Nothing separates art from entertainment. It is a false distinction. It is all art and all entertainment. All of it is covered by freedom of expression. The is no authority even conceivable that can declare what is legitimate vs non-legitamate art. The issue in question seems more of a tax question and would go to non-profit vs profit status of the organization. If a ballet company is a for profit enterprise. If there is a private for profit interest in a ballet company would that still qualify for a tax exemption ? If so, it probably shouldn't. Most arts organizations I know of are non-profit corporations which is the basis for the tax exemption.

Erik,

Thank you for your response.

Here are a few of the sources I pulled up that support my comment, "It has been proven to be destructive to the mind, society, and one's self worth.":

-http://www.edstetzer.com/docs/The%20Effects%20of%20Pornography.pdf

-Judith Reisman, PhD, "History & Science: Erototoxic Images Drive Sex Trafficking Demand."

http://www.judiciary.senate.gov/hearings/testimony.cfm?id=e655f9e2809e5476862f735da10c87dc&wit_id=e655f9e2809e5476862f735da10c87dc-1-3

-http://kon.org/urc/v8/groat.html

Ha ha... I'm guessing you understand that I was not reffering to an individuals own nudity... obviously taking a shower and getting changed is a healthy thing. I hope you will acknowledge that I'm not reffering to a marriage's intimacy being destructive, in general, either.

As far as taxation goes, I would not be against taxing destructive/harmful things more than non-destructive things. You make a good point by asking the question, "If you taxed 'unhealthy' things out of existence, how would you continue to get revenues from them?" However, the purpose of these kind of taxes would first, be to encourage the public to live better lives, and secondly, to get revenue.

It is understood, it would be difficult to determine what products/or services are harmful enough to be taxed more... However, Aren't there some things that are plainly more destructive and immoral than others? Some of these morals, I believe, would be more easily recognised amongst most cultures, beliefs, and people. I believe most people regardless of where you live have a basic moral compass that agrees, generally.

Which is better? To reward immoral and destructive behaviour in society, or to discourage it?

Nice to see a Latham-based club getting some media exposure.

David, please cite a study to support this claim: "It has been proven to be destructive to the mind, society, and one's self worth."

All nudity? Including my own?

You've got me worried now, David. Should I shower clothed?

But let's get serious for a minute.

A question about taxation: do you really believe taxation should be levied in proportion to how unhealthy something is? Like watermelon gets no tax and and fast-food / American Idol get taxed out of existence? If you taxed "unhealthy" things out of existence, how would you continue to get revenues from them? Or would the state declare the next top-10 of unhealthy to get taxed out of existence until all we're drinking is water and all we're eating is rice and vegetables.

Which department of the American government would you put in charge of determining how unhealthy a particular church is or a particular consumer good is -- no matter who gets elected -- forevermore? Or would you create your own government department [a new one] for this?

Do you have any qualms about taxing immoral products -- even if some organization deems things you like to be immoral -- and the US gov't making money off of immoral products? Or would you rather a morality board just censor immoral products so the American public does not benefit from those products indirectly through increased tax revenues?

"Of course I wasn't at a strip club, Honey. I was appreciating the technique of the Polestoy Ballet."

I don't think that this issue has much, if anything, to do with real art. A dancer who dances for art travels down different avenues, other than striptease, to reach their goal to have their work recognized as art. Nudity should be recognised nudity/pornography and never confused with anything else... It has been proven to be destructive to the mind, society, and one's self worth. Most strippers I've been aware of do it for the money, or attention, because it is either the easiest route or the only route they see to recieve these needs. This unhealthy attention is sought for because of other needs unmet in an unhealthy environment. The issue of conversation seems to be based more upon "Adult Entertainment" companies trying to avoid taxes. Avoiding taxes to make money makes sense seeing that these companies are in the business of immorality in order to make money. If anything, they should be taxed more, if not entirely removed from society, to in some way make up for the destruction that they are doing to the society. Cigarette companies are taxed more because of their harm to society, right? Why should the government, which is meant to protect, support destructive behaviour?

I did not see this as an issue regarding the artistic merit of pole dancing vs. ballet.. but rather of fair taxation. I would like to see an end to these niche taxes (amusement, luxury, capital gains, sin) in favor of a fair system that doesn't allow for these niche exemptions.

Also, re: Phillip Glass.
The host needs to learn how to interview without interuppting the interviewee.

M W from NY you said it first but it bears repeating. I was with Mr. McCullough and his argument until he referred to the dancers as "girls." He says that the dancers are doing a job worthy of artistic respect and I agree with him. He needs to give the dancers the same respect he wants the state to give them by referring to thme as women. I was disappointed that the interviewer didn't call him about his repeated use of a word that is patronizing when it is used in reference to anyone over the age of 18.

Mr. McCullough states he is changing the debate over stripping vis ballet, and yet continues to refer to the dancers as "the girls".... certainly this points to the primacy of economic motive behind his version of enlightenment.