I love Neil Gaiman. I don't like the petty name calling that this Republican stooped to. I do have to ask though, how anyone can justify paying ANYONE regardless of political party, religious preference, or any factor, $11,250 an hour to speak. Especially when most individuals who are asked to speak are rich anyway.

$11,250 an hour. Tax payer dollars. Think about that next time you hit a pothole or rant about schools not getting enough money. 

Again, I love Gaiman, do not agree with and strongly am against such name calling, but have to agree that $45,000 is a large sum for any person to be paid for 4 hours of speaking.

Sam, I have nothing against money for the arts. The article says Gaiman was paid $45,000 to speak for 4 hours. That is ridiculous.

The LeAnn Rimes is ridiculous, but doesn't bug me. Here is why: It was not tax payer money. If Democrats, Republicans, and Independents want to waste their donated cash go for it. 

Gaiman was tax payer cash. Not ok.

The problem is not Mr. Gaiman charging that price, nor any other speaker. As has been stated, they can charge what they please and what they can get others to pay.

The problem is that 1 library used $45,000 to have one person there for 4 hours. That is to much! Duluth has had to cut back on branch library hours because of funding. $45,000 could have paid for 1 or 2 people to staff a library for more hours for a year. 

It was waste. Both parties are guilty of this kind of wasteful spending. Just because the undividuals charge that much doesn't mean it is right to pay it with tax payers dollars.

It seems to me that the problem is not that Gaiman gave a speech, or how much he was paid, but that the legislator has chosen to attack him personally and even use words such as "stealing," which borders a slanderous accusation. Elected officials should take care to conduct themselves with more maturity and dignity than that, as well as choose their words and attitudes more carefully.

Some legacy ... "I got to see Neil Gaiman!" says kid one.

"I wanted to read his book, but my library closed due to lack of funding," says kid two. 

Just because this money was set aside for "Arts ect." doesn't mean it's right when the state has  such huge budget problems. Use the cash to truly advance arts by buying books, etc. Not wasting it on one 4-hour speaking engagement.

Jadiaz: you don't understand how the fund works. The Legacy Fund is a statute (law). It has a mechanism for its funding source (1/2 of 1/2 of 1% of sales tax) and a mechanism for how it can be spent. The whole point of the law was to protect arts (and natural resources) funding from the big budget swings of the past. Yes, we have problems in our state budget. Legacy Funds are not part of that problem. They don't draw from the general fund or take away from other parts of the budget. Don't be hatin' on shit you don't understand.

All I know is that M.T. Anderson's glasses are infuriating.

There will always be ways that "money could be better spent."  MN as a state voted that it would dedicate money to support both the arts and conservation/exposure to nature for its citizens.  Neil explains the situation better than most could imagine to attempt http://journal.neilgaiman.com/ books in a library are worthless if people aren't coming to read them; writers are worthless if people are not reading them.  Neil Gaiman filled a room that would otherwise have been barren on a Sunday afternoon and helped a community realize the value of their library.  There are plenty of battles to be fought about how/when funds are spent - this should not be one of them.

Edge, I already said I'm all for Artists making money and getting all they can. Also I applauded Gaiman for giving the money to charities. Furthermore the one article used $45,000 as a number, but if it being 12k less makes such a difference to you then fine that $33,600 still had better uses. Lastly I condemned Dean for his actions. Try reading everything before ripping on it.

Zra, Claire already beat you to the name calling, but it's nice to see people on here still feel the need to do so *insert sarcasm*.  Also who the heck was talking about corporations? Way to jump out of left field with that topic just so you could get aforementioned name calling in.

To clarify: Neil Gaiman was paid $45,000 for the speaking engagement; $33,600 is the amount that actually went to him after agent fees. So that's where the confusion over the dollar amount comes from.

In response to accusations by Jadiaz of my "namecalling" on this thread: there's a BIG difference between someone slamming someone by saying he or she is a "pencil-necked little weasel who stole $45,000 from the state of Minnesota," and someone calling out a bully as a stupid idiot. The right-wing extremists in this town are bullies. Read their blog, listen to that one's podcast. It's all personal attacks against individuals, politicians, the DFD, and local activists. There's no substance there, no discussion of issues and ideas. I hate bullies. I think bullies are stupid idiots. 

I do wonder if this Dean guy would have had such a conniption over an author being paid from a public fund the same sum as was Mr. Gaiman, if that author were, shall we say, Ann Coulter? I doubt it. 

