Is this a misuse of tax money?

Post Reply New Topic

Well, shame on me for taking a Fox News article and Inuyasha's word at their face value. As it turns out (and you can read it here), Smithsonian's exhibits are PRIVATELY FUNDED after all. The Smithsonian does receive public funding, but they don't use it for their exhibitions, as reported in the Washington Post. The article to which I've linked has a list of the donors.

Watch. Now that I've kneecapped his entire argument, like clockwork, Inuyasha's going to say it's all a conspiracy concocted by George Soros, and that we shouldn't trust what MediaMatters has to say, because Fox News is the only infallible journalistic source in America.

Aren't most temporary exhibits at museums funded privately?

Has anybody tested the hypothesis and constructed an artistic emotive consciousness raising statement featuring Muhammad?

It would have been had it not been censored.

Yes actually and they are either imprisoned, decapitated, etc.

@ Chevand

Actually Fox News is correct on tax money being used in this instance it was stimulus money.

See? I knew it. Even in the face of evidence disproving his point (including the full list of donors), he still insists Fox News is right.

Care to back up your claim with something from someplace other than Fox News?

Care to back your claims up with a source other than one that is a known sight for left wing propaganda.

If it comes from move-on.org, mediamatters, factcheck, dailykos, huffington post, and there are few others I can't think of at the moment. THEY HAVE NO CREDIBILITY WHEN IT COMES TO ANYTHING CONCERNING POLITICS OR FOX NEWS.

If you want to prove Fox News wrong on this get me the complete list of donors from the Smithsonian, and I also have to point out that even then it wouldn't be complete if it didn't include the Feds because the Federal Government does give funds to the Smithsonian.

Cries of propaganda are pretty funny coming from someone who cites almost exclusively right wing propaganda and can't even escape the op-eds, at times.

I called it.



Here you go. The National Portrait Gallery's official website, list of private donors for the exhibition included. And of course, like I explained (but I'm sure you'll say it's a lie), I won't argue with you that the Smithsonian is publically funded, but they don't use taxpayer money for exhibitions.

Prove that you watched the video before you learned of the controversy from some right-wing source?

So next you're going to tell me that ACORN wasn't operating out of an old Funeral Home in New Orleans.

"Does that former funeral home look big enough to you to house 270 organizations?" Beck asked. "The owner of the building is a company whose partners are – oh my gosh! – Wade and Dale Rathke."

http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=98145

You know the sad thing is that Fox News has covered a lot of the stuff that has come out that makes Obama look bad at least 3 monthes before the mainstream media starts to cover it. You know it is interesting that Glenn Beck managed to uncover something using google satelite that the entire mainstream media couldn't find with all their resources.

@ marshall
Unfortunately, pretty much every left-wing outlet has absolutely no credibility anymore especially when it comes to Obama and quite frankly I don't have to prove anything to you. You have the gall to accuse me of being close minded when you can't even wrap your head around the fact that maybe people like Glenn Beck are actually telling the truth. You ever stop and consider that maybe just maybe what you thought you knew was a lie.

So basically, what you're saying is, when you cite a news source, it's a watertight, indisputable fact-- but if anyone else finds any proof that the source you've cited is a load of horse manure by citing any other news source, that person is a gullible idiot because there are no trustworthy news sources aside from Fox News.

In other words, you're always right. Is that it?

I'm not saying that at all, I'm saying you need to prove to me that a site that gets bribes particularly to try to smear a particular news organization should be remotely trustworthy when it comes to anything involving said news organization that it is being paid to smear.

I will give huffington post and mediate some credit for going after NPR though.

However huffington post was also one of the places with employees being members of Journ'O'list.

I've already provided a link to the National Portrait Gallery's official donor list, on the Smithsonian's website. In addition, there is this excerpt from this Washington Post article from November 30:

@ Chevand

As part of the Smithsonian, the gallery receives public funds. Overall, the Smithsonian gets about 70 percent of its annual budget from the federal government, but it does not use that money for exhibitions.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 0110502641

Because it is taking public funds and it doesn't matter if it is direct or indirect fact is tax payer money is involved. A University may not be directly run by the Government, but if it receives federal money it is subject to certain rules that a private museum or college would not be subject to.


Chris Edwards, director of tax policy studies at the Cato Institute and a former senior economist on the congressional Joint Economic Committee, told CNSNews.com, "If the Smithsonian didn't have the taxpayer-funded building, they would have no space to present the exhibit, right? In my own view, if someone takes taxpayer money, then I think the taxpayers have every right to question the institutions where the money's going."

"Think about the Washington Post," he said. "They don't have to publish every op-ed that they get, right? They own the platform. In this case [the Smithsonian Institution], the taxpayers own the platform and so the taxpayers should decide what is presented on that platform."

Gary Scott, an economist who is a senior research fellow at the Intercollegiate Studies Institute, had a similar view.

“Leaving aside the merit or lack of it in the exhibit itself, the notion that taxpayers don’t fund it is unpersuasive,” said Scott. “First, most of the overall budget derives from tax monies for the facility, and maintenance and staff. Second, the exhibit appears inside and is monitored by staff. Finally, if it was funded only by outside funding the exhibit would be outside in a snowdrift.”

A spokesperson for the gallery’s external affairs office said the cost to mount the “Hide/Seek” exhibit is $750,000, the most expensive exhibition to date at the National Portrait Gallery.
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/penny-star ... naked-brot

In other words tax money was used for the display, it doesn't matter if it was indirect, tax money is still involved.

Also there is more:

The promotion read, in part: "Gallery Talks & Tours, Kids & Families. EVENT LOCATION Throughout the museum COST Free RELATED EXHIBITION Hide/Seek: Difference and Desire in American Portraiture ... NOTE This friends and family day includes music and hands-on arts activities inspired by the exhibition Hide/Seek: Difference and Desire in American Portraiture. Guided tours of the Hide/Seek exhibition also available at special times."

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/penny-star ... naked-brot

Did I mention that the exhibit has porn in it?

Fixed the focus.