Funding The Arts

 Is this "hate propaganda" as being touted by liberals? It's a little unrefined but hardly hateful, no?

I'm not convinced. So the interviewer asked her why people should fund interpretive dance. Big deal. I'm sure plenty of people wonder too.

Ms. Gillis had a chance to once and for all defend why taxpayers should fund certain arts programs. Did she succeed? On one end, to much typical "out there" notions about how it's "good for the soul" to support the arts. On the other hand, I'd like to know more about her assertion that the average salary for a dancer is $12 000. That seems low but it all depends on the total dollars spent.

I get the argument that just because someone doesn't understand art doesn't mean it shouldn't be supported. I think the argument is should we fund those art forms that would not survive on their own and actually cost too much money? Just because it's art doesn't mean it deserves money.

The same debate happens with libraries and museums but to me, those institutions are worth being protected by the government. Not at a perpetual loss, but I could tolerate a small debt. We're not respectful of cultural history enough.

I'm not a fan of subsidies as a whole but in certain instances I don't mind them. It's just when people or programs feel entitled to them I get a little antsy.

In any event, why can't we debate such an issue without people going off with the usual it's all driven by "hate?"