California Is Broke, But They Still Have Money To Fund Dog-Humping Art?
Setting aside the fact that no nation that has a national debt should be funding art in the first place, stories like this one have a lot to do with why so many conservatives oppose using government money for art projects,
Dogs do the darndest things.They poop, they hump and they sniff in all the wrong places.
And now you can see them do all of the above every time you cross the pedestrian bridge over Interstate 80 in Berkeley, Calif., thanks to the largesse of the taxpayers.
Artist Scott Donahue of Emeryville, Calif., was paid $196,000 by Berkeley’s public arts program to create two large statues, which feature small, artistic medallions that show dogs doing what dogs do best.
“Various things,” Donahue said. “Biting each other, chasing each other…. One dog is defecating, two dogs are fornicating.”
But with the country in a deep recession and California on the verge of bankruptcy, some taxpayers are questioning the money Donahue got for his work. His total budget was $196,000 — 1.5 percent of the total budget for building the pedestrian bridge. And all of it came from taxpayers.
Meanwhile, in California, back in January, California was saying they were so broke that they were going to have to send out IOUs in place of tax refund checks.
I do have to give this artist a smidgen of credit for actually creating art that actually is a recognizable shape, as opposed to most modern art, which seems to be just a bunch of crap that’s randomly thrown together.
Nevertheless, this line does jump out at you, doesn’t it?
But with the country in a deep recession and California on the verge of bankruptcy, some taxpayers are questioning the money Donahue got for his work.
In a sane world, it would be “almost all taxpayers are questioning the money.” There should also be a line in there about the government hack who approved the project being unceremoniously fired. Furthermore, there should also be a line in there about how government officials are working to make sure nothing like this ever occurs again.
Of course, the typical liberal reaction to this is either….
#1) “It’s just $196,000. That’s not so much money.”
That attitude is a huge problem for our country because we say that over and over about increasingly large sums of money that are of increasingly less value to the taxpayer. That attitude is why we’re getting ready to pass a trillion dollar stimulus package that doesn’t actually stimulate the economy — because the attitude is, “Awww, it’s just the taxpayer’s money. It doesn’t matter how we spend it.”
#2) The other liberal complaint is usually, “You conservatives hate art!” Actually, I don’t hate art. In fact, I have some neato-skeeto little gargoyle statues on my bookshelves, clay fish on my walls, and small paintings in my house. I do not, however, have any statues of dogs crapping in my house or random piles of car parts and crap from the dumpster at a Food Lion that some people like to refer to as art.
I also see no need whatsoever for the government to sponsor art in this day and age. We live in an affluent society where art is more available than it has ever been before in all of human history. Go on eBay and you’ll find reproductions of all the classic paintings and copies of every great symphony in history, all at bargain basement prices, along with an almost unlimited supply of art made by young artists. In an environment like the one we have in our country, there is absolutely no need for the government to subsidize art.
Hat tip to Gateway Pundit for the story.