Supporters Of Tax-Funded "Arts" vs Free Speech

So far their censorship attempt achieved just the opposite. According to the Sun News Network, the fuss over the Margie Gillis interview has apparently resulted in Krista Erickson tripling her audience:

In fact, unlike Doyle and Mallick, Erickson was ineffably polite and respectful of Margie Gillis as a person and a performer. True, there was a lot of disputing and talking over one another - one can look up the Erickson interview on YouTube as I did - but Gillis didn't back down.

When Erickson gave Gillis her "moment in the sun" to defend the grants and subsidies, Gillis went into what many of us regard as bafflegab -

working for "the common good ... human spirit ... resolving conflicts ... experimental transformation ... discovering nuances ... more people dancing and looking further ... reconciliation of conflicts ... ideas that improve the quality of our lives ... minds growing in plasticity" and so on.

Krista acknowledged that she was something of a "Philistine" who didn't "get interpretive dancing and highfalutin concepts like plasticity of the mind, and the hunter-gatherer mind exploration thing."

Personally, I tend to agree with Erickson. If, as Gillis says, the average dancer gets $12,000 a year and needs public financing to survive, it basically means that taxpayers are subsidizing a hobby. If the public is unwilling to pay to see performers, perhaps the performers should be in some other line of work?

More >>>

But that's where the entitlement culture comes into play. Those "artists", most of whom have become nothing but whiny grant appliers, apparently believe that taxpayers are supposed to just give them the money and be quiet about it. So when someone dares to question their entitlements - they respond with thousands of complaints with the clear intent not only to silence the outspoken interviewer but to have the dissenting TV station shut down.