American Taxpayers Spent $30,000 on a Production of Doggie Hamlet
For the last three years Republican Senator James Lankford has released a document called Federal Fumbles, which highlights some of the federal governments most egregious examples of wasteful spending for the year.
This year there’s been stiff competition. For example, the federal government spent $686,350 paying fat teenagers to drink Slimfast in a completely unnecessary obesity study. Likewise, they spent $300,000 on a Frankenstein-themed beer garden in Indianapolis. These are wasteful, no doubt, but Doggie Hamlet takes the cake.
Yes, the federal government spent $30,000 to fund the production of Doggie Hamlet. What is Doggie Hamlet? It’s exactly what you’d expect. A mess. The Senator’s report describes it as such:
The adaptation does not include any actual lines from Hamlet, is conducted outdoors in a 30-by-50-foot field in New Hampshire, and is mostly humans yelling or running toward confused sheep and dogs.
Of course, liberals were quick to defend the performance. The New York Times said the “play” wasn’t really about Hamlet, it was more about “what it means to be a citizen of the world.” Not a joke.
The money was funneled into Doggie Hamlet through something called the National Endowment for the Arts, a federal program that funds ostensibly artistic endeavors, but usually ends up giving money to charlatans and hacks. Here are some images from the production so that you can judge for yourself:
In a country with roughly $20 trillion in debt, is it wise to be spending money on things like Doggie Hamlet? Probably not. But then again, if the NYT said it, it must be true!
