AP NEWS Update: Garland Texas shooting at Mohammed comic contest

[gpatt0n]

	Published on May 4, 2015 Police in Garland, Texas, say twomen who had opened fire with assault rifles on officersoutside a suburban Dallas venue hosting a provocativecontest for Prophet Muhammad cartoons were shot by anofficer with a pistol. (May 4)
Click for RECENTTOPICS click for RECENT TOPICS click for RECENTTOPICS

[gpatt0n]

I found this bit rather revealing in that the authorities knew that they had a security issue and had addressed it. But there was little else to do as our society, while we can choose to show respect, values freedom of speech as a right ... even though holding a contest for the best depiction of Muhammad in a comic drawing is about as close as you get to yelling fire in a crowded theater.

 

What the exhibition was doing, frankly, was baiting Islamists and they got the reaction they wanted but for us, it the call was obvious. It did make more sense in Texas than say, Detroit, where there would be enough Muslims to cause a real riot.

 

Anyway, Rush, in typical fashion, said that Obama is the cause of the shooting.

 

From RAWSTORY:

 

Conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh accused President Barack Obama of effectively giving members of the terrorist group ISIS the “green light” to carry out a deadly shooting at an event in Texas.

 

According to Garland police, two attackers armed with assault-style rifles on Sunday opened fire at an event sponsored by the American Freedom Defense Initiative (AFDI). It’s co-founder and president of Stop Islamization of America (SIOA), Pam Geller, was also reportedly in attendance. Both groups have been listed as hate groups by the Southern Poverty Law Center.

 

ADVERTISEMENT

One security guard was shot in the leg during the incident, and both suspects were killed by a police officer.

 

On his Monday radio program, Limbaugh complained that liberals wanted to respect Islam when it came to not depicting the Prophet Muhammad, but they did not want to obey Islamic laws against homosexuality.

 

“Why wouldn’t Americans have to respect and obey Islam’s laws and punishments regarding gays and women?” he asked. “I mean, if it’s that important to them, who are we to disagree? They say you can’t draw pictures of the Prophet, and we say, ‘You’re right, we can’t! And anybody that does, why, they’re going to get what’s coming to them.'”

 

Limbaugh also speculated that people might say that Obama had some “involvement” with the Texas shooting because the president had said that “the future must not belong to those who slander the Prophet.”

 

“He said that at the UN and he said it at a number of places,” he opined. “Does that not sort of green light people in ISIS who want to take up arms and go after people who they believe are slandering the prophet?”

 

“Could the president say this: The future must not belong to those who slander the Prophet by allowing same-sex marriage?” Limbaugh added. “Are we going to snap-to and respect that? What do you think? Obviously not. So, why one and not the other.”

Rush, I don't think Obama gives a green light to people ridiculing the name of Muhammad any more than he gives a green light to marriage of any kind (except his own.) The American route through this is simply freedom to make your own choices and live with the consequences.

 

I think the right wing groups who sought to instigate the Muslims in Garland, Texas were exercising their rights to speak just as those who are gay are exercising their rights to association and Obama is saying, in essence, it is not his or government's business to interfere.

 

pubby

[NewsJunky]

I think stomping on the American Flag is worse. Seems to be the thing to do today. Guess you don't have an issue with that though.

[gpatt0n]

I think stomping on the American Flag is worse. Seems to be the thing to do today. Guess you don't have an issue with that though.

 

You would NJ ... and I don't blame you. I could predict that because what upsets them and you is defined with the same word - ethnocentrism.

 

 

Ethnocentrism is judging another culture solely by the values and standards of one's own culture.^{[1][page needed]} Ethnocentric individuals judge other groups relative to their own ethnic group or culture, especially with concern for language, behavior, customs, and religion. These ethnic distinctions and subdivisions serve to define each ethnicity's unique cultural identity.^[2] Ethnocentrism may be overt or subtle, and while it is considered a natural proclivity of human psychology, it has developed a generally negative connotation.

 

I will emphasize that it is a natural proclivity of human psychology. A more evolved sense of empathy allows a person to think of how their actions and words impact others.

 

Indeed, the reason one doesn't use the N-word commonly today, like we all know was ubiquitous 55 years ago is because of that evolved sense of empathy. Of course some still use it though few avowed racists would drive to central Harlem or camp out in Atlanta's west end at midnight with a PA system to make such utterances.

 

Similarly, one could easily imagine that the provocative contest done by the woman in Texas ended just like it was feared ... and planned. They enticed, as surely as an undercover hooker parading on skid row will draw some johns, these 'believers' which they hoped would get them millions of dollars in publicity.

