The Boston Globe tries explaining to the rest of the nation that the Woodstock Museum, which John McCain has adopted as his primary Hillary Clinton target, isn’t the hippie hangout that people believe. It created jobs, allowed for music to remain at Max Yazgur’s farm, and helped a county economy recover from recession. However, nowhere in this article does anyone explain why the project should receive federal funds:
The emerald hill at Yasgur’s Farm is quiet now, the electrified sounds of Jimi Hendrix and other performers from the Woodstock concert of 1969 long since faded. But at the hillcrest rises an extraordinary sight: a $100 million Tanglewood-style concert pavilion and an adjoining museum that soon will tell the story of the 1960s with exhibits such as “The Hippies” and “Three Days of Peace and Music.” ….
So Gerry’s nonprofit family foundation kicked in nearly $85 million for the facility, which also received $16.5 million in funds from New York taxpayers during the administration of Governor George Pataki, a Republican who backed the project. The $1 million in federal funds was almost an afterthought.
Yet, the funding was sought around the same time that Gerry and his family contributed $9,200 to Clinton’s presidential campaign, and $20,000 to the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, led by New York’s other senator, Charles E. Schumer. Gerry, who declined to interviewed, said earlier this month in a television interview that the timing of the contributions was a coincidence.
He has also defended the museum as commemorating an important cultural event.
“It is not a hippie museum,” said Gerry’s chief of staff, Darrell Supak, who spoke for the businessman. Supak said the foundation envisions baby boomer parents arriving in minivans to teach their children about Woodstock. It is, he said, designed for family-friendly entertainment, scoffing at McCain’s drug-infused description.
The problem at the heart of this article is an assumption that federal dollars are some sort of entitlement to local projects if one can make a good enough case for its moral superiority. The Woodstock Museum may well have transformed the local economy. It might capture the essence of the turbulent era that the original concert epitomized. The museum could capture the “perspective the events of the 1960s, including the Vietnam War and the assassination of John and Robert Kennedy and Martin Luther King”.
It still doesn’t mean that taxpayers in Arizona, Minnesota, and Florida should fund it.
The Globe tries to make this a partisan issue in response to McCain’s tweaking of Hillary by noting that Republican Governor George Pataki supported state funding for the museum. However, that keeps funding for the project as a state issue, not a federal issue. Pataki had accountability to New York voters, as did their legislature. New York voters get to make decisions on how New York tax money gets spent — and it gets spent in New York.
The newspaper also notes that the museum was the only earmark stripped out of the bill, while over $500 million in earmarks remained. It’s a curious kind of teenager argument; if everyone else gets earmarks, why can’t we? That thinking is what keeps earmarks alive at all. Politicians make excuses for funding these kind of pet projects — hippie museums, bike trails, National Council of La Raza — by saying that everyone else divvies up federal money for their constituents, so it’s unfair if my constituents don’t get their pork, too.
We started with the Woodstock Museum earmark. We want to get around to the others, too. Instead of sending pork-barrel projects that benefit contributors back to the districts, we want the money for these vanity programs to stop going to Washington altogether. If we could keep more of our money in our own communities, then we could decide locally what really matters to us, rather than what matters to politicians in DC and their lobbyist and contributor cronies.
The notion that federal spending — or any kind of government spending — can “create jobs” and thus deliver some sort of net benefit that would otherwise not exist is pure nonsense.
Every government dollar spent to “create jobs” is a dollar taken out of someone else’s pocket — it is a dollar they will not be able to spend on something made by someone else’s job. Thus, to whatever extent the government spending serves to “create jobs” in one location, it serves to decrease jobs in some other location, to at least the same extent.
Since government produces nothing, it cannot deliver a dollar’s worth of benefits to anyone, anywhere without doing at least a dollar’s worth of harm to someone else, somewhere. In fact, since government always pays itself a salary for practicing charity with the taxpayer’s money, it must do MORE than a dollar’s worth of harm to deliver that one dollar in benefits.
If the American people could learn this one simple lesson, they would demand better policies and an end to the vast, destructive transfer of wealth taking place in this country.
It was a historical event. I don’t see the problem.
You’re just being selectively nitpicky and partisan. Stop being so cranky, Ed.
Can l assume you’re going to bring up all other similar requests for federal funding because they’re ALL inappropriate? I highly doubt it.
Let’s get that straight .. “Three Days of Peace and Music and Drugs and Rain and Mud“.
It’s amazing how they try to repress those bad memories.
Pulling out this earmark reminds me of the old joke ..
This may have been only one earmark to be stripped out, but stripping it out was a good start.
Sounds like a worthy endeavor. Because, God knows, we really haven’t explored the impact of the Baby Boomer generation and their impact upon society. Some day they’ll all be gone and the rest of us will regret not asking them their opinions on everything.
Supak said the foundation envisions baby boomer parents arriving in minivans to teach their children about Woodstock.
Uh, they’re a few decades too late for that.
We have to start somewhere in rolling back earmarks. The logical place is with really egregious and headline-grabbing ones like this and the “Bridge to Nowhere.” I notice that Hillary folded on this one like a newbie player holding a pair of dueces. As usual, her political antennae are well tuned.
If he had said baby-boomer senior tour bus (on its way to the casino), that would be right.
If this Woodstock project had any real merit, there would be investors/donators lined up across the country willing to pour in funding.
Why the federal government should be paying for this has yet to be explained, other than the USG is a source for “free” money, which is the rationale for almost all the earmarks.
The legacy of the late Baby Boomer/Woodstock generation seems to be soak the government all you can, any way you can, take what you can, give nothing back.
Why not just take a portion of the general fund and disburse it to each state (by demographic population)and call it what it is—“YOUR SHARE OF PORK”—(VOTE-BUYERS MANUAL INCLUDED)
Let the politicians attach their names to each disbursement and make it transparent as possible.
Those states that vote to return the money to the federal govt. get a gold star.
“Supak said the foundation envisions baby boomer parents arriving in minivans to teach their children about Woodstock.” Their children! Most of the Woodstock generation’s children are way beyond riding around with Dad and Mom in a minivan. The children of the hippie generation are driving the minivans and raising their own children . . .
“It still doesn’t mean that taxpayers in Arizona, Minnesota, and Florida should fund it.”
None of us gets much choice as to how our tax dollars are spent. The event was a watershed event not only for the 60’s anti Vietnam War movement but also for women’s rights and racial equality and a whole host of other needed changes. It was a national event of huge import, whether you agree with the message it sent or not. And I’m sure I’m about to hear from some of those who disagree.
“None of us gets much choice as to how our tax dollars are spent”.
But we should. After all, we did the work required to earn it.
That’s why less money sent to Washington DC is a good thing. Keep taxing and spending at the local level, and you actually have a voice in the process. In DC, all they have to do is shut off the phone system, like many Senators did during the great comprehensive immigration debacle.
Local politicians are much less insulated from dissatisfied constituents.
“The event was a watershed event…” There are a lot of watershed events. Then, perhaps, someone should propose it be a national monument or somesuch, run by the Park Service. Yet, no one is doing that here. To me, it just appears to be more rent-seeking on the behalf of the private organizers. Why are they asking for gubmint money? Merely because they can, and have a few pliable politicians in their back pockets. They should go back to their private backers and ask then to dig deeper, if this is indeed such a worthy endeavor.
I love how the Captain picks out Dem earmarks while carefully ignoring real Republican graft. How about addressing this story:
“In 2005, rapscallion Congressman Don Young (R) of Alaska snuck in a $10 million earmark for a highway interchange (the “Coconut Road” project) which stood to benefit real estate mini-mogul Daniel Aranoff. The earmark appeared just days after Aranoff raised 40 grand for Young at a fundraiser. Adding to the fun on this little escapade is that this was an earmark for a road building project in Florida, which — unless my spatial reasoning is failing me — must be about as far as you can get in the United States from Alaska, the state Young nominally represents. ”
And check out how Young added this earmark AFTER the bill was voted on by congress. Charming.
See more at : http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/016427.php
Rovin said
“Why not just take a portion of the general fund and disburse it to each state (by demographic population)and call it what it is—“YOUR SHARE OF PORK”—(VOTE-BUYERS MANUAL INCLUDED)’
I agree completely with Rovin on his proposal to disperse pork, or needed projects depending on your perspective. I also agree that if national tax dollars are spent on the Woodstock project it should be made into a National Monument with the Feds running it and charging a small visitation fee to pay for it’s upkeep. A national park would be a bit much, I think.
