Hey, y’all, I’ve been sort of out of pocket the last couple of days — looking at comments, but not sitting at a keyboard, so no posts.
Maybe, to start things off, I offer this interesting piece from the WashPost:
SAN JOSE — As a junior senator with presidential aspirations, Barack Obama built his persona in large part around opposition to Bush administration counterterrorism policies, and he sponsored a bill in 2005 that would have sharply limited the government’s ability to spy on U.S. citizens.
That younger Obama bears little resemblance to the commander in chief who stood on a stage here Friday, justifying broad programs targeting phone records and Internet activities as vital tools to prevent terrorist attacks and protect innocent Americans.
The former constitutional law professor — who rose to prominence in part by attacking what he called the government’s post-Sept. 11 encroachment on civil liberties — has undergone a philosophical evolution, arriving at what he now considers the right balance between national security prerogatives and personal privacy.
“I came in with a healthy skepticism about these programs,” Obama said in San Jose on Friday. “My team evaluated them. We scrubbed them thoroughly. We actually expanded some of the oversight, increased some of safeguards. But my assessment and my team’s assessment was that they help us prevent terrorist attacks.”
“On net,” the president added, “it was worth us doing.”…
I agree, from what I know.
Related Posts
So is anybody else excited about Ender’s Game? Or am I the only science fiction/fantasy nerd here?
http://www.ign.com/videos/2013/05/08/enders-game-trailer-1
Love Firefly, have read Dune and Stranger in a Strange Land many times.
Not Ender’s Game, but I know some in my family love it.
Brad and others are big Firefly fans, and I liked Firefly and the original Star Trek, but…..
I like those too, but this one is a book first. It was a really good book. Ender is a really good character. I’m not sure the look of it is quite like what I pictured, but that is just the nature of books to movies, I suppose. I hope they are true to the story though.
Card has gone a little crazy writing more books for this world – retelling the story from every possible perspective and filling in all kinds of gaps in time. I’ve not read them all. I think the first two are the best – Ender’s Game and Speaker For The Dead. They are completely different kinds of stories but both very good.
So, what does the USC baseball loss mean for their championship chances?
The super regional is a best of 3 series with just two teams. So they play NC again tomorrow and Monday (if needed). If they win the series, they will advance to the college world series. So they’ll have to win both tomorrow and Monday to go on. If NC wins tomorrow, it’s over.
They made some fundamental mistakes today. They were just not as crisp as they were during the two championship runs. IF they can get by NC, many of the other games seem to be breaking their way with Vandy, FSU and Virginia all losing their first game. The Tarheels may be the biggest hurdle to getting back to the championship series.
Now this is some interesting data. Richland County Council has some internal fighting going on over where to spend hospitality tax money.
From The State:
Richland County expects $5.4 million in the coming year from a 2-percent tax on restaurant meals in unincorporated areas. Historically, the county has directed much of the money to the county’s largest tourist generators. This year, those groups – Columbia Museum of Art, Historic Columbia Foundation and EdVenture – received $1.4 million. They are eligible to receive an increase in appropriations of up to 3 percent a year. In addition, the council decides how to spend $1.5 million. This year, the money was divided among 20 venues and events with an attempt to spend 75 percent of the money in unincorporated areas.
A citizen hospitality-tax committee recommends how to spend another $340,368 to promote Richland County. The council, however, retains final authority. Finally, another $1.5 million is being spent to pay off land purchased for two failed projects – a Northeast Richland regional sports complex and a state farmers market ultimately built in Lexington County. Historically, the county has directed much of its hospitality-tax money to “The Big Three,” groups that generate the largest number of tourists — people who travel from at least 50 miles away. This year’s appropriations from the county for those agencies:
Columbia Museum of Art $687,926 12,011 tourists
Historic Columbia Foundation $514,587* 11,355 tourists
EdVenture $235,834 138,963 tourists
(end)
Now let’s look at those numbers. $1.5 MILLION to be used to pay off failed projects. Who gets credit for that failure? Is there anyone who is accountable?
