BSBSBSBSBS !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Actually, Gov. Sarah Palin adores classical music and all the great operas. If NPR would stop with the left-wing propaganda, Gov. Palin would have no problem with funding it.

Hey! That's MY goddess you're talking about.

It's not just Sarah Palin - in this case she's just following the strict party line. If the GOP had its way there would be no arts. No balanced news. No parks. And libraries and schools would have lists of books they shouldn't carry. The world, according to the GOP, is a place where businesses should be allowed to make the rules because capitalism is the only thing that matters - not the environment, not any sort of beauty, and certainly not the people. At least, not the people who have been born. Everyone would understand that education is something they need but will not be funded, that to work is a privilege, and that no one should have to help anyone else monetarily. Governments are only there to regulate morality and personal lives.

There are many reasons to promote classical music. Some researchers find a correlation between studying/playing music and higher academic scores. But what I want to know is why would anyone respond to anything statement made by Sarah Palin? Her statements only provide controversy. Heaven forbid she actually research something before opening her mouth.

This is such bunk. One study - that's ONE study - claimed to show higher test scores by college students after listening to Mozart. Several scientists have tried to replicate this, to no effect. And playing classical music to chase teens out of shopping malls is no reason to subsidize the NEA. That music was composed centuries ago and recorded decades ago.

Nice reach liberal spin doctors.

I love the premise; without federal funding, there will be no arts, no classical music, and, most laughable, no balanced "news." And, of course, Sarah Palin is the wicked witch of the north who would strip all beauty from our lives. Does that about cover it?

I wouldn't waste my time arguing; it's a pointless exercise in futility. Those who are intelligent enough to laugh at all of this, will do so without my help. The ideologues who support these premises will merely spew that "party line" to support them and revile me.

I just want to make sure I understand the message. I hate to turn my back on stupidity; it only bites you in the a** when you do.

Actually, Palin was quoted as saying the NEA was frivolous and should be cut! Welp, that's when I really started to worry. Thanks, L.A. for your opinion because no one else really mentioned it. bb

Mind you, I enjoy classical music, but I also like other genres of music. What I'd like to know is why some have the clearly elitist attitude that classical music and ONLY classical music is the panacea for all world's problems....or that somehow classical music fans are more 'virtuous' than others. Hitler was very much into classical music: Richard Wagner. Look at all the violence he caused! Josef Stalin was also into classical music, and he was one of the worst despots of the 20th Century! I can name other nefarious people as well who were known classical music enthusiasts. Plus, some of what is called 'art' isn't art at all. Some of it is just trash, plain and simple. They way I see it, funding shouldn't be given to arts simply for arts sake. Artists, like everyone else, need to earn their way, too...and I say that as an aspiring singer/songwriter.

Katie~

That is SO UNTRUE. I am conservative fiscally. I am in favor of the libraries, parks, even supporting the arts IF it's not trash. I would be in favor of supporting orchestras, etc.

No, conservatives are sick of waste, of programs that harm society, of public employee unions abusing their power and making all of us pay for all of their largesse when the private sector is suffering.

It is those things we are against...not the funding of good, worthwhile, and needed projects.

Who cares what Sarah Palin thinks, I know I don't. Maybe we should focus on people in power that are not supporting arts program because they are shifting that money towards overbloated public sector salaries. Let's look at Obama, Jerry Brown, Pelosi, Etc.

Regardless of the irrational outbursts of some bloggers, it's important that they keep in mind the old saw that any publicity is good publicity. Instead of mindlessly complaining, Tea-baggers and other nut-jobs should get on their hands and knees thank the LAT whenever they gratuitously refer to the hero for the sake of selling more advertising.

Maybe a better question is this:

Did the arts become better, or poorer, after we started subsidizing them?

Has any government-subsidized composer or artist surpassed Samuel Barber or Jackson Pollock?

I'd argue that subsidies actually stifle genuine creativity and originality.

When has government subsidizing, managing, or controlling improve anything?
Sarah Palin is real as compared to the elitist intelligentsia propaganda who think that because they attended an Ivy League school makes them better. If you read into different studies is becomes apparent that a "Gentleman's C" can be obtained just by showing up for the tests, so forget attending classes or actually learning anything. Also, I read an interesting poll that indicated that cheating and plagiarizing were common practice. It's all about the illusion, the Marxist Utopia, the elitist delusion.
Sarah Palin deals in reality, common sense, accounting and doesn't forget to add in the cost of interest (like Obama did).
No, the government (our taxpayer's money) can not afford to subsidize nonessentials. Heaven forbid, but if it's in demand it could survive on its own merit. Now THERE'S a novel idea!