Note: To protect the privacy of our members, e-mail addresses have been removed from the archived messages. As a result, some links may be broken.
My first thought (as a taxpayer) is that those particular NEA funds may be
intended for work by writers of the U.S. - the tax base that provides the
funds. If that was the case, and the grant review panels saw the work
anonymously, as is most likely, they should have been able to assume the
author had first met that basic qualification. They don't have time to do
that part of the research, that should have been done before they ever got
the text. It may have done more damage to the agency to have used US tax
money to fund (however meagerly) Mexican writers while leaving US writers
unfunded. But there are so many (or were, anyway) different types of grant
categories, I wouldn't know.
Of course that doesn't excuse any silly things the man said after the fact.
I miss Jane Alexander, but what huge expectations we have of that agency
while giving them so little to work with.
BB (whose governor suddenly thinks four livestock inspectors can cover the
entire state as well as 21, so I may be a little touchy about what we
taxpayers expect but aren't willing to pay for -- (like safe food?))