Congressman Appoints Himself Censor, Removes Painting Critical Of Cops From Congressional Halls
from the I-HEAR-YOU-LOUD-AND-CLEAR,-CERTAIN-CONSTITUENTS dept
I guess it’s up to one Congressman to decide what is or isn’t (acceptable) art.
A Republican congressman took matters into his own hands Friday and personally removed a painting depicting police officers as pigs that a colleague had allowed to be displayed at the U.S. Capitol complex.
“I was angry,” Rep. Duncan Hunter, R-Calif., told FoxNews.com. “I’ve seen the press [reporting] on this for about a week or so. … I’m in the Marine Corps. If you want it done, just call us.”
Hunter said he walked over to the artwork Friday morning with a few colleagues and unscrewed it. He then delivered it to the office of Rep. Lacy Clay, D-Mo., the congressman whose office had allowed the piece to be displayed. The painting, hanging since June, was done by a high school student who had won Clay’s annual Congressional Art competition.
Can’t get legislators off their asses to pass a budget in a timely manner or, I don’t know, step up to do anything about the DOJ’s Rule 41 changes, but you can count on them to apply long-dormant self-motivation to personal agendas.
Rep. Hunter, offended on behalf of an entire nation unions offended on behalf of their members, saw to it that painting, which the police unions bitched at length about, was removed from the public eye. Not that there was any outrage shown by a majority of constituents, who most likely first heard about this painting after it was removed. Here’s the most offending part of the painting, as captured by the Independent Journal Review.
Coming to the defense of powerful, armed men and women who possess the power to stop and/or detain people for violating imaginary laws is the Association of Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs. In the demand letter posted to its website, the ALADS refers to the painting as a “piece of hate,” before going on and on and on about how the nation owes law enforcement its undying support.
Everyone should be alarmed when those whose job it is to fight crime on a daily basis are being depicted as pigs. Why do otherwise reasoned individuals-despite evidence before them to the contrary-become reflexively critical of police? How can a member of Congress jump to the twisted conclusion that it is okay to hang a painting that adds to the divide in our country and attacks law enforcement? Public safety requires a strong two-way partnership. At a time of our country facing rising crime and a shortage of those willing to work the streets as police officers and deputy sheriffs, we need to make it clear that depictions of law enforcement officers as pigs in our Nation’s Capital are not acceptable. The dedicated men and women who put on a uniform daily, who serve to protect our communities, deserve all the support the community can possibly provide.
I assume “everyone” is just supposed to remain in their current state of alarm, since police being depicted as pigs went mainstream nearly a half-century ago. The implication of the rest of the paragraph is that anything less than full-fledged support of the law enforcement community divides nations and causes staffing shortages. And presumably ALADS believes any criticism of police is “reflexive,” and not at all based on actual law enforcement actions and activities.
The same goes for the other law enforcement unions whose feelings were hurt by a high school student’s artwork — one that was informed by the aftershocks of the shooting of Michael Brown in Ferguson, MO.
In an earlier statement calling on House Speaker Paul Ryan to remove it, the Los Angeles Police Protective League, the Sergeants Benevolent Association of New York, and the San Francisco, Oakland and San Jose Police Officers Associations said: “This false narrative portrays law enforcement professionals as posing a danger to the very communities we serve. That is untrue and this ‘art’ reinforces this false narrative and is disrespectful on so many levels.”
That’s an interesting take — one that suggests law enforcement officers pose no danger to the people they serve.
So, based on a new set of false narratives, one periodically-attentive Congressional rep has appointed himself censor… not for the good of the public at large, but for the good a certain subset of the public — and subset of public servants — who just couldn’t accept the idea that some people don’t view them as heroes.
Filed Under: art, censorship, congress, duncan hunter, lacy clay, police
Comments on “Congressman Appoints Himself Censor, Removes Painting Critical Of Cops From Congressional Halls”
Head, meet desk
Why do otherwise reasoned individuals-despite evidence before them to the contrary-become reflexively critical of police?