And then the spending for the Columbia Museum of Art and Historic Columbia Foundation. Do the math. We are spending $57 per tourist to get them to come into the museum. $57! and $46 per tourist for the Historic Foundation! For Edventure, it is a very reasonable $1.70 per tourist.
This further confirms my belief that the government has no business propping up cultural endeavors. They cannot stand on their own. It works out to about 30 tourists per day for the Art Museum and Historic Society. They need to be cut loose from the taxpayer subsidies.
So your belief is that government should not support anything that cannot stand on it’s own? Just curious, but why is standing on it’s own such an over-ridingly important value to you? Can you not conceive of any endeavor that has intrinsic value but for whatever reason, is not able to stand on it’s own? Are you saying that should such an entity exist, you would never give credence to it’s intrinsic value since it is obviously trumped by not being self supporting?
After reading your posts, I sometimes get the feeling that if the world was as you would like it to be, it would be a very dismal place (to me). It would certainly be a harsher place with less beauty and more suffering, since you don’t seem to believe the arts are worth supporting and you don’t think helping anybody who can never repay the debt or achieve your predetermined level of success is worthwhile.
I suspect you will say that you don’t not support those things, you just don’t think it is the place of the government to support those things. It is my opinion, that these things would happen to much lesser degree and would be qualitatively different if the government did not support them.
“I suspect you will say that you don’t not support those things, you just don’t think it is the place of the government to support those things. It is my opinion, that these things would happen to much lesser degree and would be qualitatively different if the government did not support them.”
Exactly. I am saying that the arts that the government supports are the choices made by a very small group of people who do not represent the views of the general public. Since it is the tax dollars of the general public that are being spent, why should they be spent on the narrow biased interests of a small group of people?
The general public is not interested in seeing the home that Woodrow Wilson lived in for a couple years as a child. It has no relevance. Just because you like something doesn’t mean someone else should pay for you to have what you want. If you want arts in Columbia, get those people who ARE interested to fund it. Or at least reduce the funding to a level that is reasonable. It’s easy to spend $60 per tourist when there is no accountability. Maybe it should be set up as a matching funds grant – you raise X, you get Y.
My world is full of all sorts of interesting things and events. It’s not dismal at all. I enjoy books, movies, sports, concerts. The difference is that I don’t expect the government to subsidize the majority of the cost of the things I like or expect the government to push my interests on other people.
Think about this – last Friday night, the Columbia Blowfish baseball team had approximately 5700 fans attend a game. That is half the total for the year for the Historical Society.
Ok. I’m thinking about it. Not sure what point you are trying to make about it though.
One is self supporting, received no public funding, and attracted more (probably local- my guess) attendees.
One is (according to you) probably not self supporting, received public funding, and attracts fewer tourists but who come from more than 50 miles away (according to article).
Are you saying you would rather the public funding be given to the Blowfish? I’m not sure I understand the purpose behind your original contention that entities that are not self supporting should not be supported at all. If they bring any value to the city, than I would think they over others would need the support, if they truly are not self supporting – assuming you think the value they bring is important. In this case, the fact that they bring in tourists from over 50 miles away seems to have been the important part. Which makes sense if this is funded with the hospitality tax since people coming from 50 miles away will likely need to eat and possibly sleep in the city at other local merchants, unlike local fans attending a blowfish game.
The city derives revenues from the Blowfish (parking, meal tax, etc.) in what could charitably be called a broken down stadium… and the Blowfish go away to Lexington next year.
An investment of the 1.5 million lost on failed projects plus half of what is spent on the historic and arts budget would probably be enough to retain the Blowfish or (even better) attract a real minor league team that WOULD bring in tourist dollars.
I’m not opposed to funding the arts but it should be proportional to the value received. The article implies that they get a 3% annual increase. Why? Is anyone making any determination of the value receieved? (And, no, you cannot use the “it is art so it is valuable” argument.