 

The cost? Maybe $50,000 to generate publicy ... well $50,000, an injured security guy and two dead bodies. If you value publicity like that woman at the center of the event, it was a heck of a deal.

 

pubby

[mei lan]

Thank the Lord somebody didn't hold an Everybody Draw Jesus event. The carnage caused by rioting Methodists would be incalculable.

[gpatt0n]

Thank the Lord somebody didn't hold an Everybody Draw Jesus event. The carnage caused by rioting Methodists would be incalculable.

 

Not at all. However, if it was a draw L.Ron Hubbard event, we might see people spirited off and held incommunicado for ... years.

 

pubby

[NewsJunky]

 

You would NJ ... and I don't blame you. I could predict that because what upsets them and you is defined with the same word - ethnocentrism.

 

 

I will emphasize that it is a natural proclivity of human psychology. A more evolved sense of empathy allows a person to think of how their actions and words impact others.

 

Indeed, the reason one doesn't use the N-word commonly today, like we all know was ubiquitous 55 years ago is because of that evolved sense of empathy. Of course some still use it though few avowed racists would drive to central Harlem or camp out in Atlanta's west end at midnight with a PA system to make such utterances.

 

Similarly, one could easily imagine that the provocative contest done by the woman in Texas ended just like it was feared ... and planned. They enticed, as surely as an undercover hooker parading on skid row will draw some johns, these 'believers' which they hoped would get them millions of dollars in publicity.

 

The cost? Maybe $50,000 to generate publicy ... well $50,000, an injured security guy and two dead bodies. If you value publicity like that woman at the center of the event, it was a heck of a deal.

 

pubby

So now you have chosen to put a label on me. Way to go Pubby! I don't think we should be afraid to draw a picture of their God. Not in America. I think we should have more contests like that.

[gpatt0n]

So now you have chosen to put a label on me. Way to go Pubby! I don't think we should be afraid to draw a picture of their God. Not in America. I think we should have more contests like that.

 

I don't think we should be afraid to do that either ... But I am smart enough and well read enough that some of the wackos in that religion will act out and attack those who do.

 

Indeed, the folks in Texas were smart enough and pretty much laid a trap for the guys who did show up. Their lifeless carcasses are proof that they were prepared. The number of SWAT equipped officers in the vicinity is ample proof that they were 'expecting' the attack.

 

I contend they were hoping it would draw just such an incident as the payoff, for which they were also prepared, is the national publicity their group had gotten as a result.

 

I would actually wager there are some PR strategists in the back room exchanging high fives and gulping down some 11 year old scotch in celebration in how things turned out for their client.

 

All I can say is that I would not do what those right wingers in TX did ... even for the potential publicity payoff. If I were among the PR strategists behind this event, I'd be sick from the killing I would know that I created the opportunity for. My moral compass would say it is wrong.

 

pubby

[NewsJunky]

 

I don't think we should be afraid to do that either ... But I am smart enough and well read enough that some of the wackos in that religion will act out and attack those who do.

 

Indeed, the folks in Texas were smart enough and pretty much laid a trap for the guys who did show up. Their lifeless carcasses are proof that they were prepared. The number of SWAT equipped officers in the vicinity is ample proof that they were 'expecting' the attack.

 

I contend they were hoping it would draw just such an incident as the payoff, for which they were also prepared, is the national publicity their group had gotten as a result.

 

I would actually wager there are some PR strategists in the back room exchanging high fives and gulping down some 11 year old scotch in celebration in how things turned out for their client.

 

All I can say is that I would not do what those right wingers in TX did ... even for the potential publicity payoff. If I were among the PR strategists behind this event, I'd be sick from the killing I would know that I created the opportunity for. My moral compass would say it is wrong.

 

pubby

No, you wouldn't.....

[NewsJunky]

 

You would NJ ... and I don't blame you. I could predict that because what upsets them and you is defined with the same word - ethnocentrism.

 

 

I will emphasize that it is a natural proclivity of human psychology. A more evolved sense of empathy allows a person to think of how their actions and words impact others.

 

Indeed, the reason one doesn't use the N-word commonly today, like we all know was ubiquitous 55 years ago is because of that evolved sense of empathy. Of course some still use it though few avowed racists would drive to central Harlem or camp out in Atlanta's west end at midnight with a PA system to make such utterances.

