UWS theater professor Dr. James Miller is relatively new to the short-lived, now cult hit TV series “Firefly.”  Some of his students are loyal fans and asked Dr. Miller to check it out for himself. He liked it enough to hang a Firefly poster on his office door. Given its remote location in the theater wing, where mostly only theater students would see it, who would have expected the poster to cause such a firestorm?

Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) reports:

On September 12, 2011, Professor Miller posted on his office door an image of Nathan Fillion in Joss Whedon’s sci-fi series Firefly and a line from an episode: “You don’t know me, son, so let me explain this to you once: If I ever kill you, you’ll be awake. You’ll be facing me. And you’ll be armed.” On September 16, UWS Chief of Police Lisa A. Walter notified Miller that she had removed the poster because it “refer[s] to killing.” After Miller replied, “respect my first amendment rights,” Walter wrote that “the poster can be interpreted as a threat.” Walter also threatened Miller with criminal charges: “If you choose to repost the article or something similar to it, it will be removed and you could face charges of disorderly conduct.”

In response to Walter’s censorship, Miller placed a new poster on his office door on the 16th. The poster read “Warning: Fascism” and mocked, “Fascism can cause blunt head trauma and/or violent death. Keep fascism away from children and pets.”

Walter escalated the absurdity. On September 20, she wrote that this poster, too, had been censored because it “depicts violence and mentions violence and death” and was expected to “be constituted as a threat.” She added that UWS’s “threat assessment team,” in consultation with the university general counsel’s office, had made the decision. College of Arts, Humanities and Social Sciences Interim Dean Raymond Hayes then scheduled a meeting with Miller about “the concerns raised by the campus threat assessment team.”

The university has since canceled the meeting as of last Friday, but it hasn’t backed off its position.

Sorensen, however, dug a deeper hole. Together with Provost Julie Furst-Bowe and Vice Chancellor Ed Nieskes, Sorensen defended UWS’s censorship in an email to all faculty and staff on September 27. The three administrators wrote that “the posters in question constituted an implied threat of violence. That is why they were removed.”

To understand the importance of this as a First Amendment issue, one needs to closely examine what happened.  A university’s Chief of Police/Parking Enforcement Officer, ignorant of the context of the quote, took it upon herself to remove not one but two posters without ever asking their context or purpose.  The professor honestly expected his First Amendment rights would not be infringed, but the school’s Chancellor cowered behind bureaucratic zero tolerance policies and did just that.

Whether or not you agree with how the professor responded, the police chief clearly overreacted to something she misinterpreted.  You can read the full exchange of those emails at FIRE.  Nothing about the poster of a fictional TV Space Captain is intended to “cause others to fear for their safety”; in fact, it is the opposite of a threat.

Dr. Miller sent the administration the relevant clip from Firefly’s pilot episode Serenity.  The context of the quote is an homage to fair play and a code of honor that obviously prefers non-violence.

This is precisely the issue with freedom of speech; words are subjective and can be interpreted differently by separate individuals.  Sometimes this is done unintentionally, sometimes with malice, which is why the act of deciding what’s NOT free speech is ripe for abuse.  The UWS administration’s stated desire to “promote a campus environment that is free from threats of any kind—both direct and implied” may be well-meaning, but its meaning amounts to nothing.  How does one set a universal standard to determine what is an implied threat or in what context speech may “refer to violence and/or harm”?  As Dr. Miller pointed out in his email response to police chief Lisa Walter, would this also apply to “a poster from Hamlet? Or a news clipping about Hockey players that commit violent murder?”

When asked if he knew of any other examples of such posters or signs on campus, Dr. Miller replied that while he wasn’t aware of any prior attempts at censorship, a “Kill Bill” poster from the popular Quentin Tarantino film was prevalent on campus earlier in the year.  Some quick research finds the poster was actually a parody of the Kill Bill movie, as part of a campus-wide protest held in February against Governor Scott Walker’s budget bill.

Oddly enough, police chief Walter was not at all concerned with the reference to killing or to the weapon of violence depicted in those posters.  In fact, she was quoted in this article at the time as being rather complimentary of the activities.

“The neat part of working in a university is that folks get to have their voices heard, and we try to make sure that it’s done in a manner that’s orderly and doesn’t disrupt the rest of the operations too much,” she said.

Walter also pointed out that the university’s union officers are not included in the exemption Walker provided to other law enforcement officers, firefighters and the State Patrol.

“He did not exempt UW police, Capitol police and, I believe, DNR wardens,” she said. “They will lose their ability to negotiate and have a union negotiate other work-related — other than salary. If the bill goes through, they will be without a contract — and without a union — on March 15.”

Is this because the police chief was not only overseeing security at the protest but also voicing her vested political interest in the highly controversial issue at hand? It seems clear that she was immersed in the context of that poster.

Words are subjective, indeed.

American Universities and colleges today are now, by design, overwhelmingly leftist in their belief systems and political activities.  Students and faculty alike frequently glorify monstrous leftists like Mao Tse-tung and Che Guevara.  To some, they are socialist revolutionary heroes, while to others their image alone is testimony of mass murder and oppression.

When Ward Churchill was fired from his job as Professor of Ethnic Studies at the University of Colorado at Boulder in 2007 for engaging in research misconduct, scholars insisted that Churchill was singled out for his political views, most notably his statements about 9/11 in which he “referred to the ‘technocrats’ working at the World Trade Center as ‘little Eichmanns.‘” There continues to be an outpouring of support for Churchill from the academic community, many of whom have stressed that Academic Freedom must be staunchly defended.

Whither tolerance and intellectual diversity?

The University of Wisconsin-Madison was recently ordered by the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to pay nearly $500,000 in legal costs to a student group that claimed its First Amendment rights were violated when the student government rejected a portion of its funds because they were earmarked for religious worship. Badger Catholic, a student Catholic group that conducts various religious and spiritual activities on and off campus, sued the university, which claimed that funding some of the group’s activities would “amount to an illegal endorsement of religion.” The Appeals Court disagreed with the University and the Supreme Court recently declined to hear the case. It’s been hailed as a victory for freedom of speech and religious expression on college campuses.  $500K was lost because, rather than protecting the fundamental rights of its students, the school chose to discriminate against their activities purely because of the group’s religious beliefs.

While the flap over the Firefly poster may seem trivial, it is anything but.  This incident and UWS’s ego-driven, bureaucratic response provides a teachable moment.  It should make us pause and think about how easily our freedoms can erode, in the arbitrary name of protecting others’ feelings.

It’s one thing to ensure that students and faculty are physically safe, but when we surrender to the Wordsmiths what may or may not offend someone or make them uncomfortable, we are helping to pave our own Road to Hell.

“Sure as I know anything, I know this – they will try again. Maybe on another world, maybe on this very ground swept clean. A year from now, ten? They’ll swing back to the belief that they can make people… better. And I do not hold to that. So no more runnin’. I aim to misbehave.” – Mal Reynolds, Captain: Space Boat Serenity

In response to Islamic reaction over the movie Fitna, which juxtaposes images of Muslim violence with passages from the Qur’an (the same passages Islamic terrorists cite as justification for their violence), writer Sam Harris at the Huffington Post penned one of the best critiques of Islam (and our refusal to engage it) I have ever read: Losing Our Spines to Save Our Necks.  In it, Harris rightly points out: 

The controversy over Fitna, like all such controversies, renders one fact about our world especially salient: Muslims appear to be far more concerned about perceived slights to their religion than about the atrocities committed daily in its name. Our accommodation of this psychopathic skewing of priorities has, more and more, taken the form of craven and blinkered acquiescence. 

There is an uncanny irony here that many have noticed. The position of the Muslim community in the face of all provocations seems to be: Islam is a religion of peace, and if you say that it isn’t, we will kill you. Of course, the truth is often more nuanced, but this is about as nuanced as it ever gets: Islam is a religion of peace, and if you say that it isn’t, we peaceful Muslims cannot be held responsible for what our less peaceful brothers and sisters do. When they burn your embassies or kidnap and slaughter your journalists, know that we will hold you primarily responsible and will spend the bulk of our energies criticizing you for “racism” and “Islamophobia.” 

Our capitulations in the face of these threats have had what is often called “a chilling effect” on our exercise of free speech. 

In Mark Goldblatt’s Reason Magazine article this week The Poet Versus the Prophet he expands on many of Harris’ arguments and states: 

[O]ur tip-toeing around Islamic sensibilities is nothing more than plain, old-fashioned cowardice….  We lack the moral courage to walk the walk, to put our individual lives on the line in order to defend the principles of free thought and free expression—the very principles that allowed the Judeo-Christian West to leave the Islamic East in the dust, literally and figuratively, three centuries ago. 

Goldblatt makes multiple excellent points throughout his piece and closes with: 

Since 2001, many Americans have asked how they can contribute in a direct way to the war against totalitarian Islam. Now we have an answer. If it’s legal, and likely to offend the radicals, just do it. That seems straightforward enough. But how many of us will have the nerve to stand up to a million or so Muslim dirtbags, and to scores of millions, perhaps hundreds of millions, of their fellow travelers and psychic enablers, and say in unison, “You want to kill the Enlightenment, you’re going to have to come through me. 

Islam is not above question, criticism, critique, or examination.  In fact, Islam is fourteen centuries overdue for some serious questioning, criticism, critiquing, and examination.  People the world over need to be reminded that the freedom of speech most certainly includes the freedom to offend.  The right of non-Muslims to draw pictures of Muhammad is equaled by a right just as powerful, the right of Muslims to ignore pictures they find offensive.    

Though I can’t believe I am going to quote Captain Jean Luc- Picard, there is no better way to express why tomorrow’s world-wide event is so important:  

“We’ve made too many compromises already, too many retreats. They invade our space and we fall back. They assimilate entire worlds and we fall back. Not again. The line must be drawn here! This far, no farther!” 

While Picard goes on to say that he will “make them [the Borg] pay,” that’s not our job.  Our job is to stand and defend free speech.  No more outrageous outrage and Muslim grievance theater over cartoons, operas, and videos.  

We will no longer retreat.  We will no longer fall back.  We will no longer demand from every other community on the face of the planet that they meet us on the playing field of civilized, rational discourse, yet carve out a special, protected, no-holds-barred zone for Islam.  

It’s over.  This far and no farther. No more special treatment.  It is time for Islam to come into the 21st century. 

This is why I support “Everybody Draw Muhammad Day.”

Count me among those who find a U.S. President delivering a speech to students–especially one encouraging them towards academic responsibility and excellence as a means to productive adult citizenship–among the more innocuous, and potentially beneficial activities of the Office.

Appreciating yesterday’s early release of President Obama’s speech and having now read it in context, I would heartily maintain that opinion, were it not for the ED’s controversial lesson plan.

FYI:

Part I, Sec. 1905 of the ED’s General Provisions: ELEMENTARY & SECONDARY EDUCATION states:

PROHIBITION AGAINST FEDERAL MANDATES, DIRECTION, OR CONTROL:

Nothing in this title shall be construed to authorize an officer or employee of the Federal Government to mandate, direct, or control a State, local educational agency, or school’s specific instructional content, academic achievement standards and assessments, curriculum, or program of instruction.

That raises some questions:

Is what the White House and ED submitted to teachers merely a suggestion for a lesson plan, or is it considered a mandated part of the curriculum?

If it is mandated at the school level, will districts potentially lose any NCLB funding if the lesson plan is not completed?

If not, can schools still mandate students to participate in the lesson plan?

If so, at what cost–in both classroom hours and subsequent elimination of otherwise state-mandated curriculum–will be the result of the ED’s lesson plan?

Is the lesson plan in any way controversial? (A rhetorical question.)

If a district unilaterally deems it uncontroversial, will the district automatically be exempting itself from any laws requiring equal time for varying viewpoints?

Are Districts legally and/or ethically required to establish and enforce standardized criteria on how teachers shall base their decision to show the speech and implement the lesson plan?

Will written consent be required from parents prior to any future screenings of the president’s address and/or participation in the lesson plan?

If teachers do show the speech and use the lesson plan, how will the teachers present them in a consistent, district-wide manner?

Obviously, controversy stems from the message, not the messenger.

Ideological and political partisanship and “cult of personality” persuasions aside, once duly elected, who the President is is not controversial in and of itself.  Nevertheless, what a President says may indeed be controversial, especially when addressed to a captive audience of ideologically and politically naïve youths.

The trouble with all this arose because the materials in the ED’s lesson plan are an integral part of the president’s message, and the fact that it has already been necessarily revised (post-dissemination) proves it was in fact controversial.

That the ED and its recipient, undoubting education professionals do not seem to appreciate this distinction (and parents’ natural concerns) perhaps illustrates how the quest for intellectual conformity in public education–not to mention this particular predetermination to accept a federal government lesson plan–exemplifies a pervasive and discriminatory injustice that runs contrary to all pretense to freedom of conscience, speech and thought in modern academia.

Debates are fairly presented when opposing views are inherently present in the debate.

Therefore, congratulations and thanks, Mr. President.  Your speech and its ED lesson plan have inspired ‘schoochildren’ [sic] and our body politic to further, fairly and openly address controversial subject matters and debate them in the arena of ideas.

Or, as Jonah Goldberg once profoundly wrote:

“Unity Is Overrated: What’s so bad about partisanship?”

But, if there is one thing that is certainly uncontroversial in the president’s speech today, it is his close to our Nation’s students: “God bless you, and God bless America.”

May God bless you Mr. President.

As I share the shocking information that our Freedom of Speech is being attacked, the radio host across from me, his face, it looks like he just ate a lemon. It’s all scrunched up like…he hates me. He abruptly cuts me off and ends my interview. I’m stupefied at the reaction of people who “just can’t handle the truth.” My driver Shelley is a liberal. She doesn’t say anything. As we get in the car I try to apologize, “Well, he asked me why I was a new political activist.  I guess I should just tell jokes.” I mean I have been hired basically to sell tickets to a bar where people will spend lots of money on alcohol. And, I do need to make some money. My husband is a cop.

And don’t get me started on the Obama Gates Crowley Beer Summit. I wrote 15 articles about racism and tore them up. My husband kept chiding me, “White people can’t discuss race.”

But, I must say. Sgt. Crowley is a first class act. A shout out to you, Sgt.  I love cops, as you can see by the above photo.

Anyway, my next stop is the rock station. It’s ironic for me to be there since I have never owned a stereo or a rock n’ roll record and went to a Baptist high school where in the late 70’s we were actually told to burn/break our rock records–I didn’t have any to burn/break.  I am telling my Kurt Cobain story about how I hooked up Weird Al with Kurt so he could get permission to write the parody “Smells Like Teen Sweat,” when I am pleasantly surprised by a cell phone call from Jessica Hahn.  Yes, the Jessica Hahn. What great radio, right?  I ask her if she’ll be in my “on-air” interview and she agrees. She understands “the business.” Jessica and I have recently struck up a friendship finding we live in the same LA area.  I had met her briefly fifteen years ago on the set of “Unhappily Ever After.”  I had apologized for parody-ing her with my “I Am Not a Bimbo” song on SNL. She was gracious and sweet. We share a background in the church and we both still study the Bible! Anyway, I knock out the rock station interview thanks to Jessica Hahn and go back to my hotel.

I scour the internet and find that the conservative big shots are now fully engaged in this battle against our government.  I send in two emails to flag@whitehouse.gov. I figure I’m already on their “list.” One of my emails says, “Is this a joke?”  One says, “How dare you attack our Freedom of Speech!  Stop the Snitch Program!  It’s illegal!” So, you see, I’m really, really on their “list.”   I’m wondering what will happen to the people on “the list.”  Audit? Jail? Death?  I’m starting to feel exactly the same as the Soviets and the Cubans.  I now understand perfectly why they risked their lives heading to Miami on rafts. The fear is palpable.  The invisible oppression of being watched.  The White House is trying to intimidate my fellow Americans from speaking out, from asking questions about this Socialized Medicine.  Nancy Pelosi is on TV saying we wear swastikas! What planet is she from?  It’s all a jumble of anger and fear and lies. My country.

My hope rises as I read Cornyn and Sekulow’s letters to the President.  They know the legal lingo.  They are representing me. Whew. And of course, there is God.  And, I pray.

My next radio interview is a “phoner.”  I gaze out the window at the beautiful Denver mountains as I sink luxuriously into this interview with a fellow conservative.  He gets it.  He is surprised that I am in the fight along with him, to save our country. My next few interviews are frivolous.  I try to accentuate the ditz in me, to sell tickets, to make Wende, the club owner like me and have me back.

Onstage, I try out a new song, “White Men,” dedicated to Sonja Sotomayer.  One audience loves it.  One is completely silent.  I decide to skip the song for the rest of the shows.  After the show, one lady comes up to me and grasps my hand in both of hers.  She whispers, “Thank you so much for speaking up, about our country.”  Her eyes look deep into mine. I feel like we have both scratched the fish symbol into the sand, during the Roman Empire times. The fall of the Roman Empire.

So why are they so grumpy? I suppose it’s because the idea that anyone might stray from the reservation is anathema to them, and this little thing in our Constitution called the First Amendment kind of gets in the way of collective happiness and singing Kumbaya around the campfire.

John “Cougar” Mellencamp is the latest to notice that not everyone is part of the collective, and he’s mighty peeved, making this observation about free speech in general and bloggers in particular:

“I don’t think people fought and gave their lives so that some guy can sit in his bedroom and be mean. I don’t think that’s what freedom of speech is,” he continued. “Freedom of speech is really about assembly — for us to collectively have an idea. We want to get our point of view out so we can assemble and I can appoint you to be the spokesman. That’s freedom of speech — to be able to collectively speak for a sector of people. But somehow it’s turned into ‘I can be an a****** whenever I feel like, say whatever I like, be disrespectful to people and not be courteous.’ It’s not good for our society. Not being courteous is not really freedom of speech. …

Geez, send this guy back to civics class.

The First Amendment pretty much means what it says when it comes to political speech: as long as it’s not libel or slander, you can say whatever you want. If you come across as a mean jerk, others can point it out, thus exercising their free speech rights. It’s not hard to figure out, except for liberal Statists who don’t really believe in the First Amendment.

That said, I agree with Mellencamp – to a point. I believe discourse in this society has sunk to a new low, and honest debate is often replaced by name calling and angry diatribes not meant to enlighten the other side to your point of view, but to shut debate down by shutting the other side up. However, while I don’t think our Founders ever envisioned the Internet with its pluses (i.e. spreading information at lightning speed around the world) and its minuses (i.e. the anonymity factor that emboldens some to say things they wouldn’t say to one’s face), I doubt they would agree with Mellencamp’s assessment of free speech. We “collectively” have an idea and appoint a spokesman? Well what about those of us who aren’t part of the collective, John? If we don’t subscribe to the current fashion of groupthink, do we not have recourse? Are we not allowed to speak out?

For some, blogging is their only way of making their voices heard. Not everyone has million dollar recording contracts that suddenly make their political opinions worth seeking out by reporters bedazzled by someone who plays a guitar and sings.

And who, pray-tell, decides what kind of speech is “nice” speech and what is “hate” speech? Perhaps Obama will appoint a Speech Czar to add to his ever-growing collection of direct reports who get to circumvent Congress, in a power grab noted even by die-hard Democrat Sen. Robert Byrd.

This transformation in thinking on Mellencamp’s part is nothing short of miraculous. He must be regretting this little outburst at a John Kerry fundraiser during the 2004 presidential campaign, right?

Other celebs also competed to bash Bush. Singer John Mellencamp sang a specially written song that called the president “just another cheap thug” and ridiculed him as the “Texas bambino.”

Perhaps that can be attributed to “artistic expression,” an excuse entertainers and artists often use when some find their content objectionable. The unenlightened bottom feeders “just don’t get it.”

Well, we get it, John. We understand that now that your man (well, your second choice) is in the Oval Office, and suddenly it’s unseemly to make fun of him or – even worse – disagree with him. I hear it on talk radio shows all the time: liberals call in and tell the host to stop criticizing Obama, that we must all get behind the president and support him.

Remember Hillary in 2003?

I am sick and tired of people who call you unpatriotic if you debate this administration’s policies. We are Americans and have the right to participate and debate any administration.

Times have changed, people. We must heed the collective. We must appoint a spokesman. I wonder who John has in mind?

But don’t listen to me. John Mellencamp probably thinks I’m an a****** too.

I decided a long time ago that religion would play no part in my life, but I felt no compulsion to convert others.  Oddly enough, I never resented the folks who would ring my doorbell and try to proselytize me.  Although I don’t like dealing with uninvited guests, I always thought it was nice of them to be that concerned about the eternal soul of a perfect stranger. Having said all that, I wish to announce that I despise the ACLU for its relentless attacks on Christianity and Judaism.  It’s bad enough that they will wage battle on behalf of any busybody looking to banish Christmas and Hanukkah symbols from public places, including one’s own front yard.

However, these very same lawyers will eagerly go to the mat to safeguard a Muslim’s right to wear a disguise on her driver’s license, a Navajo’s right to ingest peyote, and a cultist’s right to ritualistically slaughter small animals. 

The ACLU proclaims that they’re merely abiding by the Constitution’s insistence on the separation of church and state.  The only problem with that position is that the Constitution says no such thing.  Although the secular Left has glommed on to that catch phrase like a pitbull gnawing on a shinbone, the First Amendment simply states: “Congress shall make no law respecting establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” 

That is a far cry from forcing apartment dwellers to remove holiday wreaths from their door, or insisting that communities remove Nativity scenes from parks, or compelling small towns to change “Christmas Holiday” in their high school calendars to “Winter Break.” 

The problem with the ACLU is that it is composed in equal measure of self-righteous fools and fascistic bullies.  Because so many of their members are rich and privileged, they will, on the one hand, blather on about their love of democracy, while, at the same time, assume they alone know what’s best for everyone else. 

Because they are so out of step with the majority, they can rarely have their way via a democratic ballot.  There are, in fact, only two means by which they ever have their way.  The first is by getting liberal judges to set aside election results, as they have done over such issues as capital punishment, illegal immigration, and affirmative action.  The second way is by intimidating those — be they individuals, cities or organizations – that lack the backbone or the financial wherewithal to defend themselves against the ACLU’s mob of shysters. 

If the authors of the Constitution had ever, in their worst nightmares, envisioned a group as vile as the ACLU, I feel certain that they would have rephrased the First Amendment to read: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.  Period!  And we’re not kidding, so help us God!” 

BurtPrelutsky@aol.com

For those saying that my article implies limiting our FREEDOM OF SPEECH, you couldn’t be more wrong; and you have missed the very reason for such a piece.  Just as this artist has used his FREEDOM OF SPEECH to create (in my opinion) filth, I have used my FREEDOM TO SPEAK out loud to call it for what I believe it is… a total piece of crap… I am exercising MY freedom to say, “This, is unacceptable.” 

Where in my article did I say that the artist doesn’t have the right or that we should censor this freedom?  I didn’t.  There is no veil or subliminal intent to rouse people to censor our speech… I am simply saying that I was outraged at the object that was created and couldn’t believe that NOTHING had been said about it as being a disgraceful, disgusting, and deliberate display of hate and ridicule.  Why hadn’t someone said something?  As I said, had the image been made of Obama, there would have been news articles and riots in the streets! – That is not an overstatement… it is the truth. 

My comment about 9-11 was to reinforce in our minds that we have far more important things to worry about than political discord.  The artist’s flippant remark about “no one was maimed, killed, overthrown, etc.” shows his ignorance of the fact that we do have a real enemy, and if we continue to be a “house divided” we will drain our strength in unity to defend ourselves.  Republican or Democrat, black, white, yellow, brown, red… whatever our differences, we are Americans, and we all must work together to keep our freedoms.

I would not advocate ANY ban or censorship on FREEDOM OF SPEECH – I never mentioned taking away that freedom or limiting it in any way… Yes, the artist has the right and freedom of speech to make such an object… and Yes, I have the right and freedom of speech to say what I think about it!  My family has fought for that very right, and I will continue to uphold it and defend it.

Politics can be an ugly subject for many, but what I don’t understand is why people can’t just agree to disagree instead of taking things so personally?  I can respect those who may believe differently from me as long as they understand why and can back up their beliefs with facts.  I’m so tired of this “jump on the bandwagon” mentality or follow the “celebrity leader” junk that has become the political norm for the day.  After all, do celebrities really know the ins and outs of national security, how to effectively rescue hostages, plan an attack on the enemy? 

There’s more to it than just pie in the sky cotton candy dreams and eloquent speech.  There are real lives at stake, including yours and mine.  You would think by the way political parties attack one another that we are fighting the enemy instead of trying to make our country greater and further along the American way.  Why is it that some individuals need to make fun of someone’s opinion that differs from theirs and then make a mockery out of it?  But even more than that, why must people take such stabs at the other side of the political spectrum, making a mockery not only out of the person, but out of the office that person represents? 

Which leads me to the reason for this article:  I came across a picture on the Internet that made my blood boil.  I’m sure there are many photos out there that would do the same, but this one in particular hit me because it was, “all in the name of art and freedom of speech.”  The photo was of an “art sculpture” (and believe me, I use those words lightly) of one of the most recognizable individuals in the entire world.  The object, a urinal; painted in the likeness and image of President George W. Bush, and crafted in such a way so that the bowl of the urinal was his open mouth.  One cannot help but see the visual of what that object implied.  I was outraged that anyone could even think of creating such a degrading, disrespectful, filthy, reprehensible, juvenile, disgusting, offensive, repulsive, grotesque, insulting piece of excrement; let alone proudly display it in public as a “work of art.”  

I hesitated giving any more notice of this most despicable piece of vulgarity, yet as I thought more about it, I became more and more incensed.  Why hasn’t someone said something about this?  Why haven’t more people been appalled over this blatant disgraceful mockery of our former President?  I have to say, if this piece of rubbish had been made in the image of President Barack Obama there would have been numerous stories in the papers, magazines, and newscasts, not just local mind you, but world-wide.  The artist would have immediately been labeled a racist, a hate monger, a threat to society… there would have been riots in the streets and serious hell to pay!  But as of yet, I have not seen one inkling of a story, in the paper or television news, that addresses this object as being an atrocious piece of disrespect. 

Wake up Americans!  This is not acceptable “freedom of speech, art, or creativity.”  This is sheer meanness at the expense of another fellow American; a deliberate display of hate and ridicule. 

In researching for this article, I discovered a statement from the artist in which he says he’s “grateful to live in a country where we can still express our opinions… and that sometimes it is appropriate to be inappropriate.”  He further stated, “No one was maimed, killed, overthrown… in the creating of this art…”  

So pardon my “inappropriate” comment if you will when I say freedom of speech, art or expression in this case was used in such a vulgar, degrading, and reprehensible way, that I think this “artist” is a complete ass!  And, though it would be most “appropriate” to paint HIS face in MY toilet bowl, I would rather leave you with this thought…   

It’s time we Americans stop this infighting among political parties and work together to unite our country as the land of the free and the home of the brave.  I hate war.  I hate that lives are willingly sacrificed and many innocent lives are lost.  I hate the expense, the separation, the hardship on the families, the businesses, the government, so many things… but I realize we live in an imperfect world and we cannot close our eyes to the fact that we have a real enemy, an enemy that will stop at nothing to destroy our way of life simply because we believe differently, and simply because we are Americans (9/11/2001 proved it).  The price of freedom is dear indeed, but not nearly so costly as the very LOSS of that freedom. 

Make no mistake about it… you wouldn’t want to live without it…

UPDATE: A NOTE FROM THE AUTHOR can be read here.

—

You can see Alvaro’s portfolio here.