Pretty sure it’s the ‘evidence before them’ that causes people to be ‘reflexively critical of the police’, in particular the police unions which are ‘reflexively defensive of police’, no matter what they do, and making it clear that they prioritize their own over the public.
How can a member of Congress jump to the twisted conclusion that it is okay to hang a painting that adds to the divide in our country and attacks law enforcement?
Likewise, if he wants to talk about the ‘divide’ between the police and the public he needs only look into a mirror, and his beloved boys and girls in blue who decided to treat the public as the enemy and act accordingly. Or the legal system which bends over backwards to give them ‘rights’ that members of the public could only dream of.
Public safety requires a strong two-way partnership.
In which case maybe tell the police to stop treating the public as the enemy and stop defending the absolute worst among you. Just a suggestion. If the public doesn’t feel like it can trust the police a ‘partnership’ isn’t going to happen.
At a time of our country facing rising crime…
The FBI would beg to differ, but hey, what do they know right?
… we need to make it clear that depictions of law enforcement officers as pigs in our Nation’s Capital are not acceptable.
Because nothing supports a ‘strong, two-way partnership’ like saying one side isn’t allowed to be criticized.
The dedicated men and women who put on a uniform daily, who serve to protect our communities, deserve all the support the community can possibly provide.
They get as much support as they earn. If that’s not ‘enough’ then it’s on them to demonstrate that they deserve more.
Re: Head, meet desk
The FBI’s decreasing crime stats refer to old outdated notions of crime.
Rep. Duncan Hunter is referring to the modern concept of crime. That is, criticizing the police state or any of its apparatus.
Re: Head, meet desk
Actually, I wouldn’t really blame the unions for defending cops, even bad ones. That is their job, although I agree they should show some restraint in some of their speech. They sometimes seem to blame the victims, which is terribly wrong.
However, I definitely do blame internal investigators, high ranking officers, prosecutors and judges for not sanctioning misconduct properly. That would be their job.
Re: Re: Head, meet desk
But is it their job to defend every single cop? I’m not sure they should be viewed as a personal defender (who has to defend the client no matter what) but as protector of the lawenforcment institution and its relationship to the public.
And if you look at it this way they failed hard.
PS: Yes internal and higherups share the blame as they should never have capitulated befor the union, as do some politicians that give them the tools.
What I always find funny is that internal investigations are always cunducted very friendly to the accused. If normal people would be treated this way by cops and court…
Re: Re: Re: Head, meet desk
Not at all. A union is a private body whose job is to protect and advocate for their members, not for non-members.
Re: Re: Head, meet desk
Actually, I wouldn’t really blame the unions for defending cops, even bad ones.
You should, because in defending the bad ones they screw over the (mythical) good ones. If police(including the unions) were willing to hold their own accountable rather than defending them no matter what then the public would be much more able to trust them, in general and specifically to deal with their own ‘rotten apples’.
If you assume that the union’s ‘job’ is to do the best for the police it represents, including image and relationship with the public, then protecting the worst of the lot is actually counter-productive to that job as it undermines public trust and the reputation and image of the police as a whole.
Re: Re: Head, meet desk
They can defend the bad cops legally without a PR offensive on their behalf. Just refuse to give statements, provide lawyers that provide the cop a vigorous defense and they’ve done their job just fine. I don’t think anyone would complain about that, unions are there to defend their members. And they could, and probably should, do this in all cases.
The problem is the PR offensive that the unions go on, attacking anyone, everyone and everything in defense of the bad cops. They do far, far more damage to the police than any of the bad cops in the process. People understand there’s going to be bad actors that slip through the hiring process in any organization, but they don’t expect the union to go out there claiming reality isn’t reality in defense of the bad cops. That just tells people the union does not have a problem with bad cops, not that they defend all their members. And so, people stop trusting any cops.
Re: Re: Re: Head, meet desk
Looking at this purely analytically, not regarding whether it’s a police union or some other type of body…
I’d think that that sort of tactic would destroy the paying members confidence in their organisation that they are paying to protect and advocate for them. Where for what their management perceive to be good members they go all out, launch PR campaigns etc. But for what they perceive as bad – but still paying the same membership fee – members, they don’t do all that…wouldn’t that destroy your faith in them as an organisation?
