He thinks the NEA should subsidize art that will enhance the robustness of the debate and should therefore prefer unorthodox art--though only, of course, if it represents a viewpoint the endowment considers, by virtue of social need and a prior history of exclusion, worthy of its megaphone.
It's his belief that the NEA should support art that is unorthodox and yet worthy of special assistance.
He thinks that the NEA should only fund traditional art regardless of any special need or prior exclusion.
This isn't the decisive distinction.
I don't remember it off the top of my head.
Garyce Wiggins says that people will say that Legal Services is a smaller firm.
It's an easy rhythm and tone.
dogs eat cheese
People cross their arms together