Kudos to Recker, Gibson and Popoff for the vote against funding for the Arts. Their argument is based on the fundamental belief that government is not to control art display. Control by government is a form of censorship and as such the arts advisory board which will oversee such disbursement of monies raised by fees on commercial development is now the art critic. Our money to pay for board decisions for the good of the community. Is anyone listening to the groundswell of independent voices calling for limited government both in terms of scope and size
Share your thoughts
Comments are the sole responsibility of the person posting them. You agree not to post comments that are off topic, defamatory, obscene, abusive, threatening or an invasion of privacy. Violators may be banned. Click here for our full user agreement.
ajm3s writes:
Kudos to Recker, Gibson and Popoff for the vote against funding for the Arts. Their argument is based on the fundamental belief that government is not to control art display. Control by government is a form of censorship and as such the arts advisory board which will oversee such disbursement of monies raised by fees on commercial development is now the art critic. Our money to pay for board decisions for the good of the community. Is anyone listening to the groundswell of independent voices calling for limited government both in terms of scope and size
Share your thoughts
Comments are the sole responsibility of the person posting them. You agree not to post comments that are off topic, defamatory, obscene, abusive, threatening or an invasion of privacy. Violators may be banned. Click here for our full user agreement.