If I was in such a union who undertook those tactics, I’d be leaving it and finding a different one who treated all their members the same.
It is not just the president-elect who will ignore the sytem of law and justice in the coming 4 years.
The Capital building must be this special little snowflakes safe space. Typical liberal millenial…
Re: Re:
Yep the congressman that took down the art work must really feel like a special little snowflake.
Typical baby boomer pass the blame response…
Some observations –
1) Police have guns. Republicans instinctively protect *anything* to do with guns.
(you could stop right there, but…)
2) Police represent law and order. The incoming president says he’s the L&O president, so they want to stay on his good side, by any means necessary – to include cowering. Cops have pretty big unions, too … and unions of (preferably uniformed) gun-wielding people are attractive parts of the Republican constituency and must be pandered to.
(you could stop right here too, but…)
3) Republicans have nothing better to do that ‘work’ on wedge issues and/or naming post offices since over the past decade or more in Washington they’ve proven an inability to govern collaboratively, generate new ideas, or govern generally.
(okay, done now.)
Re: Re:
1) Police have guns. Democrats instinctively fear anything to do with guns.
(you could stop right there, but…)
2) Police represent law and order. The incoming president says he’s the L&O president, so they want to stay on his good side, by any means necessary – to include cowering. Cops have pretty big unions, too … and unions of (preferably uniformed) gun-wielding people are attractive parts of the Republican constituency and must be pandered to. I thought Democrats liked the Unions, why all the hate?
(you could stop right here too, but…)
3) Democrats have nothing better to do than ‘work’ on wedge issues and/or naming streets after SJW’s since over the past decade or more in Washington they’ve proven an inability to govern collaboratively, generate new ideas, or govern generally.
(okay, done now.)
Despite the fact that your post is pure insulting flamebait I am certain the TD community will flag it fast…
Re: Re: Re:
1.) As a self-avowed liberal, I do not fear “anything with guns”. I fear for those who may be the victims of irresponsible firearm ownership and usage. I fear for those who may be the victims of overzealous, violent policing by officers who will not face any consequences for their state-sanctioned violence. My fears sit in reality – and in reality, people who neither need nor deserve firearms get their hands on them and use them to kill innocent people.
2.) Police unions represent only the interests of the police, and as such, they often do whatever it takes to make the police look good no matter what. They will do anything to paint anyone killed or harmed by police as criminals deserving of that violence. They will defend corrupt and violent officers until and unless definitive proof of guilt arises – and even then, the unions will do anything to keep that officer from facing stiff consequences. I would respect the police unions more if they tried harder to improve policing and backed off of trying to paint all police officers as lily-white angels from Heaven.
3.) Congressional Republicans spent the past six years blocking everything they could from the Obama administration, including the nomination of a new Supreme Court justice. Republicans in North Carolina just tried to revoke as much power from incoming governor Roy Cooper because he is a Democrat. If you want to insult Democrats over obstinance and partisanship in government, you might want to look at how bipartisan Republicans have been since the 2008 election of President Barack Obama.
And as for the whole “SJWs and wedge issues” thing: Do you believe we need not protect the civil rights of transgender people? Do you believe we have no need to address the continued discrimination of racial, gender, and sexual minorities? People can care about more than one thing at a time. And while I will admit that liberals have focused more on “social issues” than economic ones as of late, addressing the former can help address the latter as well. (I will also admit that Democrats do need to do a better job of addressing economic issues of differing demographics. White people and Black people do not have the same “economic anxieties”, after all.)
So, does this satisfy your need for a comment that is not flamebait?
Re: Re: Re: Re:
On 1.) Everything you said, makes it clear you live in fear of them. It is easy to kill humans, ridiculously so. Guns certainly make it easier, but if someone wants you dead, it can be accomplished easily without a gun. Check out the road ragers in lorries that happen to be in the news. You are more likely to be killed by a car or a doctor with a surgical tool than you are a fellow citizen with a gun.