Maybe you should do a search on Don Young on this blog, Teresa. Jeez.
Sorry if you have covered this Captain. I was referring to the specific post in which you list “hippie museums, bike trails, National Council of La Raza ” which are all Democratic earmarks.
“It was a national event of huge import”,
Nightjar,
This “event” had no, none, ZERO impact on any policy changes this nation made at the time. The Kent State massacre had a far greater impact than Woodstock ever dreamed of. (The music was terrible at the concert with poor sound and pruduction) Richie Havens told me last year (while I drove him around for two days) that they were so un-organized, they talked him into flying in a helocopter to the stage, because no one could get to the site. He said he played every song he had ever preformed and then made up “Freedom” right there on the spot.
While this may have been labeled a “cultural event”, it does not deserve federal tax dollars. If the state of New York wants to fund this, have at it……
(sidenote: Like many musicians, Richie is very anti-war and he let me know his feelings a few times. While I told him I supported our military’s efforts in this endeavor to give the Iraqis a chance for independence, I did not attempt to change his views.)
CE: “…If we could keep more of our money in our own communities, then we could decide locally what really matters to us, rather than what matters to politicians in DC and their lobbyist and contributor cronies.”
That makes entirely too much sense… which is why it’ll never work.
It’s a hippie museum.
Rovin said
“This “event” had no, none, ZERO impact on any policy changes this nation made at the time”
Of course it was a disorganized muddy miserable mess, and technically the music and sound quality were not up to standards.
I would argue, though, that it wasn’t about the music. It was about 500,000 people gathering in one place without a single case of violence reported which was the message. Yes, there were drug overdoses and such which is something not to
be proud of, but no violence which makes it a unique event in American history.
And I for one am glad that Richie Havens was there and created his “Freedom” song.
Your right that Kent State was the other event that could be described as the bookend to Woodstock which should be preserved in some way.
I believe that if “WoodStock” was such a Historic and important part of our history then were are these former hippies and musicians who participtated and why aren’t they giving up alot of their money to make this a reality. Why do we as tax payers have to give up our hard earned money.
My father was a 2 tour Marine in Vietnam and didn’t have the time to have a good time up in New York.
If I was a New Yorker I would be questioning Gov Pataki giving up my taxes for this museum.
Richard
“None of us gets much choice as to how our tax dollars are spent.”
Bingo. Which is exactly why the responsible thing to do is to spend federal tax dollars on pure public goods (e.g. national defense, interstate highways), not on little special interest projects that benefit a very small number of people at the expense of everyone else.
Oh: so it’s OK to fund a museum that commemorates the three days in which people just went lots of naked, took lots of drugs, got lots of sick, had lots of sex, and listened and danced to lots of rock ‘n roll… All for “Peace”…
Meanwhile, those of us in Generation X had to endure the consequences of the events at Woodstock and that era in general: messed up households, messed up education, messed up sexual culture, etc., etc.
If they want a Woodstock Museum, let them fund it privately. I want ZERO of my money in it.
Of course, if they say they’re going to convert the site of Woodstock into a wasteland, I’m all for it.
Does no one find goverment funding of a hippie museum just a bit ironic?
Turn on, Tune in, Drop out – Timothy Leary
“Does no one find goverment funding of a hippie museum just a bit ironic?”
Imagine – no liberals. It’s easy if you try.
For Senator McCain, don’t you think the Woodstock comment was more in the line of a scripted “zinger” than a determined legislative effort on his part to stop the Woodstock Museum?
When you let loose with this kind of “zinger”, you risk offending the good people of Woodstock, NY, for which the Museum is good old-fashioned pork. Every bit of pork viewed as silly from afar is viewed with dead earnestness from up close, and just as pork ingratiates one with the local constituency, attaching pork alienates one as an outsider to that local constituency.
The Woodstock remark, however, offends the larger part of people who look to the Woodstock Festival as a kind of founding experience, and in those terms it is meant to offend in order to curry favor with the other half of that generation to whom Woodstock symbolizes much that is wrong with that generation. So in that way, the Woodstock remark is divisive.