 

Similarly, one could easily imagine that the provocative contest done by the woman in Texas ended just like it was feared ... and planned. They enticed, as surely as an undercover hooker parading on skid row will draw some johns, these 'believers' which they hoped would get them millions of dollars in publicity.

 

The cost? Maybe $50,000 to generate publicy ... well $50,000, an injured security guy and two dead bodies. If you value publicity like that woman at the center of the event, it was a heck of a deal.

 

pubby

Yep, this offends me....

[gpatt0n]

No, you wouldn't.....

 

Oh, NJ ... I would think about it ... but I disagree, I know I wouldn't do this deed - dare I call it a prank - because it serves the agenda of dividing people. Would I pull a prank for publicity? Yes, but I would hope that it wouldn't be one that counts on having people die as a result.

 

pubby

[mrshoward]

If only Pamela Geller had not worn that short skirt...

 

 

 

[NewsJunky]

If only Pamela Geller had not worn that short skirt...

 

 

 

That would be more in line with some folks definition of free speech. They want to shut Christians up and condone having Jesus depicted in horrible ways but they think it is provoking trouble to draw a picture of the Prophet Muhammad. Some people have their values all messed up.

[gpatt0n]

News Junky,

 

Maybe I can explain free speech rights this way.

 

Free Speech is an unalienable right. You can use it until you take your last gasp. In this country, presumably, THE GOVERNMENT cannot deny you the right to exercise it.

 

Mostly, it tells you that government can't say "You can't say that." That would be prior restraint which, even in the case of publishing classified material (like the Pentagon Papers.)

 

It also mean that you can burn the flag in the Dallas Square in protest, burn the Bible on the steps of the First Baptist Church in Dallas, Burn a draft card in front of the Marine Barracks at the Naval Air Station at Locheed, burn a Koran in front the Atlanta Masjid of Al-Islam Mosque.

 

That said there is a good chance that someone will punch you out for burning any one of those things and they would be guilty of assault. If, perchance, one of those citizens was prone to more violence and shot and killed you, it would be murder.

 

Any one of those acts antagonistic to any one of those audiences is with in your unalienable right as a citizen to perform and if you were assaulted or killed as a result, it would be a crime committed by those who were offended at your speech.

 

Most folks, being cognizant of the danger associated with provocative speech, choose carefully the time and place and take precautions knowing that what they will have a predictable reaction from others.

 

They also know that publicizing their action will both increase interest (Like a sixth grader yelling fight, fight, fight on the playground during recess) and make the insult to come all the more provocative. That is the goal.

 

Just like you know if you decide to walk against traffic in the middle of the fast lane on I 75, there is a chance someone will die (including you), these folks in Texas knew that there was a need for security. That is why there were a dozen or so officers dressed in SWAT gear with assault rifles and other equipment at the ready to repel a possible attack.

 

It was a planned - nay, contrived - event that was okay in and of its self but had great potential to make national headlines if someone just tries to 'shoot 'em up.' Bottom line, you can't buy 'earned media' of that magnitude. I just object to the fact that the cost included an injured security guard, two dead men and the risk of other casualties.

 

In other words the payoff of publicity for that cause isn't, in my mind, worth the risk of people playing in the fast lane of the freeway.

 

pubby

 

PS: It has nothing to do with shutting Christians up or condoning despicable depictions of Christ.

[NewsJunky]

News Junky,

 

Maybe I can explain free speech rights this way.

 

Free Speech is an unalienable right. You can use it until you take your last gasp. In this country, presumably, THE GOVERNMENT cannot deny you the right to exercise it.

 

Mostly, it tells you that government can't say "You can't say that." That would be prior restraint which, even in the case of publishing classified material (like the Pentagon Papers.)

 

It also mean that you can burn the flag in the Dallas Square in protest, burn the Bible on the steps of the First Baptist Church in Dallas, Burn a draft card in front of the Marine Barracks at the Naval Air Station at Locheed, burn a Koran in front the Atlanta Masjid of Al-Islam Mosque.

 

That said there is a good chance that someone will punch you out for burning any one of those things and they would be guilty of assault. If, perchance, one of those citizens was prone to more violence and shot and killed you, it would be murder.

 

Any one of those acts antagonistic to any one of those audiences is with in your unalienable right as a citizen to perform and if you were assaulted or killed as a result, it would be a crime committed by those who were offended at your speech.

 

Most folks, being cognizant of the danger associated with provocative speech, choose carefully the time and place and take precautions knowing that what they will have a predictable reaction from others.

 

They also know that publicizing their action will both increase interest (Like a sixth grader yelling fight, fight, fight on the playground during recess) and make the insult to come all the more provocative. That is the goal.

 

Just like you know if you decide to walk against traffic in the middle of the fast lane on I 75, there is a chance someone will die (including you), these folks in Texas knew that there was a need for security. That is why there were a dozen or so officers dressed in SWAT gear with assault rifles and other equipment at the ready to repel a possible attack.

 

It was a planned - nay, contrived - event that was okay in and of its self but had great potential to make national headlines if someone just tries to 'shoot 'em up.' Bottom line, you can't buy 'earned media' of that magnitude. I just object to the fact that the cost included an injured security guard, two dead men and the risk of other casualties.

 

In other words the payoff of publicity for that cause isn't, in my mind, worth the risk of people playing in the fast lane of the freeway.

 

pubby

 

PS: It has nothing to do with shutting Christians up or condoning despicable depictions of Christ.

Thankfully you do not have to explain Free Speech to me. I know what it is.......

[gpatt0n]

Thankfully you do not have to explain Free Speech to me. I know what it is.......

You could have fooled me

 

pubby

[NewsJunky]

You could have fooled me

 

pubby

Must not be that hard......

[CitizenCain]

Seems to me this event was a lot like poking your neighbors dog with a stick to see how long it takes him to bite you. Like that Florida preacher that wanted to hold a Koran burning party. I think if you approve of this kind of free speech then you've got no business complaining when someone walks on or burns an American flag.

[NewsJunky]

Seems to me this event was a lot like poking your neighbors dog with a stick to see how long it takes him to bite you. Like that Florida preacher that wanted to hold a Koran burning party. I think if you approve of this kind of free speech then you've got no business complaining when someone walks on or burns an American flag.

This is why we are miles apart in the way we think. It is not poking anybody to put a crucifix in urine at an art show but it is to draw a cartoon? Really? We should not be afraid of any religion in this country. The American Flag has served as a symbol of this great nation and many men and women have shed blood to defend it. No comparison. I can tell you that anyone who would desecrate the American flag would not be welcome in my home. I want nothing to do with them in any way at any time. That is un American. We still have the right to choose who we socialize with.

[Mustluvdogs]

Two dead terrorists. It was a good day. These two might have went on and killed many people had they not been stopped.

Yep, this offends me....

 

They are free, thanks to people who honor this country and it's flag, to leave for a country they feel more at home at.

[NewsJunky]

Two dead terrorists. It was a good day. These two might have went on and killed many people had they not been stopped.

 

They are free, thanks to people who honor this country and it's flag, to leave for a country they feel more at home at.

The folks who where stepping on the flag and created a disturbance at the college in Valdosta were Black Panther members. They were not students there and they had ugly things to say about America. I am wondering if these two women are members of the same group?

[gpatt0n]

This is why we are miles apart in the way we think. It is not poking anybody to put a crucifix in urine at an art show but it is to draw a cartoon? Really? We should not be afraid of any religion in this country. The American Flag has served as a symbol of this great nation and many men and women have shed blood to defend it. No comparison. I can tell you that anyone who would desecrate the American flag would not be welcome in my home. I want nothing to do with them in any way at any time. That is un American. We still have the right to choose who we socialize with.

 

To the contrary ... we all know that it was an insult designed to shock to put the crucifix in urine and call it art. Even Justice Antonin Scalia was on the side in the SCOTUS saying that protests that burn or desecrate the flag is protected political speech.

 

I'm pretty sure that those who do desecrate the flag or display Christian symbols disrespectfully aren't welcome in your home. Anyone, for a good or bad reason or no reason at all, has the right to bar them at their door but not from the commons.

 

Further I know of no one who forces you to socialize with those whose concept of art may include such images or whose dissent is expressed in such a fiery manner.

 

But just as some personalities are compelled to be strict in their associations, others have the right to be more inclusive just as they have the right to listen or to understand others that are culturally, intellectually or economically different. We didn't used to be as rigid in our attitudes in America and that, frankly, was one of the things that made us truly great as a nation.

 

pubby

[NewsJunky]

 

To the contrary ... we all know that it was an insult designed to shock to put the crucifix in urine and call it art. Even Justice Antonin Scalia was on the side in the SCOTUS saying that protests that burn or desecrate the flag is protected political speech.

 

I'm pretty sure that those who do desecrate the flag or display Christian symbols disrespectfully aren't welcome in your home. Anyone, for a good or bad reason or no reason at all, has the right to bar them at their door but not from the commons.

 

Further I know of no one who forces you to socialize with those whose concept of art may include such images or whose dissent is expressed in such a fiery manner.

 

But just as some personalities are compelled to be strict in their associations, others have the right to be more inclusive just as they have the right to listen or to understand others that are culturally, intellectually or economically different. We didn't used to be as rigid in our attitudes in America and that, frankly, was one of the things that made us truly great as a nation.

 

pubby

Anyone who knows me knows that I am not rigid about my association with culturally, intellectually or economically diverse folks. I don't associate with people low enough to burn the flag or disrespect Christian symbols. I don't associate with child abusers or criminals like that either. My choice just as it is yours to associate with the low class idiots who do those things.

[Mustluvdogs]

I think the FBI and/or cops should set up fake events just like this one to draw terrorists out and kill em all.

[CitizenCain]

I think the FBI and/or cops should set up fake events just like this one to draw terrorists out and kill em all.

 

I think that was what Bush must have had in mind when he invaded Iraq. Start a fake war and convert as many Muslims as possible into radical jihadist.

Brillant.

[gpatt0n]

I think the FBI and/or cops should set up fake events just like this one to draw terrorists out and kill em all.

 

By JOVE You got it ... this was a fake event invented to incite violence.

 

While some (ME FOR INSTANCE) would recognize this as a form of entrapment regardless of the religion or cultural norm targeted and would reject it out of hand, we all know that there are some for whom the ends justify the means. That is clearly the case here.

 

I would guess you are a consequentialist.

[NewsJunky]

 

By JOVE You got it ... this was a fake event invented to incite violence.

 

While some (ME FOR INSTANCE) would recognize this as a form of entrapment regardless of the religion or cultural norm targeted and would reject it out of hand, we all know that there are some for whom the ends justify the means. That is clearly the case here.

 

I would guess you are a consequentialist.

Pubby I am disappointed. If you think for one second that our government is not out there trying to find these crazies before they kill us then you need to think again. This was not done for that reason but I sure would not have a problem with it if it was. Hope they get them all before they do us any harm.

[gpatt0n]

Pubby I am disappointed. If you think for one second that our government is not out there trying to find these crazies before they kill us then you need to think again. This was not done for that reason but I sure would not have a problem with it if it was. Hope they get them all before they do us any harm.

I know they are. On another site I likened the trap to a rat trap ... a better one than it seems the FBI has created in their efforts.

 

But then if the FBI did an "Imitate Maplethorpe" Art contest and offered a $10,000 prize for the most disgusting and disrespectful depiction of Christ as part of a sting operation to capture right-wing terrorists (the Murrah Building in OKC was the work of one such domestic terrorist so we know they're out there) you'd be up in arms raising hell about the misappropriation of money and how the atty general would have to go.

 

And if a private party did that, you'd want them arrested or at least harassed and run out of town.

 

If you agree that the Garland Texas event was a good thing, then you support the notion that the ends justify the means and that would mean that morally and ethically you would have to applaud the same kind of strategy if used to catch and kill potential domestic terrorists.

 

While I can see how effective the trap in Texas was, I can't and won't condone it because that would make me a hypocrite if I rejected the ruse of the Maplethorpe contest ... and I'd rather not be a hypocrite.

 

The point is whether you think it is moral to incite people to violence by staging events. I don't think it is moral to do so. Further, I figure it is not only immoral but hypocritical to say it is okay for Ms. Geller to do so but not someone pulling similar emotionally charged strings in the hearts of right-wing potential terrorists.

 

pubby

[NewsJunky]

I know they are. On another site I likened the trap to a rat trap ... a better one than it seems the FBI has created in their efforts.

 

But then if the FBI did an "Imitate Maplethorpe" Art contest and offered a $10,000 prize for the most disgusting and disrespectful depiction of Christ as part of a sting operation to capture right-wing terrorists (the Murrah Building in OKC was the work of one such domestic terrorist so we know they're out there) you'd be up in arms raising hell about the misappropriation of money and how the atty general would have to go.

 

And if a private party did that, you'd want them arrested or at least harassed and run out of town.

 

If you agree that the Garland Texas event was a good thing, then you support the notion that the ends justify the means and that would mean that morally and ethically you would have to applaud the same kind of strategy if used to catch and kill potential domestic terrorists.

 

While I can see how effective the trap in Texas was, I can't and won't condone it because that would make me a hypocrite if I rejected the ruse of the Maplethorpe contest ... and I'd rather not be a hypocrite.