On 2.)… so… A Union doing its job… shocker there! When YOU and the rest of you “not our fault for our votes/representatives” citizens finally realize that “Every Nation gets the Government it deserves” come back and talk at me.
On 3.) Because no Democrat has ever done the same? Get your head out of the sand, you are clearly okay with democrats doing this but not republicans? Hypocrisy is a nasty thing friend. Stop that. Government was setup so that these things can happen for a reason. I like it when both parties are fighting so much that things cannot get done. Because when they do agree with each other, it is usually for the WORSE not the better.
On the SJW thing. It’s not about protecting rights, it is about discriminating against people that think differently under the “guise of equality”. You cannot bring about equality by disparaging any side. Discrimination will never go away because SJW keep creating it as part of their solution to destroy it. It’s called a catch-22, look it up, there is even a wiki page on it!
“So, does this satisfy your need for a comment that is not flamebait?” No, the comment was clearly flamebait… I am just making a point that there are certain types of bigotry that is more okay here than others, in regards to the TD community.
If you want equality great, I do as well… but it must be approached from the lens of Liberty. Not more inequality by marginalizing others to elevate the down trodden.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
(1.) I do not live in fear of guns. I have held an actual firearm, though I have never fired one. I have known people who have owned guns, and none of them ever pointed their guns at me. My fear of guns is in a larger societal context. I fear the ease with which American society allows violent people to legally purchase a firearm. I fear the way police officers are given every possible benefit of the doubt in regards to how they use firearms, especially against Black people. What I fear is a society that loves firearms but hates responsibility – a society that would rather allow a known domestic abuser to buy a gun, kill someone with it, and shrug its shoulders when trying to figure out why the hell he was allowed to buy a gun in the first place. That is my fear, and it is becoming reality.
(2.) A union can do its job without being dishonest to the point of delusion. If police unions would fight to push bad cops out of policing rather than fight to keep bad cops employed no matter what, I would have more respect for those unions. But they do not, so I do not.
(3a.) I am fine with obstruction based on principles. If a politican wants to obstruct a law because they believe the law will harm more people than it helps, I care not what party they are in. But if a politican wants to obstruct based only on the party they are in, I will call it out regardless of my political leanings. Partisan obstruction based on partisanship alone is bullshit, regardless of who does it.
(3b.) “[I]t is about discriminating against people that think differently under the ‘guise of equality’. You cannot bring about equality by disparaging any side.” Yes, and? Freedom and rights are two sides of the same coin – you cannot have pure freedom without infringing on another person’s rights. We pass laws to protect the rights of others in exchange for a limit on specific freedoms; same-sex marriage, for example, is now a protected right that limits the freedom of homophobes to infringe upon that right. If the side whose freedom is limited feels “disparaged”, they can either ask the government to address that grievance or deal with it like a mature adult.
(3c.) “Discrimination will never go away because SJW keep creating it as part of their solution to destroy it.” No, what you are witnessing is something made possible by the Internet: the voices of those once silenced by legal and societal discrimination speaking out against it. I will admit that there are cases of “discrimination” that are overblown. But we cannot dismiss all discrimination because of the “SJW” boogeyman and baseless, hyperbolic fearmongering. Nor can we simply ask the marginalized to “deal with it” so as to protect the feelings of those who have better economic, political, and social standing.
(3d.) “If you want equality great, I do as well… but it must be approached from the lens of Liberty. Not more inequality by marginalizing others to elevate the down trodden.” And whose liberty must we respect here – those who have the power, or those who do not? Whose liberty must be protected – those who can defend it, or those who cannot? What rights should the “downtrodden” be forced to give up so those above them will feel “safe” and “happy”?
Re: Re: Re:3 Re:
All these points are a direct consequence of US history.
1) The gun ownership culture is very entrenched in the US(for obvious historical reasons).
2) The police union does what most US unions do because, well, the “everything’s bigger in Texas” doesn’t just belong to Texas. Look up American Exceptionalism. This is also why the US got Donald Trump elected into office.
