Wednesday, July 20, 2005

A: Because Of A Litte Thing We Like To Call The Constitution

Q: CRP spokeswoman Karen Hanretty doesn't know why "we need to tolerate the cheap artwork of a gadfly with a world view that is so offensive toa majority of the people." (via The Roundup)

You don't have to like it. But, technically, I think this implies you have to tolerate it.

Is it ugly and a bit overblown? Yeah. In California does it probably represent almost the majority view, however. It's a bit much to have it in a government building, but then again, some Californians likely view posting the Ten Commandments in state buildings equally offensive.

5 comments:

Josh said...

Are the boots actually part of the exhibit? I'm sure they are there to symbolize the fact that they are made for walking and that is just what the painter will do, once of these days the painter is going to walk all over Bush.

Bethany said...

On a somewhat unrelated note, I'd like to mention that the cafeteria in that building is one of the best state-run cafeterias in Sacramento. It puts the Capitol to shame.

Another random fact: Bill Lockyer prefers plain cheese pizza.

Just in case you were wondering.

Doug said...

I looked and looked, but nowhere in the Constitution did I find anything stating that tax dollars should be spent to hang, post, or otherwise display intentionally offensive art.

I agree that the artist has every right -- indeed, I encourage him/her -- to draw art reflecting and promoting his/her views. But don't ask to spend my tax money, and don't use my government building, to display it. (How would the CDP feel if it were an expressly pro-Bush art display put up in a gov't building?)

If I recall correctly, the CDP has a current complaint in with the FPPC about the governor using gov't resources to promote his initatives. How does that differ from using gov't employees to set up, and gov't resources to host and display, a blatantly partisan message in the AtG's office?

cd said...

I don't think I've read that tax dollars were used for this project.

And if you've ever, say, read the ed.gov language on No Child Left Behind, you'll know that pro-Bush art is already prominantly on display.

Bethany said...

When I worked in Sac, then Senator Ray Haynes used to hang the 10 commandments on his office door at the State Capitol (a taxpayer funded building, and I'd be willing to bet a dollar that they were printed by a government owned computer on goverment owned paper, but that's a whole nother argument...) Taxpayer funds were CERTAINLY used to put the 10 commandments statue outside the Texas Statehouse and we've all just (right or wrong) decided that that's just fine. We host a Christian Bible Study group in the Capitol for chrissakes. What's wrong with this?

(PS - the reason the GOP doesn't like the painting is because it's a little too close to true. If it were all that far from a depiction of reality, they'd dismiss it as the pointless musings of a pinko-commie-bleeding-heart-liberal and go about their voting "no" and picking on union laborers like normal)