 

The point is whether you think it is moral to incite people to violence by staging events. I don't think it is moral to do so. Further, I figure it is not only immoral but hypocritical to say it is okay for Ms. Geller to do so but not someone pulling similar emotionally charged strings in the hearts of right-wing potential terrorists.

 

pubby

If what you say is true they would have had more than 3 cops there with service revolvers. Yep one of the cops took them both out with his service revolver. Silly to think it was a planned trap.

[gpatt0n]

If what you say is true they would have had more that 3 cops there with service revolvers. Yep one of the cops took them both out with his service revolver. Silly to think it was a planned trap.

You didn't look at the video closely. The guy announcing it was accompanied with at least two other officers all of whom were decked out in swat gear with an assault rifle. They were there.

 

According to an article on the WFAA TV (Dallas) :

 

Garland police spokesman Officer Joe Harn said at a 10 a.m. news conference Monday that security had been ramped up for the controversial event, and a plan had been in place involving the FBI for months.

 

Organizers of the event paid $10,000 to have extra officers on hand.

 

Harn said a single police officer initially subdued Simpson and Soofi, but that after his initial shots, SWAT officers also opened fire, killing both men outside their car. He said it was not clear yet who fired the fatal shots.

 

pubby

[NewsJunky]

You didn't look at the video closely. The guy announcing it was accompanied with at least two other officers all of whom were decked out in swat gear with an assault rifle. They were there.

 

According to an article on the WFAA TV (Dallas) :

 

pubby

That is not the report I heard. One cop took out both bad guys with his service revolver. Guess we will have to goggle it to see which report is correct.

 

Pubby the two in body armor were the bad guys. From CNN: http://www.cnn.com/2015/05/05/us/texas-police-shooting-hero/

 

CNN)It wasn't a fair fight.

On one side, you had two men in body armor, toting assault rifles and showing every willingness to open fire now and count their victims later. On the other, you had a security officer -- a traffic officer by day -- with a pistol.

[gpatt0n]

That is not the report I heard. One cop took out both bad guys with his service revolver. Guess we will have to goggle it to see which report is correct.

 

Pubby the two in body armor were the bad guys. From CNN: http://www.cnn.com/2015/05/05/us/texas-police-shooting-hero/

 

CNN)It wasn't a fair fight.

On one side, you had two men in body armor, toting assault rifles and showing every willingness to open fire now and count their victims later. On the other, you had a security officer -- a traffic officer by day -- with a pistol.

 

When assessing these kinds of stories, I tend to take the accounts from local media (WFAA is kind of like WSB TV here). Generally speaking they have better sources and are more accurate than the national media, which tend to invent narratives that they believe will make them more money. Those closer - more local to a bit of news - will have more accurate and in depth reports.

 

For instance, when the auxiliary cop in Tulsa shot the guy, I went and read the account at the Tulsa World (Newspaper). You can often find differences - even significant differences in the accounts between the nationally syndicated media and the local media.

 

But here, the differences aren't that significant. The perps came up to the cops who were checking folks at a perimeter. The perps exited the car and started shooting and their efforts were met by opposing gunfire. Considering the officers at the checkpoint were the closest, the assumption was that it was their shots that took the men down. That backup with rifles responded at the same time and, according to WFAA's report, they don't know whose shots took the perps out.

 

A ten grand fee for 'extra security' for a single day event is a key part of the story. Security was beefed up for the event because they knew how provocative the event was and while it was never a certainty - the last time they met in January or February there was no attack - they were hoping. They certainly could risk having standard public security at the event. That would be tantamount to a death wish.

 

pubby

 

PS: I bet better than half the people at the even were packing heat as well.

[gpatt0n]

NJ:

 

I can't seem to get an embed but here is an interview with the WFAA TV reporter who was actually outside the convention center when the shots were made. He discussed the high level of security that was in place at the location because of how seriously the local police took the threat.

 

Here is that link - he talks about security at about the 4:50 in mark.

 

I also saw an interview today on TV about a Muslim leader in Texas who said that the Muslim community was well acquainted with ms. Gellar and was making a point to ignore her and had done so successfully. Citing full understanding of our tradition of free speech, the spokesman said it was her business what she said but that since they pretty much know she is a bigot, it is within their power to consider the source and forget it. They put on a campaign to ignore the woman and her event and chose, among other things, to not even protest. There was a place set aside for protests and security was in place for that.

 

It kind of reminded me of how Lanzo tried to get a big deal going out at his place between the blacks and the klanners and it fizzled.