3) Problem is many Americans never got over the end of racial segregation, much less such “novel ideas” like same-sex attraction or transgender persons. The fact that some of these concepts clash with their religious, moral and cultural views also doesn’t help.
What we’re left with is a bunch of groups of angry people fighting one another, distracted to Wall Street laughing all the way to the bank, rubbing their grubby hands together.
They are upset that cops are depicted as pigs ..
but totally cool with shooting a dude that looks like a dog?
Re: Re:
Re: Re: Re:
And the cop-apologist trolls lurk the internet apparently.
So they see this picture as an insult to them rather than seeing that a kid in high school sees the police in this way. So they attack the kid rather than the problem that this kid so clearly sees happening.
Re: Re:
Once you have committed yourself to one side, regardless of evidence, you have to keep doubling down on the insanity.
Constitution
and Rep. Hunter did this just days after taking an oath to protect and defend the Constitution. I assume he forgot that the 1st Amendment is part of that document.
Re: Constitution
well, day-am...
…i needs me a tee shirt of that, now…
Techdirtia ? you on that ? ? ?
tiresome to refute the paramilitary pigs who squeal when even a sidelong glance goes their way…
newsflash to the capo dei capi: you are on the wrong side of logic, the wrong side of morality, and the wrong side of his story; that is why you have a difficult time recruiting sociopaths…
hardly news to bitch das piggies are ‘protecting and serving’ the interests of the 1%, not the 99%; but it has become plainer now the velvet glove has come off the iron fist of Empire…
the abuse has escalated such that you can’t even count on your white privilege to protect you from police riots… when even pwecious white slaves of Empire are getting jacked up, *now* police abuse is a thing…
For me this would be more about fairness than a free speech issue. If I was allowed to display a painting of a group of people in a negative way and get it sanctioned by the government by placement in a government building, then others should be able to do the same to me and mine.
Would the government be ok with a painting in the same building that showed a group of people as their stereotype of robbing gas stations?
Everyday we hear about different groups demanding and getting the removal of flags, paintings, monuments, etc…
Re: Re:
The cops are government employees, the robbers are prob unemployed and these are equivalent?
Re: Re: Re:
The robbers are demonstrably self-employed.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
here here…
and the government HATES competition.
Every time they bring up the # cops killed in the US
They conveniently neglect to mention that it is an order of magnitude LOWER than the number of people killed by LEOs every year. Many are probably hard-working people upholding the law, but a depressing number think they are freaking Rambo.
Gotta do a barrel roll against unarmed children in swimsuits, of course.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=io1UADruF2k
“963 people killed by police in 2016”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/national/police-shootings-2016/
“991 people killed by police in 2015”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/national/police-shootings/
“73 LEOs killed by gunfire, stabbed or hit by a vehicle in 2016”
https://www.odmp.org/search/year?year=2016
“49 LEOs killed by gunfire, stabbed or hit by a vehicle in 2016”
https://www.odmp.org/search/year?year=2015
Re: Every time they bring up the # cops killed in the US
Cop may have done a barrel roll or could have just tripped and recovered. Hard to tell with the shaky video. I have practiced that many times in mixed martial arts because it becomes muscle memory to automatically recover if you are knocked down. He could have easily tripped on a tree root. As for the number of deaths. Data is only partially useful. It would be nice to see reports on if that was unarmed or armed and what they were armed with. I definitely think there are unjustified deaths but difficult to see anything useful with that data.
Re: Re: Every time they bring up the # cops killed in the US
While true, that the data is only partially useful applies to both sides. Frankly how many of the LEO deaths were officers “serving” “no-knock warrants?”
Frankly, if I were on a jury for a murder trial for someone who shot an LEO “serving” a “no-knock warrant” I would vote not-guilty by self-defence.
Good!
Good! It should be removed. It should never have been hung.
Things hung in government buildings tend to make people believe that the government supports these things.
It is no more appropriate to have police depicted as pigs as it would to have African Americans depicted as monkeys… or any other slur, racial or otherwise.
