-
It's that time of year again - our ISP is asking for money. If you have some spare change, please click the Donate link... Thanks!
- About Us
- Search
- Need Help?
- Donate
- Login/Register
Latest Entries
Actions Menu
Blog Roll
- 4F Facebook Page
- Turn Up The Night with Kenny Pick
- Stephanie Miller Show
- The Tim Corrimal Show
- The Rachel Maddow Show
- Angry Americans with Paul Rieckhoff
- Thom Hartmann Program
- Turnips! Fans of Turn Up the Night Facebook Page
- Snopes.com
- Factcheck.org
- Official White House Page, if you must.
- The Brad Blog / Green News Report
- The Poorly Written Political Blog (Joe Santorsa)
What's elite?
Author: Raine
Date: 11/15/2010 13:55:15
I suppose you heard about this last week: This is not just fiscally irresponsible. As it suggests cutting funding that is already there while increasing the fees, it is - in my opinion - morally unethical.
The purpose of the Smithsonian can be found in it's history: (Bold face mine)
I have a liberal bias for the arts and history. I believe that arts, science and history should be something that belongs to all Americans -- not just those who can afford it. The Smithsonian institution was given to ALL of Americans, including the poor. Aside from that, while it charges no entry fees, one should be aware we do pay for it in our tax dollars; we are already paying for a privilege afforded to everyone in this country and the world. This is what makes it different from a diversion like an amusement park. The institution is a showcase to the world bringing tourism from all countries. Tourism is an important sector for our economy -- the money not spent on museum admission is often spent in the businesses that surround it, such as restaurants and retail stores. Tourism also generates jobs. Free access is an investment in the future of the economic sector.
For myself, it goes to something larger. Why are we willing to put a cost on our national treasures? Why should only those that are affluent enough be allowed to view the collections inside it's walls? One could argue that there are many paid museums out there, but ask yourselves this: How many inner city children get the chance to have their eyes opened to the possibilities and the creativity given to us by people like Leonardo, Michaelangelo, Hopper, Freud, Edison? How many poor rural families who live off the land or paycheck to paycheck can see Van Gogh and Picasso? What happens when the poor among us are excluded from being able to experience this? The are cut of from the realm of possibility, and they are excluded from access to the same riches as those that have more in this nation.
This is what is so attractive about the Smithsonian institution: It is not exclusionary. You can be from the most elite private school in America or the toughest poorest school in Detroit and still have access to the same priceless collection of artifacts.
I am not a fan of admission to Museums, although I do understand the need for funding them. New York City has it's Metropolitan Musuem, and it suggests a 12 dollar fee.It also has membership levels that allow for more intimate access to functions held there, but the base line is that everyone, no matter how much money they have, can view the Temple of Dendur or any other priceless pieces of history. I submit that charging fees will further the divide between the upper and lower class. As always -- the lower the class is the one that will suffer. Only thru access, education and understanding can we give those that have less the chance to learn that they truly can aspire to be anything. We should be a nation that lifts people up and out of poverty, be it economic, educational or cultural. That is what art, science and history is supposed to do.
The Smithsonian institution was never supposed to exist as a cash cow. It was meant to be increase and diffuse knowledge among people. I wish more museums existed for that purpose. That purpose changed my world the first time I went to the Metropolitan in the 8th grade on a school trip. That was the only way it was going to happen, as we just didn't have the money or time as a family to consider a trip to the city. I was exposed to something that I never thought possible: that was that there was a purpose for my doodling and drawing, and that it had a place where it could be enjoyed by others. I might never have taken the course I charted to follow my passion as an artist if it were not for the ability to access a museum. This should be something everyone should have, not just the few that can afford it. That is the definition of elitist.
There are better ways to approach our debt problems than by taking away something that belongs to all of us. It will only make us poorer as a nation.
and 
Raine
The draft proposal, penned by commission co-chairs Erskine Bowles and Alan Simpson, suggests a number of ways to cut discretionary spending by more than $200 billion in 2015 -- including reducing federal funding for the Smithsonian and the National Park Service. The commission co-chairs suggest the Smithsonian Institution should charge admission fees at its 19 museums and the National Zoo, which are all currently free, to make up for the lost funding.
