger might find a more appropriate and friendly audience on talk
radio.  Rush Limbaugh and Tom Joyner are carried locally for those who
like to whine about humanities funding while happy to have my morals
violated with tax funding for nuclear weapons, a bloated military,
subsidies (via tax exempt status) to evangelical groups who advocate
government control over women's choices and promote an anti-gay,
antifamily, antipoor agenda.  If we're talking about significant
issues, there's much more money involved there in a day than in arts
funding in a year.

Bill Scarborough