By allowing ads to appear on this site, you support the local businesses who, in turn, support great journalism.
Finding common ground on the National Endowment for the Arts
6669445e29b10f2a892a8acd759d2461255a2ef6bc594069da6e26eba1a5c12e
Allies and critics of the National Endowment for the Arts are talking past each other and missing the possibility of a common-sense solution. - photo by Jim Bennett
President Donald Trumps proposed budget would eliminate the National Endowment for the Arts, which has predictably sparked a great deal of outrage among the arts community. The arts community insists that the actual savings produced by wiping out the arts funding would be negligible. They point out that the government is slated to spend more for transportation and Secret Service protection for Melania and Barron Trump than the NEA, and they could save that money if the first lady and her son would simply move into the White House.

Supporters of President Trumps proposal respond by saying that the NEA is simply welfare for the rich and, despite the good that it may do, it is not something the government ought to be spending money on.

Both sides have a point, but they're talking past each other. Let me see if I can offer some common ground here.

I have twice served on the musical theater panel for the NEA, and I considered it a tremendous honor. It was my job, along with about a dozen or so others, to review every grant application to the NEA in the area of musical theater. The panel would then gather and discuss the applications to determine which arts organizations were most deserving of NEA funding.

The first year, they flew the panelists back to Washington, D.C., to meet in person at the old Washington Post Office, which, ironically, is now the site of President Trumps new Washington hotel. The second year I participated, they decided to save money by scrapping a live meeting in favor of a conference call.

I have been sworn to secrecy as to the identity of the groups who applied, which is just as well, as I cant remember any of them specifically. I do recall one application from a particularly impressive theater with a stellar reputation and a track record of outstanding productions. Yet they had a multimillion-dollar budget and a large donor base with a great deal of existing financial support, and I suggested that maybe the NEA ought to give a grant to a different organization that actually needed the money. The head of the panel then called attention to something I hadnt considered before.

"The NEA doesnt offer grants on the basis of need, he said. Instead, we give grants to the kind of art we want to be associated with.

It dawned on me that this was the real value of the NEA not the actual money it provided, but the prestige it bestowed. The money is paltry. Sure, $5,000 or $10,000 grants are better than nothing at all, but theyre a small portion of the budgets for many of these groups. Whats better is that now these organizations can go to other donors armed with the cachet of an NEA grant, which gives them the credibility they need to raise big money.

Thats critical, as major arts organizations simply cannot survive on the basis of ticket sales alone. Fundraising is the lifeblood of these groups, and the NEAs blessing goes a long way toward helping a theater attract donors and patrons.

If Trump were to eliminate the NEA and I doubt he will succeed in doing so, but thats another story the arts in this country wont wither and die, especially if a private endowment could pick up where the NEA left off. There are foundations and universities with endowments far larger than the NEA, and like-minded donors could create a viable substitute that could still bestow the necessary prestige in absence of the federal dollars. Certainly its an idea that's worth a conference call or two.
Sign up for our E-Newsletters
How to avoid 'sharenting' and other paparazzi parenting habits
ce406c66b9871a104ac24256a687e4821d75680dcfc89d9e5398939543f7f88f
A recent study revealed parents often spend up to two hours staging a single photo of his or her child to post online. - photo by Amy Iverson
Before having kids, some people just dont appreciate their friends baby posts. But after having a child of their own, three fourths of new parents jump right on the parental social media bandwagon. If you have become a member of this group, there are some rules to follow for posting responsibly.

Much of a parents worry is how to teach their children to use social media responsibly. We talk with our kids about privacy, oversharing, and setting restrictions on their devices to keep them safe. But parents themselves need to look in the digital mirror once in a while. Before having children, it doesnt take as much effort to think about what to post online. Its up to us to decide what we share about our own lives. But once you become a parent, there are many questions to think about regarding what is appropriate to post about your kids on social media.

In a recent survey, kids clothing subscription company Mac and Mia surveyed 2000 new parents to find out how they are documenting their kids lives on social media, and what concerns they may have.

First of all, people without children seem to feel a bit differently about the onslaught of baby pictures online than those who are parents. 18 percent of people say before they had kids, they were annoyed by their friends baby posts. But after having children of their own, 73 percent admit they post progress pictures of their little ones every single month.

Not only are new parents letting the world know each time their baby is a month older, but they are posting about their kids every few days or so. Men and women report they post 6-7 times per month about their baby.

And while 70 percent of new parents say the benefit of using social media is how easy it is to help family and friends feel involved, there are some downsides. Here are a few tips to avoid the pitfall of becoming paparazzi parents.

Dont miss the moment

In the Mac and Mia survey, some parents admitted to spending up to two hours to get the perfect shot of their baby. That seems a little extreme. New and old parents alike should be careful about spending so much time taking pictures and videos that they dont enjoy the moment. Years ago, I decided to never live an experience through my phone. A study by Linda Henkel, a psychology professor at Fairfield University in Connecticut, found that when people took pictures of objects in an art museum, they didnt remember the objects as well as if they simply observed them.

This photo-taking impairment effect can happen to parents as well. If we are so consumed by getting the perfect photo, we can miss out on the moment all together, and our memory of it will suffer.

Dont forget about privacy

60 percent of couples say they have discussed rules and boundaries for posting their babys photos, according to the Mac and Mia survey. Even so, men are 34 percent more likely to publish baby posts on public accounts. If parents are concerned about their childrens privacy, keeping photos off of public accounts is a given.

In the Washington Post, Stacey Steinberg, a legal skills professor at the University of Florida, and Bahareh Keith, a Portland pediatrician, wrote that sharing too much information about kids online puts them at risk. They write that all that sharenting can make it easier for data thieves to target out kids for identity theft. Check that your privacy settings are where they should be and never share identifying information like full names and birth dates.

Dont be paparazzi parents

36 percent of parents say they take issue when their childs photo is posted online by someone else. Responsible social media users will always ask permission before posting a photo of another child. But parents should also think about whether their own children will take issue with their own posted photos a few years down the road.

When parents are constantly snapping pictures and throwing them on social media, it can be easy to forget to pause and make sure the post is appropriate. I always use the billboard example with my kids. I ask them to picture whatever they are posting going up on a billboard in our neighborhood. If they are okay with that, then their post is probably fine. Parents should ask themselves this same question when posting about their children. But they should also ask themselves if their child would be OK with this post on a billboard in 15 years. If it would cause embarrassment or humiliation, it might be best to keep it private.

Once children reach an appropriate age, parents should include them in the process of deciding what pictures are OK to post. Researchers at the University of Michigan surveyed 10- to 17-year-olds and found children believe their parents should ask permission more than parents think they should. The kids in the survey said sharing happy family moments, or accomplishments in sports, school and hobbies is fine. But when the post is negative (like when a child is disciplined) or embarrassing (think naked baby pictures or messy hair), kids say to keep it off social media.
Latest Obituaries