Fox News says boycott Canada

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by Kucinich

Just as the government needs to buy equipment, or has an interest in funding science, it also needs to promote culture. You do see the benefits of things like museums and art gallerys, don't you?

1) There's a difference between needing to do something and having an interest in something. Having a military, for instance, is a vital part of the government's function. Art is not.

It may not being vital to the government specifically, but culture is vital to a functioning (or perhaps a better term is 'thriving') society.

2) The government isn't funding all art, is it? And since (according to you) art can't survive, at least not much, without government funding, the government is choosing which art will be made and which won't. This is not in any way the proper domain of the government.

The same can be said about scientific grants, I don't see the difference.

[St Leo]

Originally posted by The Mad Monk
the problem with scientists - even the moderate ones - is mostly their completely idiot belief in the laws of science. This belief is due to your success - the moment you would stop being successfull, as Osweld pointed out, you would be weeping like any baby

No, you would be whooping with joy because you'd be able to publish your findings in a peer-reviewed journal and get some fame heading your way. That's why science works. People are rewarded for finding holes in it.

[DinoDoc]

Are you people still talking about how inferior the Cultural output of Canada is vs the US?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Because it's inconsistent. And paradoxal. You think that private buisnesses - who obviously have an introspective view - are more suited to making cultural decisions than governments are. Do you not see the reasons why a city would have an interest in funding an art gallery/museum, or why they would want to encourage local artists?

A city funding an art gallery / museum is distinct from grants mainly because the gallery / museum is reserved for the public. Grants to artists go into private pockets. The artists take the money, do their art and then sell it. The art is not reserved for the public, but rather for the economic gain of the artist. NOW, if the art, after it was made was secured by the government for the public (ie, in a museum), then fine. But this way it is just a business subsidy.

The government is allowed to buy things and an gallery or museam would be the government leasing or buying art from private individuals.

Discrimination is a negative, this is a postive.

Go back to your dictionary.

Or if you want a comparison that works, feel free to use one of the ones I offered - military or scientific funding.

Military funding is purchasing goods for the public defense. Scientific funding where it is for a public enterprise (like NASA) is ok, but where it is given to private scientists it is simply a subsidy.

[notyoueither]

A subsidy which results in the advancement of human knowledge, which is fine by me.

Likewise, grants to artists. They contribute to the cultural life of a city/county/country/what-have-you, which is also fine by me.

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Because it's inconsistent. And paradoxal. You think that private buisnesses - who obviously have an introspective view - are more suited to making cultural decisions than governments are. Do you not see the reasons why a city would have an interest in funding an art gallery/museum, or why they would want to encourage local artists?

A city funding an art gallery / museum is distinct from grants mainly because the gallery / museum is reserved for the public. Grants to artists go into private pockets. The artists take the money, do their art and then sell it. The art is not reserved for the public, but rather for the economic gain of the artist. NOW, if the art, after it was made was secured by the government for the public (ie, in a museum), then fine. But this way it is just a business subsidy.

Grants aren't issued so that artists can make and sell work, they are issued so that art is made - it's more akin to a commision than it is to a subsidy. Atleast, that's how it works in Canada.

From the Canadian Arts Council:

The Canada Council supports projects or programs of work that involve innovation and artistic expression. Priority is given to proposals from artists whose work demonstrates the development of an individual style or expressive approach, and/or a commitment to questioning and expanding the form of the medium.

These grants are not intended to support work created for the cultural industries of commercial film and television.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by St Leo

Originally posted by The Mad Monk
the problem with scientists - even the moderate ones - is mostly their completely idiot belief in the laws of science. This belief is due to your success - the moment you would stop being successfull, as Osweld pointed out, you would be weeping like any baby

No, you would be whooping with joy because you'd be able to publish your findings in a peer-reviewed journal and get some fame heading your way. That's why science works. People are rewarded for finding holes in it.

People are also rewarded for finding "holes" in the market, too, by your reasoning - they can use it to their advantage.

[Dis]

I like Bill O'Reilly

[bipolarbear]

I don't
O'Reilly
O'Franken I like him and I don't. I'm liberal so I agree with him, nad see him in a better light than O'Reilly, but I cna't get rid of that feelign that he is givng a huge bias to the left, which is hypocritical.

[Dis]

he is a comedian after all. he was better on snl

[Sikander]

The more political people become the less funny they are. Both O'Reilly and Franken basically suck these days. Franken was fairly funny when he was a professional comedian, but now he's become a professional shill and Rush Limp-paw wannabe. O'Reilly has always been an offensive blowhard afaik.