If the Smithsonian's federal funding were cut by $225 million in 2015, it could make up for it by charging an average fee of $7.50 per visitor, they argue. Bowles and Simpson point out that several notable private museums in the United States charge anywhere from $10 to $20 per visitor, with lower rates for children and seniors, while zoos charge even more.
The purpose of the Smithsonian can be found in it's history:
In 1826, James Smithson, a British scientist, drew up his last will and testament, naming his nephew as beneficiary. Smithson stipulated that, should the nephew die without heirs (as he would in 1835), the estate should go “to the United States of America, to found at Washington, under the name of the Smithsonian Institution, an establishment for the increase and diffusion of knowledge among men.”
The motives behind Smithson’s bequest remain mysterious. He never traveled to the United States and seems to have had no correspondence with anyone here. Some have suggested that his bequest was motivated in part by revenge against the rigidities of British society, which had denied Smithson, who was illegitimate, the right to use his father’s name. Others have suggested it reflected his interest in the Enlightenment ideals of democracy and universal education.
I have a liberal bias for the arts and history. I believe that arts, science and history should be something that belongs to all Americans -- not just those who can afford it. The Smithsonian institution was given to ALL of Americans, including the poor. Aside from that, while it charges no entry fees, one should be aware we do pay for it in our tax dollars; we are already paying for a privilege afforded to everyone in this country and the world. This is what makes it different from a diversion like an amusement park. The institution is a showcase to the world bringing tourism from all countries. Tourism is an important sector for our economy -- the money not spent on museum admission is often spent in the businesses that surround it, such as restaurants and retail stores. Tourism also generates jobs. Free access is an investment in the future of the economic sector.
For myself, it goes to something larger. Why are we willing to put a cost on our national treasures? Why should only those that are affluent enough be allowed to view the collections inside it's walls? One could argue that there are many paid museums out there, but ask yourselves this: How many inner city children get the chance to have their eyes opened to the possibilities and the creativity given to us by people like Leonardo, Michaelangelo, Hopper, Freud, Edison? How many poor rural families who live off the land or paycheck to paycheck can see Van Gogh and Picasso? What happens when the poor among us are excluded from being able to experience this? The are cut of from the realm of possibility, and they are excluded from access to the same riches as those that have more in this nation.
This is what is so attractive about the Smithsonian institution: It is not exclusionary. You can be from the most elite private school in America or the toughest poorest school in Detroit and still have access to the same priceless collection of artifacts.
I am not a fan of admission to Museums, although I do understand the need for funding them. New York City has it's Metropolitan Musuem, and it suggests a 12 dollar fee.It also has membership levels that allow for more intimate access to functions held there, but the base line is that everyone, no matter how much money they have, can view the Temple of Dendur or any other priceless pieces of history. I submit that charging fees will further the divide between the upper and lower class. As always -- the lower the class is the one that will suffer. Only thru access, education and understanding can we give those that have less the chance to learn that they truly can aspire to be anything. We should be a nation that lifts people up and out of poverty, be it economic, educational or cultural. That is what art, science and history is supposed to do.
The Smithsonian institution was never supposed to exist as a cash cow. It was meant to be increase and diffuse knowledge among people. I wish more museums existed for that purpose. That purpose changed my world the first time I went to the Metropolitan in the 8th grade on a school trip. That was the only way it was going to happen, as we just didn't have the money or time as a family to consider a trip to the city. I was exposed to something that I never thought possible: that was that there was a purpose for my doodling and drawing, and that it had a place where it could be enjoyed by others. I might never have taken the course I charted to follow my passion as an artist if it were not for the ability to access a museum. This should be something everyone should have, not just the few that can afford it. That is the definition of elitist.
There are better ways to approach our debt problems than by taking away something that belongs to all of us. It will only make us poorer as a nation.
and Raine