But the part of the quotation meant of posterity is “I was tied up at the time.” It is a calibrated mix of self-deprecation with a stark reminder that Navy Officer McCain was literally, not just figuratively, tied up at that time, it it in some ways points to the friviolous self-indulgence of the view that Woodstock was more important than other historical events.
“If they want a Woodstock Museum, let them fund it privately. I want ZERO of my money in it.”
I’d prefer none of my tax money had gone to invading a Muslim country that had not attacked us. I wished more of my tax money had been used to secure and rebuild the country that did attack us.
Let’s put the Woodstock Museum in Kabul.
If you want to know not only why earmarks have skyrocketed but also why we’ll never be rid of them, just read the comments on any post Cap’n Ed writes about the cursed things. While many of us want to see an end to this flagrant raiding of the treasury, others have lots and lots of reasons NOT to get rid of them:
1. Well, it’s for a REALLY important project (i.e. one that I personally agree with).
2. I notice you didn’t criticize OTHER earmarks!
3. Congress has been raiding the treasury for years. Nothing we can do about it.
4. Congress spent money on something I don’t like, so why shouldn’t they also spend money on something I DO like? It’s only fair!
5. C’mon! It’s not really that much money.
Etc, etc, etc.
BTW, that sound you hear is 535 members of Congress chuckling with glee over the fact that they can not only use the treasury as a private slush fund, but that voters will cheer them on.
Bah.
Why build an entire Woodstock museum when a groovy Body Odor monument could suffice? Far out man.
A sculpture of an unbathed muddy fan clutching a dotted piece of blotter paper while dry-heaving pills beside an overflowing portable toilet as a nearby paramedic gives CPR to a cyanotic doper who has O.D.ed on heroin. Mold the monument out of pyrite (FeS2) better known as fool’s gold. A loop tape recording of Purple Haze followed by Grace Slick yodeling “Feed your head” could complete the truly freakish albeit tubular presentation. Old fried hippies could guide younger generations around showing them the very spot whereupon they spent that weekend they can’t remember. Yes indeed sonny, I think I finally passed out completely around here somewhere…. and the resultant hangover lasted until disco was king.
I’d give pocket change, er, 32 cents and a few thrift-store love beads towards a gnarly yet historic sculpture but only if completely voluntarily and not taken out of tax revenues. Using taxes or public funds would be a major drag. Any funds donated should have to placed in escrow to prevent those monument funds from being snorted, mainlined or smoked by Supak, his colleagues or whomever.
nightjar said
“The event was a watershed event not only for the 60’s anti Vietnam War movement but also for women’s rights and racial equality and a whole host of other needed changes”
LOL! How did Woodstock have an impact on women’a rights? The majority of the performers were men, and the makers of the film seemed to delight in showing the naked hippie women skinnydipping.
As for racial equality, the vast majority of the performers at Woodstock were WHITE. Out of over 30 groups performing, only Richie Havens, Sly and the Family Stone and Jimi Hendrix were African-American. In addition, the majority of the people in the audience were white.
you also said:
“I’d prefer none of my tax money had gone to invading a Muslim country that had not attacked us.”
Did you have a problem with your tax money going to Bill Clinton’s war of choice in Kosovo? They never attacked us either. And we’re still there.
Please try to get some better talking points. We invaded Germany in World War 2, even though they had never attacked us. And Afghanistan never attacked us on 9/11, yet by supporting that war you easily show that your “logic” is fatally flawed.
Delmonte
“Did you have a problem with your tax money going to Bill Clinton’s war of choice in Kosovo? They never attacked us either. And we’re still there.”
Dah, I don’t recall that we “invaded” Kosovo or Serbia for that matter. And I do favor military action be taken by the US if it will Stop an active genocide that’s in progress. I would support GWB if he made such an effort in Darfur. Although, with the utter lack of competence by Bushies, it would be a tough call.
“And Afghanistan never attacked us on 9/11, yet by supporting that war you easily show that your “logic” is fatally flawed.”
Are you serious about this statement. Really.
As for WW2. You know that Axis treaty thing. And U-boats sinking US cargo ships in Atlantic.
And about your analysis on what Woodstock was about, your “talking points” are just silly and do not warrant a response.
nightjar also said:
“I would argue, though, that it wasn’t about the music. It was about 500,000 people gathering in one place without a single case of violence reported which was the message. Yes, there were drug overdoses and such which is something not to
be proud of, but no violence which makes it a unique event in American history.”
Medical people who were there say that the main reason there was “no violence” was because the majority of the people who altered their conciousness that weekend did so with psychotropic drugs, otherwise known as “hallucinogens”.
If you look at the decades-later Woodstock Festival, you’ll find violence was rampant, due primarily to the presence of alcohol.
Delmonte
“Medical people who were there say that the main reason there was “no violence” was because the majority of the people who altered their conciousness that weekend did so with psychotropic drugs, otherwise known as “hallucinogens”.”
I believe we’re onto something big here, Delmonte. Lots of illegal hallucinegenic drugs =no violence. Let’s start adding LSD to the water supply pronto.
You should win the Nobel Peace Prize or something for your discovery.
I know, my snark is showing.
nightjar said:
“Dah, I don’t recall that we “invaded” Kosovo or Serbia for that matter. And I do favor military action be taken by the US if it will Stop an active genocide that’s in progress. I would support GWB if he made such an effort in Darfur. Although, with the utter lack of competence by Bushies, it would be a tough call.”
LOL! “Is “dah” an actual word?
Problem is, the “genocide” in Kosovo was never reliably proven.
“And Afghanistan never attacked us on 9/11, yet by supporting that war you easily show that your “logic” is fatally flawed.”
Are you serious about this statement. Really.”
The country and government of Afghanistan didn’t attack us on 9/11. Read your history book when you go to school tomorrow. They gave sanctuary to al Qaeda.
“As for WW2. You know that Axis treaty thing. And U-boats sinking US cargo ships in Atlantic.”
Nice try. But you didn’t refute my point.
“And about your analysis on what Woodstock was about, your “talking points” are just silly and do not warrant a response.”
Translation: “I can’t refute the fact that Woodstock was primarily by and for white people, and cannot prove that it changed racial equality or women’s rights, so I will insult the poster’s intelligence, and try and change the subject”.
Now, once again, please provide support for your claim that Woodstock “changed” racial equality and womens’ rights in America.
And one final question: what country are you from? I’m guessing it’s someplace in Europe…
Delmonte
“Problem is, the “genocide” in Kosovo was never reliably proven.”
Right, and O.J. didn’t do it. You really should step out of the RW echo chamber every once in a while.
“The country and government of Afghanistan didn’t attack us on 9/11. Read your history book when you go to school tomorrow. They gave sanctuary to al Qaeda.”
The Taliban were and are nothing more than the creation of OBL and the Pakistan ISI. It is curious though, for a right winger to absolve the Taliban complicity for 9-11. It must be the strange time we’re living in.
And what part of German U-boats sinking US Merchant Marine cargo ships to England don’t you understand.
“Translation: “I can’t refute the fact that Woodstock was primarily by and for white people, and cannot prove that it changed racial equality or women’s rights, so I will insult the poster’s intelligence, and try and change the subject”.
Ok. I’ll bite on this. You say 30 bands performed at Woodstock, and since it’s too late to do my own research, I’ll take your word for it. You also say 4 bands or performers were African American.
Let’s see, the population percentage of Black people in the US is about 12%, and my calculations say 13.3% of Woodstock performers were black musicians. You should think before making such silly arguments.
“And one final question: what country are you from? I’m guessing it’s someplace in Europe…”
I was born and raised in a small town in eastern Kentucky. On the day of my birth, I consumed an entire Apple Pie.
1. Please give us reliable proof that the genocide in Kosovo actually happened. While you’re at it, also tell us why you never broke a sweat when Bill Clinton ignored a much bigger genocide in Rwanda.
2. “The Taliban were and are nothing more than the creation of OBL and the Pakistan ISI. It is curious though, for a right winger to absolve the Taliban complicity for 9-11. It must be the strange time we’re living in.”
Sorry, but that doesn’t make al Qaeda the same thing as the official Afghan government at that time. They were a group of outlaws who were allowed to live there. If Ozzie bin Laden was in fact a legitimate member of the Afghan Government, why wasn’t he given a title? Please try again.