 

Why? No body wanted to play the hate game.

 

pubby

 

PS: The hate game really is pretty silly.

[NewsJunky]

NJ:

 

I can't seem to get an embed but here is an interview with the WFAA TV reporter who was actually outside the convention center when the shots were made. He discussed the high level of security that was in place at the location because of how seriously the local police took the threat.

 

Here is that link - he talks about security at about the 4:50 in mark.

 

I also saw an interview today on TV about a Muslim leader in Texas who said that the Muslim community was well acquainted with ms. Gellar and was making a point to ignore her and had done so successfully. Citing full understanding of our tradition of free speech, the spokesman said it was her business what she said but that since they pretty much know she is a bigot, it is within their power to consider the source and forget it. They put on a campaign to ignore the woman and her event and chose, among other things, to not even protest. There was a place set aside for protests and security was in place for that.

 

It kind of reminded me of how Lanzo tried to get a big deal going out at his place between the blacks and the klanners and it fizzled.

 

Why? No body wanted to play the hate game.

 

pubby

 

PS: The hate game really is pretty silly.

Thanks Pubby but I will take the CNN report from 2 days ago. I did hear a report from the scene of a shooting in Baltimore that proved to be a mistake. Maybe your "on the scene guy" needs to get up to speed. I will keep looking for updates.

[The Sound Guy]

 

But then if the FBI did an "Imitate Maplethorpe" Art contest and offered a $10,000 prize for the most disgusting and disrespectful depiction of Christ as part of a sting operation to capture right-wing terrorists (the Murrah Building in OKC was the work of one such domestic terrorist so we know they're out there) you'd be up in arms raising hell about the misappropriation of money and how the atty general would have to go.

 

 

 

But if the Federal Govt supports anti-Christian art via the National Endowment of the Arts, do you feel that's OK because of Freedom of Speech?

 

 

The changes to the law came about as a reaction to two controversial works

that were being shown in various U.S. cities in 1989. The first was the infamous

“Piss Christ,” a photograph of a crucifix immersed in urine, by Andres Serrano,

who had received a $15,000 grant from the Southeast Center for Contemporary Art

which in turn received funding from the NEA. The second was a retrospective

exhibit of photographs by Robert Mapplethorpe titled “The Perfect Moment.” This

exhibit was arranged by the Institute of Contemporary Art at the University of

Pennsylvania using $30,000 of an NEA grant. The exhibit included homoerotic

photographs, images of sadomasochism and, according to critics, child

pornography.

[gpatt0n]

 

 

But if the Federal Govt supports anti-Christian art via the National Endowment of the Arts, do you feel that's OK because of Freedom of Speech?

 

 

I think that we all remember the art you referenced - it would have been totally forgotten otherwise as it wasn't that artistic - is a testament to the point I was making ... people would pitch a holy fit when it became public that public money had been used to support those works.

 

Indeed, if you think about it, the levels of public funding of art plummeted in the wake of those 'examples' - predictably. Heck, the outrage and the subsequent cuts were so predictable one might wonder if the motive in selecting those particular bits of art for public funding was to promote freedom in the arts ... or justify drastic cuts in the funding available to the National Endowment for the Arts.

 

Lefties are that good at concocting conspiracy theories so that may be why the cuts to the arts have been seemingly permanent.

 

pubby

 

PS: I looked up mapplethorpe's works as sold at auction and they sell from $30,000 to over $150,000 for prints of his photography. Since I know I was never impressed by them nor thought them particularly artsy and to buy one of the things means you have some cash to burn, one might assume that the rich folks that everyone is so worried about taxing really do have and appreciate that kind of art. That is among the reasons I don't have a problem taxing those sick puppies.

[NewsJunky]

 

I think that we all remember the art you referenced - it would have been totally forgotten otherwise as it wasn't that artistic - is a testament to the point I was making ... people would pitch a holy fit when it became public that public money had been used to support those works.

 

Indeed, if you think about it, the levels of public funding of art plummeted in the wake of those 'examples' - predictably. Heck, the outrage and the subsequent cuts were so predictable one might wonder if the motive in selecting those particular bits of art for public funding was to promote freedom in the arts ... or justify drastic cuts in the funding available to the National Endowment for the Arts.

 

Lefties are that good at concocting conspiracy theories so that may be why the cuts to the arts have been seemingly permanent.