If the goal is to generate tourism, use the tax dollars in a way that maximizes that return. Otherwise, we are left with the reality that large amounts of money are spent on the whims of a few well connected arts patrons. $1.70 for EdVenture versus $57 for the art museum says the objective is not tourism dollars.
“My world is full of all sorts of interesting things and events. It’s not dismal at all. I enjoy books, movies, sports, concerts. The difference is that I don’t expect the government to subsidize the majority of the cost of the things I like or expect the government to push my interests on other people.”
That is your current world – the one that includes the government you don’t like. How many of those things you enjoy are made possible in some way, perhaps ways you aren’t even aware of, by government subsidization at some point. Perhaps the artists that produced the works you enjoy got their start or encouragement in public schools art programs that you would have preferred to not have funded. I think a world that worked the way you advocate would produce fewer of the things you enjoy – you just may not realize it.
Notice I used the words “majority of the cost”. I know there is some government involvement in all endeavors. The issue is the cost/benefit. $60 a head for the Art Museum does not indicate a return on investment that is comparable.
Yes, the baseball games I attend have players who once played on public ball fields. But that didn’t happen because someone says “we need to make sure baseball must thrive” – it happened based on demand by the public. It’s why we don’t see as many public bocce ball or badminton courts.
In the case of the arts, it’s meeting the demands of a relative few well connected people with a narrow view of what “art” is because they could not exist otherwise.
On top of that is the question of priorities. In your world, it is better to spend $1 million dollars on arts and historical societies than address the basic needs of the citizens (food, shelter, healthcare). I would rather see the money spent on those fundamental needs than on the whims of the cultural elite.
“On top of that is the question of priorities. In your world, it is better to spend $1 million dollars on arts and historical societies than address the basic needs of the citizens (food, shelter, healthcare). I would rather see the money spent on those fundamental needs than on the whims of the cultural elite.”
Where on earth did you get that idea? I never said funding art was more important than funding basic needs. That is not my position.
“Exactly. I am saying that the arts that the government supports are the choices made by a very small group of people who do not represent the views of the general public. Since it is the tax dollars of the general public that are being spent, why should they be spent on the narrow biased interests of a small group of people? ”
In your original example in the article you quoted, the purpose for giving public money to the institutions you cited was not for the purpose of supporting the arts. It was for the purpose of promoting Richland County. Money was awarded not based on artistic merit or any connected person’s preference, but on number of tourists generated by that entity. I don’t see why awarding county money based on economic benefit to the county is objectionable. In this example, the fact that the institutions in question were cultural endeavors was a side point and not why they were receiving funding.
If a community values the arts enough to decide as a community to set aside money for arts funding, that is a worthy value in and of itself. I do think there should be public comment on what arts get funded. People have to be engaged enough to comment if they care. Some people may believe that it is right to fund the arts and not have opinions about the specifics. I have no idea if there is such a process here – perhaps that is something that needs to be improved – but what is cited in this article doesn’t seem to be an example of it.
“Money was awarded not based on artistic merit or any connected person’s preference, but on number of tourists generated by that entity.”
No it wasn’t. If that were the case, more would be spent on EdVenture and less on the Art Museum. There is a greater return on investment in terms of the number of visitors. If that is the purpose of the money – to drive tourism, then I bet I could come up with hundreds of alternatives that would bring more people to Columbia.
How about an outdoor hip hop concert by a few of the top artists? Think it would attract more than 20,000 people? and generate millions in revenue to the economy? That’s cultural.
Or sponsor a comic book convention… that’s art, right?
Or bring some better musicals to the Koger Center? Book of Mormon is on tour… that would sell more tickets in a week than the art museum brings in in a year.
I’d rather see half the money spent on arts spent on the dog pound because I think it provides greater benefit. Should I get my way if I have the right political connections?
You should have your voice heard like everybody else and you should continue to fight against political corruption.