Both are freedom of expression, but neither are appropriate in a government building.
Re: Good!
Depicting afro-americans as monkeys is inappropriate because there’s a ton of prejudice behind it. I would be comfortable with a paint depicting whites and blacks as monkeys though. Cops on the other hand have a long, long, long history of abuses. So it is appropriate yes. The Government buildings are public places, the paint won a prize and was displayed there. The only problem is when some idiot dressed in self-righteous moralism decides he can take it out.
Re: Re: Good!
Agree, the idea that Congress can somehow or should be free of inflammatory material is exceptionally telling of a persons ability to understand things.
Congress will never lack these things, ever. Regardless of it being posted in a painting or it proceeding forth from someones twitter account.
Re: Good!
Depicting African Americans as monkeys is the result of prejudice.
Depicting police as pigs is the result of police behavior.
The monkey depiction is not the result of any action of African Americans.
If the mythical “good cops” are so offended by this, then they should work to police their own ranks before they police everyone else. The “good cops” are represented to the public by the worst actions of the bad cops.
People want to be protected from crime. Police were once respected. Now the public fears the police. What changed? It can’t be the criminals who changed the public perception. Criminal activity would reinforce the appeal of having police around. So whose actions made the public distrust the police?
This artwork is a reasonable social commentary. Like all commentary that points out ugly truths that offend the powerful and well connected, removing it from view won’t make the underlying public resentment go away. Removing it in fact makes the police and those who removed it look worse, not better. Why aren’t they working to change the underlying causes that led to the creation of such artwork?
“before going on and on and on about how the nation owes law enforcement its undying support.”
Lol no. You are doing your goddamn job, being paid for it and you knew about the risks when you took it. Let’s talk about how the nation owes doctors? Or engineers for not letting things collapse? Or goddamn waste collection employees for not letting your yard become a stinky pile of garbage?
I hate when some morons that are merely doing their job (!!!) keep whining about their oh-so-high-importance. Every single profession is important. If you want to glorify one at least pick teachers/professors. You’d be a dumb donkey if it wasn’t for them and we’d still be in the Middle Ages.
Re: Re:
Um, excuse me, but some people ARE dumb donkeys and would prefer a return to the middle ages. Just sayin’
gosh, i hadn’t heard about this, barbra.
Dear confresss critters
When criticism exists, you can address the issues which give rise to the criticism, and this takes hard work, or you can bury the criticism, which is a quick immediate fix, at least until the pressure bursts the dam.
Guys, I think we found Whatever!
Where is the technological side of this?
Why the flame piece? You should stick to tech related articles and leave this flaming to Salon or some other trash sites that doesn’t offer anything other than emotional phishing.
Re: Re:
Techdirt routinely runs articles about the First Amendment and issues of free speech and expression. If you cannot deal with that reality, go find a different blog to read.
Re: Re: 1st Amendment? You serious bro?
How does the 1st amendment apply here? The decision to hang the painting was GOVERNMENT speech in a GOVERNMENT office. The decision to take it down was also GOVERNMENT speech. Since the painting was returned to the original congressman who can re-hang it, his decision not to re-hang it is also GOVERNMENT speech.
This whole kerfuffle is nothing more than a family arguing over what gets stuck to the front of the family refrigerator.
Re: Re: Re:
Agree, I don’t think this is a flame piece at all, and I am quick to point out TD and its commenters habit of this type of stuff.
Re: Re: Re:
ah yes.. thank you for the obvious assessment that techdirt runs articles of first amendment issues. I have been drifting away from techdirt as they are not sticking to their core fundamentals of reporting(?) on digital era 1st, 4th, etc.. amendment, corporate bullshit etc..
As far as “reality” goes, are you ok dealing with other people suggesting something different? By telling me to go read something else are you wanting to create a safe space for yourself here?
Re: Re:
Did you read this article in the newspaper? No? You read it online?
See we can be petty too.
“…count on them to apply long-dormant self-motivation to personal agendas.”
Perhaps true, but what was Clays agenda? Does every winner get displayed at the Capitol or did he just pick this one?
