A "Cultural Bill of Rights is proposed by the chairman of NEA.<BR> <A HREF="http://washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A24605-2000Dec18.html" TARGET=_blank>http://washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A24605-2000Dec18.html</A>

Maggie - this is an extremely interesting subject and link. Thank you! (I can't believe I missed it yesterday).<P>It seems to me that such a manifesto as is put forth by the NEA, while laudatory, may be hiding (unintentionally) the proverbial devil in the details.<P>Giving out "rights" might very well be what has brought out the problem in the Keefer/SFB complaint. Without my judging the pros or cons of that case, I think that this manifesto could enlarge the scope of the problem.<P>And, one could ask is there a problem? Is anyone being kept from creating or enjoying the arts? There will always be people who can't afford the price of a ticket to the theater - but that would also include the price of a ticket to a sporting event, etc.<P>Artists on the whole will probably never be recompensed to the same tune as sports figures, but that reflects what the market will bear. But does it infringe on a "right"?<P>Exactly how does government, and that is what we are talking about when we talk about conferring rights, actually go about giving everyone the right to art? Is it pro-active or reactive? Is it outreach or merely removing barriers? And what would those barriers be?<P>One could say that at one time there was certainly a barrier in segregation of theaters, barring a racial group from entering. But that barrier was removed - and rightly so (no pun intended). But beyond that - what is government's role in this conferring of rights?<P>------------------<BR>Approach life as a dancer approaches the barre, with grace and purpose.<BR>