I would like to remind Greg Brown that traditionally, when you disagree with a letter to the editor, your response should point out faults in the writer’s logic, not slander the writer.

As a graduate student in the elite field of rehabilitation, Greg, you should know that name-calling will neither enlighten nor “rehabilitate” anybody.

Although your personal attack on Tim Clancy provided a laugh, you only showcased your ignorance by refusing to address his points.

Now, maybe if I restate Tim Clancy’s basic argument, and you pull your head out of wherever you’re hiding it, you can understand the issue and write an actual response.

Tim Clancy’s proposal (to eliminate the NEA) would not prohibit art exhibits such as Mapplethorpe’s photo collection of naked children and gay men.

You and your buddies would still be free to enjoy that. The catch is that since you are the ones artistically stimulated by it, you should be the ones who pay the artists.

Since you believe that most people are on your side, and since artists seek to improve society instead of getting rich, there should be no problem providing a private fund for artists to replace NEA grants.

This way your “art” can be censored and we “crabby old ladies” won’t complain.

You see, Greg, as a high-powered rehabilitator you will probably make so much money that the millions of tax dollars handed out through the NEA doesn’t bother you.

But if you had either: a) an introductory course in cash management, or b) common sense, you would realize that deficit spenders (like the United States) should cut out any unnecessary cash outflows.

Also, you said, “Citizens…have very little say as to just where dear Uncle Sam puts their hard-earned tax dollars…”

Um, Greg, have you ever heard of lobby groups? They’re groups of citizens that have a lot to say as to where tax money goes.

I hope you’ve had a lot of fun in college because you didn’t learn much, Greg. Sorry, but you’re just a tad out of your league here.

Dan Lynch

Senior

Finance