my point is that though there are many good art programs that get grants,
there are also many that get grants for stuff that many find offensive, i'll
give an example of a crucifix submerged in urine called "piss christ". now
even if i were not a christian, i'd fine that offensive and hardly consider
it art. there are many other ones besides this, but, the nea has made some
congressional enemies by  funding
such trash. that is why i said they brought some of it on themselves. it is
a sham that good art programs gets cought up in the fight.

-----Original Message-----
From: Magenta Raine [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Monday, January 31, 2000 7:48 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Petition for NEA.DOC


In a message dated 1/31/00 3:17:30 PM Pacific Standard Time, [log in to unmask]
writes:

> upporting art is a constitutial function of
>  government. "the public welfare" maybe. but maybe not. i do not claim to
>  know all of the answers on this.
>
ken, the nea funds many programs, including the arts program i was in over
the summer.   I feel you are fundamentally right, if I was working, I'd
wonder why my taxes had to go to the war machine, etc.. t's always a toss
up.
m.