reply to post by ownbestenemy
Painting the mural is one thing. Destroying/removing a mural is something else. One is an act of creation, the other an act of destruction. I tend
to think that there is a higher bar to the latter than to the former.
Are America's medium-sized businessmen babies that they cannot tolerate some criticism, somewhere? I always hear politicians (another group of
babies) calling them the engine of economic growth. Sorry, but they only deserve that status if they hire and pay good wages. If not, then they
should go out of business. It sounds like a lot of those complaining were bad businessmen who were rotten to their poorer customers and deserved to
go out of business.
Even if I am wrong, and I admit that I have never seen the mural, it sounds like your disagreement with it is ideological and not based on a
compelling state interest. I have to see murals and artworks I might not agree with. I am an adult, and do not believe that the machinery of the
state should serve my private interests and remove a mural just because I am offended. I held the same standard when some nineties lesbian wanna'be
might have been offended that the Jefferson Memorial or Mount Vernon was too male or straight so I am consistent on this one. Art is art, and
sometimes it has to offend. Political correctness in whatever form is bad. That is what a free society is, as long as one group is not taking the
full brunt of all criticism which I oppose, be they businessmen or anyone. Criticism ought to be free, but diffuse and encompassing all groups of
people fairly and euitably.
edit on 1-5-2012 by EarthEvolves because: Redaction