Re: Re:
As I understand it, Clay went through the official process to get approval. When Hunter couldn’t get it removed through the official process, he decided to “take the law into his own hands”, so to speak.
not a t ypo?
“…nation owes law enforcement its undying support.”
Problem is, it’s been “dying support”. Which is what’s being criticized.
Oath of Office?
Don’t most law enforcement officers swear to uphold the Constitution? Or is that an outdated practice?
I don’t think a Government building is the place for this type of art work. There are many other places it could be hung up on the wall at.
Not all cops are PIGS. I do think the biggest problem is the UNIONS!!! It’s because of police unions, bad cops are kept protected and it makes everyone else look bad. The same holds true with Teacher’s. There are BAD teacher’s which are also protected by the Unions. Are all teacher’s bad? No!!!!
Unions were a good thing early on but like anything, over time they grow larger and larger and more corrupted, just like Government.
Re: Re:
Why not, as members of the government should be very aware of what is going on in society.
Re: Re:
actually, since we proles are ALL painted with the same broadbrush, why shouldn’t piggies get the same treatment ? ? ?
besides, if the 1-10% of ‘good’ piggies WOULD DO THEIR FUCKING JOBS and root out the 90-99% bad piggies, then we wouldn’t have these issues, would we ? ? ?
yeah, that is going to happen…
Safe topics?
I suppose if every Congressman has a “liberum veto” over artwork in common areas, the only acceptable subjects will be the Flag, eagles, national parks (empty of people), and kittens (but no eagles flying off with kittens, please!).
Re: Safe topics?
Ah I love little kittens. Especially with a good sauce slowly roasting over the coals right next to the baked eagle.
😛
Agree
I’m horrified by the many reports of police corruption and brutality. In those cases pig would be an understatement. However, this picture is disrespectful and inappropriate for a public building. Not everybody shares the sentiment especially the many people who’ve had positive interactions. Gratuitous insults are damaging to legitimate reform efforts. It like Chris Rock said “playing Fuck the Police when you’re being pulled over by the police is just ignant.”
Apparently, Mr Cushing, is a fan of
the absurd and tasteless art.
You would think that in the People’s Capital
only inspiring works of art would do.
What would Mr Cushing’s opinion be of a piece
of art promoting slavery?
Surely, outrage would emanate from his mouth.
Re: Re:
Lame 1/10 Trolling. Wouldn’t read again.
Re: Re: Re:
AC, would you hang this “painting”
in your union hall??
How about a “painting” of anti-unionists
suppressing a strike? Surely you would object placement to it’s anywhere on union property.
They do plan (your friends in CONgress) to
rehang this piece of crap back on the wall.
Now, the both of you can clap your hands in
harmony.
Re: Re: Re:
You do not even have a standard user name.
I should have not bother with a rebuttal.
I have to agree with you completely on this one Tim…
We have to get rid of Unions (all of them) in order to stop their blind, knee-jerk defense of their members. I’ve been in, and worked with, unions before and they do jack shit for the rank and file, while the scum are protected from the results and consequences of their actions.
Thanks for putting this forward, not many on the left believe in workplace reform.
Re: Re:
As a member of a union (not a police union), I have to say that you can go fuck yourself! Not all unions are bad and not all unions defend violent murderers who break the law. Lumping other unions in with police unions is like saying all fish are bad because sharks attack humans. It sucks that you’ve had a bad experience, but not every union member has and many do help rank and file members.
What does it have to do with reach?
Obvious action
US congress want protect people that enforce their power and control, very obvious! No police how they enforce their control?
Painting
It’s a sad day when we feel the ones who protect us and are there to help us are little more than animal that rolls in the mud to cool off. Worse than take this picture shows a certain kind of animal of a certain color stereotypeing them I feel this is disrespectful of these men and women who put there lives on the line everyday for all of us.
Re: Painting
LOL of the day! Seriously, what planet are you from? On ours, American cops are not legally obliged to protect you, they can kill you with impunity, and they rob your stuff on suspicion alone of involvement with the drug trade.