Posted on 06/06/2004 8:29:54 PM PDT by LibWhacker
A couple of weeks ago San Francisco Capobianco Gallery owner Lori Haigh was beaten up because she displayed paintings by Berkeley artist Guy Colwell of US troops torturing Iraqis. Haigh's voicemail was also filled with profanity-laced threats and hateful diatribes
Haigh claimed her right to free speech had been violated. It goes without saying that she is absolutely right. On the other hand, as a liberal Haigh should at least be sufficiently consistent ask the simple question: Why would anyone do that?
Well, the answer is just as simple. Colwell deliberately painted American troops as a bunch of sadistic Nazis. His paintings were not an anti-war statement but an attack on the US. Saddam's thugs and his al Qaeda allies could not have done a better job of portraying a handful of rogue soldiers who humiliated ? not tortured ? Iraqi prisoners as being typical GIs.
In plain English Colwell acted with cold-blooded premeditation to libel American troops and his country, and in doing so he consciously aided and abetted the enemy. This is a fact that ordinary patriotic Americans have no difficulty in discerning, though Haigh appears to have a severe problem with recognising the obvious when she sees it ? or then again, maybe not.
Now where are Colwell's paintings of a free Iraq? Where are his grisly paintings of Saddam's torturers at work? Where are his outraged pictures of the Twin Towers and other terrorist outrages? Can we now expect painting of a Saddamite mob burning the bodies of American contractors and then hacking them to pieces? Will Colwell paint the latest Khobar atrocity in which al Qaeda terrorists massacred 22 civilians?
Of course not. Colwell is a typical leftist hypocrite whose hatred is solely directed at the US. He no more cares about Iraqi prisoners than I worry about the welfare of ants. These prisoners' humiliation was just a handy excuse for him to libel his country and nothing more.
Like the vast majority of lefties, Colwell is a phony humanitarian and a vicious liar. "Liar?" you ask. Yes indeed. When he used the misbehaviour of a few to slime the reputations of those who are fighting and dying in Iraq, he perpetrated a vile lie. (The cowardly Teddy Kennedy did the same thing when he accused President Bush and the US Army of reopening Saddam's torture chambers).
This is what basically fuelled the anger that Haigh has felt and that Colwell, the man who wiped his boots on men whose company he is not fit to keep, did not have the guts to confront.
Once again, what was done to Haigh was inexcusable but the anger behind it is understandable.
Haigh believes she has lost her freedom of speech. This is a self-pitying and absurd view. It does, however, reveal the self-righteous and self-absorbed attitude of lefties. Did Haigh or Colwell welcome free speech for Iraqi's? Apparently not. Did this pair ever object to leftwing academics and their student thugs suppressing free speech on campuses? I doubt it.
This is how Indymedia, a group that Soros helps fund, sees US troops. It was one of Haigh's leftwing admirers who inadvertently revealed the moral bankruptcy of the left when with a bouquet of flowers to which was pinned a note reading, ". . . . She [Haigh] is a true American and a real patriot."
That's the moralising left for you. It's not the men and women who defend America who are the "real patriot[s]", it is not those who liberated Iraq and destroyed a murderous regime, not to mention the Taliban. No sirreeee. The "real patriot" is a silly little leftwinger who displayed paintings showing US as a bunch of Nazi storm troopers.
They caught her attacker then I take it?
Collaborators (i.e. Haigh) often wonder why people are against them and wonder why the rest of the world isn't as right-thinking or as enlightened as they are (I used to work with several such elitists). Has this woman been living in a sealed room these last few months not to realize what hosting such content could get her into?
How do we know that her attackers were not artists doing impromptu performance art of thugs suppressing free speech? Art is in the eye of the beholder and this woman is trying to suppress my interpretations of what is art.
HELP!
My right to free speech and thought is being destroyed by this woman who seeks to silence the art of others. When we do not protect the performance art of one, we lose it for all.
Well, one way we know that her attackers were not artists is the fact that she was not covered with elephant dung. Which brings me to this amusing classified ad I stumbled across in the Tacoma News Tribune.
Purchasing/Buyers Office Purchasing / Admin Asst. Super Tacoma Co. is looking to add a Purchasing/Admin Asst. Provide office and inventory support, Word, Excel and any Great Plains exp. a plus. Start from $28k - $33k and enjoy TERRIFIC benefits too. NEVER A FEE TO YOU! Business Careers @ (253) 383-1881 or visit www.businesscareers.com Fragrance Free Office Published 06/06/2004 - by The News Tribune
In Palo Alto, CA, at Stanford, they had a group of students who shrouded some statues on campus as a way to bring the abuse at A.G. home, in their words.
A few days later a very good letter to the editor appeared in the Palo Alto Daily News about how they should have "beheaded" some of the statues, or depicted planes flying into some of them, to put what happened at A.G. in better perspective.
A little off topic, I know, but the article reminded me of it.
"...one way we know that her attackers were not artists is the fact that she was not covered with elephant dung."
True.
But would you concede that this woman is already the equivalent of elephant dung as a person?
She got off easy for being a piece of garbage.
I allow anyone the right to burn a flag, I reserve the right to bash in their nose.
No jack-booted cops needed - the 1st amendment is safe - we both get to express ourselves openly.
Good point! I think she may have been beaten up by some guy who can't stand ugly women.
Thats right. I would have this America hater deported if I had anything to do with her.
Well, if you're going to twist my arm.
No, it goes without saying she was wrong. Someone might wanna explain to her & the author of this editorial exactly what the Bill of Rights says about free speech.
If she had been arrested for displaying her obnoxious wares, *that* would been a case of an infringement on her right to free speech.
deported for ignorance? nah - the bloodied nose is 'fair payment' for the 'art'
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.