Of all things for the government to spend money on... a Woodstock museum? If there's that much calling for it, finding private funding would be no problem.

This is nothing but a ploy to garner the aging hippie vote.

I disagree. I live in this region, it would bolster some tourism and it is part of our history and our culture. Read the article it's not a "hippie museum" read the whole article, where it describes the museum and what you'll find there.

It's $1 million, that's really not much money compared to what money is wasted in this government (want me to mention a war that's in the trillions?)

It has been funded privately so far but since this area is depressed financially, it's unlikely to get more funding locally.

In the middle of the article, we realize it's not about the "hippie" aspect that's holding it up... nor is it the $1 million funding. It's the earmarks.

Here's the relevant paragraph:

"Gerry and his family contributed $20,000 to the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, headed by Schumer, and $9,200 to Clinton's presidential campaign after the earmark was inserted into legislation."


That's the crux of this issue. Hippies... who cares?

I don't get your point. Isn't that what we elect or representatives to do, fight to get money for the state they represent, to bring revenue to the state, especially in areas that are suffering? What do you think your representatives do?

my Chicago police cracking brainwashed hippie skulls @ THE '68 Democratic Convention.
Then and Now...
Richard J.Daley knew how to deal with the riff raff... he was a Democrat that hated hippies.

I Love Chicago.... can you say "pandering"?

what ever NANCY TELLS THEM TO DO.

Here's the Wiki link to "Earmarks" (ignore the cow part at the top)




Here is the relevant part:

Earmark Controversy
"Earmarks in U.S. legislation have been a point of contention for many years. Critics argue that the ability to earmark Federal funds should not be part of the legislative appropriations process. Tax money should be applied by Federal agencies according to objective findings of need and carefully constructed requests rather than being earmarked arbitrarily by elected officials. Supporters of earmarks however, feel that elected officials are better able to prioritize funding needs in their own districts and states and that it is more democratic for these officials to make discreet funding decisions than unelected civil servants. Critics counter that elected representatives have too much of a vested interest in their own districts and do not have the Nation's interests as a whole in mind when making these decisions with taxpayer money."


As for me... well, my Senators happen to be focusing on... hippie museum funding. In other words... I live in New York. ;)

The long and short of it for me comes down to the paragraph I posted from the article. It certainly looks like the owner of the museum is BUYING this funding. Donate to the election committee... get a little moo-lah thrown to your special interests. And that's a notion I'm not a big fan of.

As for the museum... I spent four years in college around hippies. And those weren't just the generic 'college hippies'... they were the hardcore hippies of upstate NY. 'Woodstock' still hasn't ended for those people... and I can't imagine actually going to a museum to see more of them. But if some guy wants to spend his money that way and people want to visit... sure, whatever... knock yourselves out.

I read the whole article, I always do before I post. I never said it was a "hippie museum" nor argued that point.

I'm saying Woodstock isn't significant enough on a national scale to pour a million bucks worth of federal cash into for a museum. Sure it's locally significant, and important to a certain segment of the population. So let them pay for it. If it there's not enough, scale back or scrap it.

Just because our government throws money away like it's on fire doesn't mean I can't appose another million spent on useless fluff.

Edit: I'm surprised private funding hasn't done it. I mean, if everyone who went to Woodstock gave $2, it would be enough.

So this is rejected because 2 Senators chose to earmark but what about the 48 Senators earmarking stuff for their state? I don't quite get how this is an issue.

Well, that's the reason this has become a capaign issue... specifically for John McCain.

"Appearing as a witness on the opening day of a Senate hearing on lobbying reform, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) was one of several senators to denounce earmarking, a practice he called "disgraceful." He outlined one of several proposals to tighten rules and require greater disclosure of lobbying activities. But he told the committee, "We're not going to fix this system until we fix the earmarks."

McCain isn't the only one taking a stand, not by a long shot. Edwards made a very clear stand the other day.

There's also this.

My point was, this museum does say something about our cultural history and is more than a "hippie museum" and it would help an area that is depressed economically, bringing tourism. I'm sure if there was money from benefactors they would have it, but if the area is economically unable, they go to the next step. I'd rather see a hippie museum than a mule museum.