3. “Ok. I’ll bite on this. You say 30 bands performed at Woodstock, and since it’s too late to do my own research, I’ll take your word for it. You also say 4 bands or performers were African American.
First of all, it took me 10 seconds to get a list of the bands. Your intellectual laziness is showing.
Richie Havens (African-American)-last seen on a rerun of “Married…With Children”.
Country Joe McDonald (White, also former US Navy) Last seen praising US troops at Hippiefest 2007
John B. Sebastian (White) Also appeared on the same Al Bundy show as Richie. He’s lost his voice.
Incredible String Band (British whites)
Sweetwater (Whites from San Francisco)
Bert Sommer (White guy, now dead)
Tim Hardin (White guy, now dead)
Ravi Shankar (Indian guy)
Melanie (White Zionist Jewish Woman)
Arlo Guthrie (White son of Woody)
Joan Baez (White Woman)
Quill (White)
Keef Hartly (Skinny White British guy, later died when he got zapped by his electric guitar)
Santana (Spanish-Americans)
Canned Heat (White blues guys best known for ODing)
Mountain (White guys best known for having their founder murdered by his insane partner)
Janis Joplin (White Woman, dead for many years.)
Sly & The Family Stone (Even had white band members. Sly himself has been MIA and AWOL since 1972.)
Grateful Dead-(White-and Dead.)
Creedence Clearwater Revival-(White-Fogerty is still doing the anti-war stuff, but also flies in private jets.)
The Who-(White, and two original band members OD’ed and died)
Jefferson Airplane (White)
Joe Cocker (British White guy)
Country Joe & The Fish (White)
Ten Years After (British White guys)
The Band (local Woodstock White guys, one of them a Canadian essential to the band’s sound, Garth Hudson)
Blood Sweat And Tears (White guys, one of them a Canadian essential to the band’s sound, singer David Clayton-Thomas).
Johnny Winter (Albino from Texas)
Crosby, Stills, Nash & Young (All White guys, and most of them own homes in Hawaii. Nashy lives on Kaua’i, where the median home price is almost $1,000,000
Paul Butterfield Blues Band (White guys, and 2 of them are also dead)
Sha-Na-Na (Who cares?)
Jimi Hendrix ((Black guy, also dead)
“Let’s see, the population percentage of Black people in the US is about 12%, and my calculations say 13.3% of Woodstock performers were black musicians. You should think before making such silly arguments.”
I challenged you to prove your allegation that Woodstock “changed” race relations in America by mentioning that it was basically mostly Caucasian bands. You didn’t do so.
You responded by citing a statistic, but you never actually answered my questionm because you can’t.
Likewise, you couldn’t respond to my challenge of another of your original talking points, namely how Woodstock had helped the woman’s movement. Please get new talking points.
delmonte
Ok, I’ll give you there are dissenters on Kosovo genocide. But Clinton was acting on a consensus that it was occurring. I believe only Russia vetoed a resolution for military action there. And BTW it was a brilliantly competent campaign by Clinton and the US military. Not one GI has been killed in hostile actions there.
Regarding Rwanda, Clinton has said he should have done more and has apologized for this.
I checked my first comment on Woodstock as a watershed event for the 60’s social changes. If that gave you the impression that I was saying that Woodstock “caused” these changes, then I would correct and clarify my remark to say Woodstock was a “symbol” of the social changes that were occurring. it did not per say “cause” them
Why would you accuse me of intellectual laziness for accepting your numbers? And about the whole argument about black and white at Woodstock. Are you saying the hippies that were there were racist?
“I challenged you to prove your allegation that Woodstock “changed” race relations in America by mentioning that it was basically mostly Caucasian bands. You didn’t do so.
“You responded by citing a statistic, but you never actually answered my questionm because you can’t. ”
I thought you were making a claim of an all white segregated Woodstock. By your own numbers that did not add up.
Your analysis on AQ and the Taliban is just plain wrong and I’ll leave it at that and we’ll agree to disagree.
All I can say to the post is Amen! DC Plutocrats need to reread John Locke and get back to a legitimate form of governing us…