I know this article is old, and you make a good point... but Clinton didn't but the NEA funding... it was the Republican-controlled congress. But other than that, your article has wings.

Tanya,

You make an excellent point, and I agree with you, with one caveat: Congress can't spend or cut anything without the President's signature.

So when people demonize Reagan for "overspending", I point out it was a Democratic Congress which wrote the bills. And the same goes for any credit (or blame) associated Clinton's alleged fiscal responsibility.

Tina,

I'd agree with you that arts are important. But that doesn't mean we need a federal department to make that happen.

For example, I think it's also important to have good books and nice people -- are there federal departments to make sure those things happen?

If art is important -- as I agree it is --then why is it the job of some bureaucrat in Washington to decide for us what kind and how much of it we need?

If people don't want to look at it or buy it, then why force them to give their money to make it? Or if it's important to make it anyway, then why not also force people to look at it and "benefit" from it?

dude, your're bragging that bush upped NEA spending 16% his first term? being a conservative used to mean letting people keep their money

Where does it say I'm bragging about that? I personally hoped he would abolish the NEArts! But, since Bush's positions are consistent with Democratic ones just a decade ago, at least Democrats should like them.

Also, its not fair to type cast the entire left using one air head.

She's not an airhead -- she's a friend of mine. And perhaps you say there are people on the left who differ. But what you're not seeing she's not just one example I encountered either. In my experience, she's utterly typical.

Show me a leftist artist who praised Bush's increase for NEArts funding, and supported him at least because of that, and then we can have an interesting discussion.

And for every mindless 'i hate him. he talks funny.' on the left, there's an equally mindless 'god bless him' on the right.

There's nothing mindless about liking someone. It should be the default position. It is only mindless hatred or prejudice which requires justification.

For example, one person might say: "I love all people of other races" even though he doesn't know many people of other races. In your mind, that is exactly as bad as saying: "I hate all people of other races" given the same background.

If you truely believe that one should be willing to look for contradictory evidense - look into the personal relationship between prince Bandar and the Bush family.

I've studied that one rather extensively. But I can't respond to a non-statement like: "Look into this." If you'd like to draw a particular conclusion, then go ahead and make a clear statement and we can see where we stand.

the first rule of investigation is to ask "who benefits?"

If that's where you're starting, you've lost before you get out of the starting gate. No, the first rule of investigation is to try to establish some ground rules for the admission of evidence, and how to think about it. If an argument can work one way, you must be able to accept it the other way too. And you must know the basic rules of logic or your will simply be deluding yourself.

And, from what I can see you offering, it appears you have robbed yourself of those essentials.

At the first link you've offered, I see nothing even vaguely resembling evidence of anything. Here's a sample argument: In the Balkans, we fought to protect Muslims. Since OBL is a Muslim, he probably agreed with us there, and we might have inadvertantly protected some of his allies. Therefore (hint, hint) the implication we are supposed to draw is apparently that OBL is actively working for our government.

This is what passes for logic and evidence in your book?

Remember what I said about using the same rules for arguments you'd agree with as those you wouldn't? How about this? Since John Kerry claimed to have smuggled guns for to the Khmer Rogue, he must still be a foreign agent working for Communists.

Are you willing to accept the previous argument as true also? Why not? It uses the exact same form as one you apparently give credence to?

Here's another one: In Afghanistan, we fought Soviets. Some of our allies were Muslims. Therefore, OBL (hint, hint) might still be on the CIA payroll! (Not that any evidence was even offered he was even in the first place.)

And the evidence for this implication is... where? Didn't see any offered. We were just supposed to magically assume it was true.

And the second link shows the CIA proposed -- and rejected -- the idea of creating a pretext for invading Cuba over forty years ago. And this proves what? Yes, of course 9/11 could have been a pretext to start a war with Iraq.

But you'd need some -- you know -- EVIDENCE -- to make that leap. For example, I could claim Howard Dean is actually a secret agent of a foreign power. Because, you know, forty years ago, some foreign powers actually did employ secret agents. Therefore, gosh, isn't it interesting that Dean openly supported a socialist for office recently? That practically PROVES he's being paid by a socialist regime like North Korea, Cuba, or China!

Did that make sense to you? No, I didn't buy it either. So please stop believing such arguments when they seem to IN FAVOR OF your cherished beliefs. You are making a fool of yourself when you show you buy into such poor reasoning.

So, if you want to have a debate about this, please offer even one clear statement of a position you hold. Do you say Bush planned 9/11? Then have the guts to come out and say that. Then I can ask you for ONE piece of evidence (not a page full of vague hints based on assertions for which no evidence is in offer) in favor of that view and we can have a good discussion.

Game?

I didn't think so.