This is why the Republican right-wing extremists who pull these kinds of shenanigans have **zero credibility.** This reminds me of what happened locally with Sharla Gardner and the Sister Cities program. It was all about politicking and grandstanding. If Jay Fosle had been the one going to Japan instead of Sharla Gardner, Todd Fedora wouldn't have raised a ruckus at all. What's happening to Neil Gaiman is exactly the same kind of b.s. as what happened to Gardner. And Dean's even saying that he "hates" Gaiman demonstrates what this is really about.

Claire, there is little difference between calling somebody a "pencil-necked little weasel who stole $45,000 from the state of Minnesota" and calling someone (in this context) a stupid idiot.

In each case, the namecalling is motivated by a specific personal political perspective in an effort to vent one's anger/resentment/etc. (or perhaps in Dean's case to get attention) without regard to the value of civil discourse. 

The little difference there is, as I pointed out earlier, is that we must expect more from elected officials. But, you're still poisoning the discussion and I've read enough of your posts to know that's not your intent and you can do better.

I think we all can agree bullying is wrong. I think we can all agree calling out a bully is a good thing. I believe what Will was pointing out was that when you call a bully out for name calling by calling them names, i.e. "idiot" and "stupid idiots," all it does it put you as low as them. Claire you often have great points but you sank as low as Dean by calling him a name instead of just pointing out he was wrong. You also then called an entire group of people names. Seems like bullying and unnecessary name calling to me.

Gah.  Wish the forum allowed proper threading.  My comment was in regard to jadiaz' butthurt about speaking compensation.

Lojasmo, my problem isn't with Gaiman. Not him speaking. Not him receiving the cash. Not with him charging what he can get. Not with anyone making money. 

My problem is the state spending that money for a 4 hour speaking engagement reguardless of who it is, when in my opinion those legacy funds could have been spent on things that would last years and more than 500 people could enjoy (and yes I know that's not allowed as te legacy fund now stands. That's my point though, it should be).

You all keep jumping on me like I'm attacking Gaiman. I'm not. None of my posts went after him. They went after how the funds were spent. As the story involves Gaiman I used it as an example.

I already condemned Dean for name calling. Alot of you latched onto Dean and keep dragging that up. My focus is on the money. Any money wasted on any speaker like this. Although I explained that already. Perhaps if you all read what I wrote instead assuming I am only upset about Gaiman and then attacking me on that point when we all agree he is an awesome author and deserves what he can get someone to pay him. 

And don't jump my shit for calling out others who call names. If you are going to rant about how wrong it is for one person to do so, and then turn around and do it yourself, well get called out. Nothing wrong with condemnimg the behavior, or calling a bully a bully, but name calling can't be justified because you feel it's ok in your situation. At least Zra just came out and said he doesn't care about being civil. 

So again in short Lojasmo, my problem has not been anyones speaking fees, it has been how the state, both Dems and Repubs, spend money and place ridiculous rules on how certain things can be spent. Please get your facts straight so you can bitch about my "butthurt" correctly.

Eh.  Print is dead.

can we then scrutinize our share of the tax breaks the Koch Brothers received, or the BBBBillions in (taxpayer funded) subsidies and grants the oil industry gets?

How about the way Mississippi spends the tax dollars it gets from the federal government to shore up its economic infrastructure (they get $2.03 back for every dollar they send to DC)?

after all, it is *your* money the government is giving away.

think David Koch is going to invite us to the next garden party at the mansion our tax dollars bought?  i think not.

think Exxon's gonna drop the price of a gallon for your subsidy contribution to their coffers? not bloody likely!

at least in the case of funds for the *arts* or *public broadcasting,* (et, al) the funds that're being used are for the most part used to further the public good instead of lining some rich fucker's pockets, financing "research" that ultimately should be conducted at the expense of the company doing it, or going to shore up a state's operating expenses because they can't do it by themselves...

So who was saying something about Minnesota getting a bad reputation with writers...?

Neil Gaiman's follow up to "1602" - The Gutters webcomic

Hah! I just found out an interesting factoid: The Minnesota Legacy Fund, the fund that some people say is huge waste of money, theft because they didn't vote for it, or an example of poor governmental spending was added to the Minnesota state constitution because the majority of Minnesotans voted for it to be there!

We voted for it, we got it put in the state constitution, we are benefiting from the services it provides, yet we're bitching about it?!?

If you're going to complain about the expenditure of money or how it was used, be sure to include your comment "and I expressed these opinions by voting 'No' for the Minnesota Legacy Fund in November of 2008".

About Minnesota's Legacy Fund