At 12:38 4/15/97 -0400, you wrote:

>As we made clear in the recent letter to the Washington Post, the simple
>fact is that government at all levels is and always has been involved in
>cultural matters.  In the museum field alone, the federal government runs
>hundreds of institutions in the national parks, at the service
>academices, on military bases, etc.  Not to mention the Smithsonian and
>National Gallery of Art.

>If you take the conservative line to the absurd, why should government
>fund libraries?  Schools?  Roads?  Why not get mercenaries?  (For what
>it's worth, by the way, all of these questions have been asked with some
>degree of seriousness in the Congress.) All of these areas are indeed
>"truly desirable" but I think it's fair to say that among reasonable
>people there is a consensus that there's a role for "government."  With
>respect to culture, we've never denied that the role for the private
>sector is much bigger than the government's; but we do assert that the
>roles differ not only in size but in kind and purpose.
>
>Andy Finch
>[log in to unmask]
>Usual disclaimers apply even more than usual


Fair enough. Could we then at least agree that the NEA and NEH are in
serious need of some stricter guidelines and greater accountability?

Erik Mansoor
[log in to unmask]