Quantcast

Comments about ‘Sundance staying in Park City through 2026’

Return to article »

Published: Sunday, Sept. 15 2013 3:01 p.m. MDT

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
Cats
Somewhere in Time, UT

The festival was actually founded by Sterling Van Wagonen. Redford jumped on with Van Wagonen who was his wife's cousin.

RedShirtMIT
Cambridge, MA

This is so weird. I don't see any of the typical liberals ranting about how evil it is to subsidze the Sundance Festival? Where are the liberals telling us how government should not give money to private businesses?

The only logical conclusion is that liberals are hypocrites when it comes to subsidies for businesses. They favor subsidizing their favored groups and want to punish those that are not.

JHP
Okemos, MI

Two reasons why this decision is bad: 1) government favoritism; 2) government sanction of bad movies mostly not worth watching.

joseywales
Park City, UT

JHP- It's a business decision. Sundance brings a truckload of money into PC, and giving back a little, or using special offers is something that all cities or states do to businesses that are bringing in big money. It's simple, Sundance goes elsewhere, so does their money. As a local, I would hate to see it leave. But's that's just the businessman in me speaking.

Lagomorph
Salt Lake City, UT

JHP: "...bad movies mostly not worth watching."

Like Napoleon Dynamite, Austenland, The Brave Little Toaster, and Hoosiers?

@RedShirt: As joseywales pointed out, it's a business decision. All of the incentives cited in the article add up to well under a million, but they bring in $69M in spending. Take 5% of that as sales tax (never mind lodging taxes, etc.) and you get 3.5M in revenue. Not a bad ROI. Why aren't conservatives rejoicing that the incentives are local, not federal, as champions of small, local, decentralized government should?

RedShirt
USS Enterprise, UT

To "Lagomorph" I have no problem with incentivizing businesses. I do have a problem with liberals who complain about tax breaks given to oil companies, despite the fact that the federal government gets more money in taxes from oil and oil products than the oil companies make in profits.

There is a hypocrisy among liberals. They will fight against tax breaks saying that government should not subsidize businesses, then have no problem giving tax breaks and subsidies to their pet projects, many of which LOSE money.

Lagomorph
Salt Lake City, UT

@RedShirt: Point taken. I try to be cautious and judicious in making broad generalizations regarding hypocrisy and double standards because as soon as you point one out, a counterexample pops up to bite you. I see a tendency towards hypocrisy as a general human trait not confined to any ideology or demographic category. There is plenty to go around across the entire human spectrum. It can be useful to point out cases of hypocrisy, but I don't see it as a strong argument to paint with as broad a brush as you do. You could take your last paragraph, swap a few words, and have an equally valid statement about conservatives.

F'rinstance: Conservatives fight for free markets. They say that socialism is the ruin of economies and societies and can never be justified. They say let the markets run unfettered. And yet in the reddest of the red states, where freedom and entrepreneurialism are lauded, where the GOP reigns supreme, we find one of the purest cases of socialism you can find anywhere in the world. The wholesaling, distribution, and retailing of an entire market sector is run by the state. Go figure. Other examples abound.

RedShirt
USS Enterprise, UT

To "Lagomorph" what to Red States do that is " The wholesaling, distribution, and retailing of an entire market sector is run by the state."?

You don't understand capitalism. The markets don't "run unfettered". They operate within the bounds of the law. Anarchy is allowing markets to "run unfettered". Socialism is when the government owns the means of production and distribution.

Lagomorph
Salt Lake City, UT

@RedShirt: I'm referring specifically to the Utah Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control. What little private production of alcoholic beverages exists in the state is strictly regulated with respect to quantity, alcohol content, marketing, and sales. Wholesaling, distribution, and retail sales of wine, liquor, and full strength beer are done through a network of state owned and operated liquor stores. Decisions about product inventory, staffing, prices, etc. are made by the government, not determined by the free market. By your own definition it is socialism.

You miss my larger point that blanket generalizations about any group of people, whether liberals, conservatives, immigrants, stoners, or tea partiers, are counterproductive when they are really based on universal frailties of the human condition. Do liberals occasionally demonstrate hypocrisy? Of course they do. So do conservatives, academics, convicts, and airline pilots. Like motes and beams, it's easier to see hypocrisy in your ideological opponents, but we are all guilty of it. It doesn't further a discussion to paint in broad strokes as you do.

BTW, has someone hijacked your handle? I'm seeing comments by RedShirt*** (where *** is various text) in other comment threads that I actually agree with. What gives?

RedShirt
USS Enterprise, UT

To "Lagomorph" I don't agree with the state running the liquor stores, and I think that most conservatives don't agree with it either.

The user redshirt007 is not me, that is some liberal that I have no idea who it is.

Lagomorph
Salt Lake City, UT

RedShirt: "I don't agree with the state running the liquor stores, and I think that most conservatives don't agree with it either."

And yet the state liquor store system is remarkably persistent in a state where the legislature is held by a conservative supermajority and the governor and AG are conservative Republicans. If "most conservatives don't agree with it," why isn't it repealed? Are the legislators not "true" enough conservatives? If so, are there any conservatives anywhere?

Let's revisit and revise an earlier statement of yours:
There is a hypocrisy among conservatives. They will fight against socialism saying that government should not be engaged in business, then have no problem socializing their pet projects.

Would you agree that it is still a valid statement?

That's the point I was trying to make. Hypocrisy is a human thing, not a liberal thing.

Sorry your good name got poached. You have to expect it. It comes with the territory. After all, redshirts are disposable and interchangeable.

4th/final comment.

to comment

DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments