You called the freaking cops because you didn’t like how an artist portrayed W. That’s it. There’s no public funding issue, no slander, nothing. You just didn’t like the painting, so you called the damned cops.
In essence, you’re saying that a single man is more important than freedom of expression.
May your special destiny be the corner of hell where Satan puts George W. Bush in charge without any checks or balances.
But the artist commited lese majeste! How can he depict our Emperor so disrespectfully? It isn’t like we have a national charter guaranteeing freedom of expression. :rolleyes:
People really do want to be slaves, don’t they?
You just cannot make this stuff up.
Amazing.
I feel so… Laura’d.
Damn. I guess I need to take down the photo I have of George Bush with the mustache, devil horns, and dick and balls.
Ya know, I’ve always felt that dissent was one of the signs of a healthy democracy. I am disgusted.
Robin
Absolutely amazing, and at the same time, it’s not hard to imagine. I know lots of moronic right-wingers who’d have a shit-fit if confronted by a picture of our fearwess weader portrayed so pornographically.
Y’know, getting back to our “god-fearing” roots and all that drivel…
Sam
Well, the Good News is that the police once they saw the thing did not see why it could not be where it was.
The Bad News is that they payed attention to the lunatics who wanted them to go take a look.
But maybe these people said that Bush was actually taken hostage in person and displayed naked for the amusement of the crowd… Which then gave the poorpolicemen a flash-back of Abu Ghraib pictures and made them panic?
Salaam. A
Wow, that’s illegal now? The others are iffy depending on the circumstances and deeds, but unpatriotic? To call them morons would be a terrible diss to all the harmless morons out there.
They’re not morons, they’re “right-wingers.” spit
Personally, I thought the picture was hilarious. Not very good, but hilarious.
You’ve got to remember that these are just simple farmers. These are people of the land. The common clay of the new West.
What is the Museum of Modern ARF? And would my Labrador retriever enjoy a visit?
“demonic, sadistic, obscene and highly unpatriotic.”
Reeder is not obscene.
It’s a riff on Edouard Manet’s Olympia. The style was deliberate.
I’m all for the sentiments expressed so far, but this reeks of manufactured publicity to me. The Museum of Modern Arf, with its emphasis on depictions of dogs, seems to have a sense of humor. The events described in the article are a little too perfect a fit for the moronic Bush supporter stereotype for me to believe. I can only imagine that the museum was a tad disappointed when the authorities responded to the complaint in a completely professional manner, and left without disturbing the exhibit.
[ Looks at painting ]
“Demonic”?
[ Looks at painting again ]
“Sadistic”??
It’s not “obscene” or “unpatriotic” either, but those first two are just…nonsensical. Someone needs to buy that family a dictionary, now. Hopefully they’ll get a clue as a free gift.
Of course, if this had happened in Iraq with a picture of Saddam, those same folks would be clucking at how Iraq was a “totalitarian regime” that warranted an immediate invasion, or somesuch. Maybe throw in something about brainwashing the citizenry into blind worship of their leader, too.
I looked on the website for the Museum of Modern ARF to see if I could find a more detailed link, but I was unsuccessful.
Was anybody else able to find one?
My granddaughter, an amatuer photographer, took my photo when I was examining the original Manet painting last spring. I suspect a gag gift/stocking stuffer may be in the works. (Let’s just say that my back was to the camera.)
I find the family adorned with Bush-Cheney buttons and stickers to be demonic, sadistic, obscene and highly unpatriotic. However, everyone knows we liberals encourage this surreal side of life.
Maybe in the souvenir shop? Complementary with purchase of two “I Heart America” fountain pens and a Condoleeza-Rice-headed dildo.
The cops HAVE to go look, because you never know what you have until you get there, but as Aldeberan said, they did not act.
What bothers me about the whole thing is that even after they were warned, they still called the cops. There ought to be some statute that allows the cops to slap a fallacious report charge on the caller.
Well that is just a lovely thought :eek: