Journal pudge's Journal: Local WA Artist Hates the Constitution, Christmas, and America 21
Deborah Lawrence was offered an opportunity, by the Congress and the White House, to make an ornament for the White House tree.
She said the offer "nauseated" her at first -- because she hates Christmas, and presumably because she also hates any notion of American unity -- and then she decided to take the opportunity to show just how much hate she has in her heart by creating a Christmas ornament that called for the impeachment of President Bush.
Of course, as any sane person, no matter their political views, would agree the ornament was properly rejected. Even Jim McDermott said the ornament was inappropriate.
But if that's not enough, Lawrence also showed that she hates the very right that allows her to create her gauche piece: on the phone to KING5, she said that because the ornament was not instantly rejected, she thought that maybe "the Bush administration appreciates the First Amendment."
Anyone who thinks this has anything to do with the First Amendment must hate the Constitution so much that they've never bothered to actually find out what it means.
It barely needs stating that calling yourself an "artist" does not mean you're smart, or have any sense of aesthetics, but I feel like stating it anyway.
I appreciate contrarian and protest art more than most people. But I'd hope it be done with some sense of dignity and intelligence.
Cross-posted on <pudge/*>.
I'm not a raging 'Christmas' fan, either (Score:2)
If I was W, I'd invite the woman to dinner at the White House.
She either makes an ass of herself in self-"righteously" refusing, or meets him and realizes that, warts and all, he's a human being.
I'm all full of zany ideas.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm all full of zany ideas.
:D
Re: (Score:1)
That *is* zany. Think about it, about someone filled with so much hate and rage for their own country, someone so out of touch that they would act like this, how they must view reality in such cartoonish terms. Now put that person face-to-face with the one and only, the very Bush-Hitler himself. Why, forced to reconcile the stark contrast between reality and her delusion, in only one evening, the poor thing, her head would surely asplode.
Re: (Score:2)
Worth the price of admission!
Dude, you never cease to amaze me (Score:2)
"presumably because she also hates any notion of American unity"
I don't follow your logic. Where does that presumption come from? And unless this is a case of the pot calling the kettle black, perhaps you should stand behind your new President (who I voted against) as firmly as you have the present one.
and then she decided to take the opportunity to show just how much hate she has in her heart by creating a Christmas ornament that called for the impeachment of President Bush.
You don't impeach a President b
Re: (Score:2)
I don't follow your logic. Where does that presumption come from?
Her own words of hatred and nauseation about being involved in creating an ornament for a tree in the Bush White House.
And unless this is a case of the pot calling the kettle black, perhaps you should stand behind your new President ... as firmly as you have the present one.
If I were commissioned to do an ornament for the Obama White House, or something similar, it would be done with the utmost respect for the man and the office. I absolutely would not take that sort of opportunity to grind any axes.
You don't impeach a President because you hate him (unless the President's name is Clinton), you impeach him for "high crimes and misdemeanors".
You and I wouldn't. SHE would. So would many people.
I don't think she shows hate, I think she shows a lack of reasoning.
Brought on by a blindness caused by hatred.
I think you're confusing ignorance (or faulty logic) with hate.
Again, as I said, if she didn't hate the Constitution, she would
Re: (Score:2)
Her own words of hatred and nauseation about being involved in creating an ornament for a tree in the Bush White House
I must be dense today, I just don't see the connection between hating Christmas and Bush and hating unity.
If I were commissioned to do an ornament for the Obama White House, or something similar, it would be done with the utmost respect for the man and the office.
Yes, I believe you would. But how far would you go for the sake of "unity?" If he decides to raise Donald Trump's taxes and lower
Re: (Score:2)
I must be dense today, I just don't see the connection between hating Christmas and Bush and hating unity.
If she didn't hate unity, she would put aside her disagreements on such an occasion.
But how far would you go for the sake of "unity?" If he decides to raise Donald Trump's taxes and lower mine, are you behind that?
That's entirely different, that's about policy disagreements. I am not asking her to agree with Bush.
Art and Design was my major. I'm not going to argue with a layman about what I was taught in college. Call any art school and ask -- they'll agree with me.
I am baffled as to why you think college, of all places, is an authority on art. *I* am an authority on art as much anyone, including yourself.
Re: (Score:2)
I am baffled as to why you think college, of all places, is an authority on art.
And I'm baffled as to why you think it's not. Isn't Stanford School of Law an authority on law? Isn't MIT an authority on technology?
One of my instructors was fond of saying "I know what art is, but I don't know what I like" (from the layman's "I don't know anything about art but I know what I like"). Art, like law and technology, is something learned (actually a shitload of somethings, just like any other endeavor). You may hav
Re: (Score:2)
And I'm baffled as to why you think it's not. Isn't Stanford School of Law an authority on law? Isn't MIT an authority on technology?
Doesn't art have a substantially different nature from those?
Art, like law and technology, is something learned
But it is not something that has an objectively definable set of things to learn. Art history is one thing, but art itself is almost completely open-ended.
You may have inborn talents making the process easier, as with tech or law, but I assure you it is learned.
I never implied it wasn't learned. I am saying that no one, including college, corners the market on what it is that you need to learn. Take hundreds-years-old African art. Were they not artists because they didn't learn the same things you did, in college like you did?
Re: (Score:2)
Doesn't art have a substantially different nature from those?
Yes, but it's still a learned discipline, and some of art's elements have scientific or mathematical elements; the Golden Mean, for instance, is based on geometry.
But it is not something that has an objectively definable set of things to learn.
But it is, although it's different than science in that the rules are guidelines rather than hard and fast. Before you can break the rules you need to understand why the rule is there in the first place, how
Re: (Score:2)
it's still a learned discipline
But one you can learn in immeasurably diverse ways, including on your own. Very easily.
But it is not something that has an objectively definable set of things to learn.
But it is
No, it isn't. The Golden Mean, for example, is not universal in art around the world. There's little, if anything, objective about it. It's almost entirely subjective.
Before you can break the rules you need to understand why the rule is there in the first place, however.
Nobody can explain why the Golden Mean is there.
You're confusing art with artifacts.
No, I absolutely am not.
Re: (Score:2)
You guys are making me think about Art School Confidential.. specifically the scene where the main character is lambasted because his picture "looks like a machine did it," vs the other one's scribbled semi-drawing being praised by the others as "whimsical" or other such things. :)
That scene summed up so much of what "real" artists seem like to most people. At least to me.
Re: (Score:2)
I didn't see it.
But yes, there's a lot of people who try to enforce their view of art onto others. It's funny and sad.
I agree... (Score:2)
This is crappy and she doesn't appear to be too bright.
Re: (Score:2)
Remember GWB calling the Constitution "just a piece of paper"? No?
Nope. Every time I've looked for the sourcing of that quote, there is none. So as far as I am concerned it never happened. If you find a named source on the record claiming it happened, let me know.
That matters less than warrantless wiretaps, bidless contracts, torture, elimination of habeas corpus and a dozen other things GWB has done to rape your rights.
Let's see. Habeas corpus was never eliminated -- it was explicitly provided for, though the Supreme Court ruled insufficiently so -- and that was done by Congress (with a large number of Democrats voting for it). Bidless contracts was standard procedure under Clinton and many other Presidents. Clinton's DoJ
Re: (Score:2)
Uh, dude, how hard did you look?
Sufficiently. Indeed, you uncovered nothing I hadn't.
I'd never even heard the quote, but it only took me a few minutes to trace it back to Doug Thompson [dougthompson.com] who claims that he got it from multiple sources in the meeting where Bush said it.
Exactly my point. I repeat myself: If you find a named source on the record claiming it happened, let me know. You have not done that.
Now, you can question Thompson's honesty — I'm sure you will — but it's not exactly unsourced.
I am not questioning his honesty at all. I am asserting the fact that it IS unsourced, and until it is sourced, I have no rational basis for believing it. I do not believe something unless I have a negative reason for believing it (e.g., "Doug Thompson is dishonest"), I believe something if I have a positive reason for
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, I can help you with research.
Believe it or not, if GWB or other US agents lable you an "enemy combatant" they can do to you what Guantanamo bay does to it's detainies every day. Yes, that applies to US citizens
Nope. In fact, what we're talking about in re habeas corpus is the Military Commissions Act of 2006, and what it revoked was statutory habeas corpus rights, not constitutional habeas corpus rights. Even the Supreme Court in striking it down said that this was acceptable to do, but that the MCA didn't do it in the right way.
First, it is not "enemy combatants," not even "unlawful enemy combatants," but those statutory rights were only taken away from "alien unlawful enemy