 

pubby

 

PS: I looked up mapplethorpe's works as sold at auction and they sell from $30,000 to over $150,000 for prints of his photography. Since I know I was never impressed by them nor thought them particularly artsy and to buy one of the things means you have some cash to burn, one might assume that the rich folks that everyone is so worried about taxing really do have and appreciate that kind of art. That is among the reasons I don't have a problem taxing those sick puppies.

Or maybe some of those rich folks just have an agenda that includes sticking it to Christians. They are not conservative rich folks either.

[gpatt0n]

Or maybe some of those rich folks just have an agenda that includes sticking it to Christians. They are not conservative rich folks either.

 

Both are subject to honest taxation equally, NJ. I wouldn't think of discriminating.

 

pubby

[The Sound Guy]

 

I think that we all remember the art you referenced - it would have been totally forgotten otherwise as it wasn't that artistic - is a testament to the point I was making ... people would pitch a holy fit when it became public that public money had been used to support those works.

 

Indeed, if you think about it, the levels of public funding of art plummeted in the wake of those 'examples' - predictably. Heck, the outrage and the subsequent cuts were so predictable one might wonder if the motive in selecting those particular bits of art for public funding was to promote freedom in the arts ... or justify drastic cuts in the funding available to the National Endowment for the Arts.

 

Lefties are that good at concocting conspiracy theories so that may be why the cuts to the arts have been seemingly permanent.

 

pubby

 

PS: I looked up mapplethorpe's works as sold at auction and they sell from $30,000 to over $150,000 for prints of his photography. Since I know I was never impressed by them nor thought them particularly artsy and to buy one of the things means you have some cash to burn, one might assume that the rich folks that everyone is so worried about taxing really do have and appreciate that kind of art. That is among the reasons I don't have a problem taxing those sick puppies.

 

The point is that the Govt is *required* to not be biased when it supports something.

 

The reduction in the NEA was more because the government couldn't support one type of art if it couldn't support all of them and pretty much 50% of the "art" out there is going to disgust *someone* so they pretty much had to stop. It's not a conservative plot. Same with holiday decorations, etc. If they are going to provide tax funded support for one religion, you have to offer the same to all. That's not a Liberal plot to remove God from the world, it's the law.

 

Offer a sports team to the guys, offer the same sports opportunities (if not the same sport) to the ladies. It's the law.

 

The Private sector on the other hand is quite free to support anything they want, as this group was trying to do.

Should Mr King have abandoned his quest for equality in the law because he was threatened?

 

I don't' know if you've ever been threatened for your liberal views as you have presented them on this site in a conservative county or not, but if you were, would you close up the site if you received a threat? Or would continue to publish here in the vein that if you stopped you allowed those making threats to win? Especially if you had the funding to pay for additional protection?

 

Same principle. Free speech. In your case, your site, your rules.

 

JMO

 

PS. I can understand your tax the rich whenever I see one of those cellular commercials about the "Stupid Rich" Some people will pay good money for *anything*.

[gpatt0n]

 

The point is that the Govt is *required* to not be biased when it supports something.

 

The reduction in the NEA was more because the government couldn't support one type of art if it couldn't support all of them and pretty much 50% of the "art" out there is going to disgust *someone* so they pretty much had to stop. It's not a conservative plot. Same with holiday decorations, etc. If they are going to provide tax funded support for one religion, you have to offer the same to all. That's not a Liberal plot to remove God from the world, it's the law.

 

Offer a sports team to the guys, offer the same sports opportunities (if not the same sport) to the ladies. It's the law.

 

The Private sector on the other hand is quite free to support anything they want, as this group was trying to do.

Should Mr King have abandoned his quest for equality in the law because he was threatened?

 

I don't' know if you've ever been threatened for your liberal views as you have presented them on this site in a conservative county or not, but if you were, would you close up the site if you received a threat? Or would continue to publish here in the vein that if you stopped you allowed those making threats to win? Especially if you had the funding to pay for additional protection?

 

Same principle. Free speech. In your case, your site, your rules.

 

JMO

 

PS. I can understand your tax the rich whenever I see one of those cellular commercials about the "Stupid Rich" Some people will pay good money for *anything*.

 

I do appreciate your thinking regarding the cuts in funding for the NEA ... and find it a novel argument and a good one.

 

It is not the conservative argument or libertarian argument I would expect, though.

 

My understanding of the conservative argument, though, is that the government has no business whatsoever in funding art of any kind, any where, any time (Unless it is for decoration of a federal building and you're an influential legislator and can steer the commission to a friend, of course - that exception obviously being the exception that conservatives can and do make.) Usually conservative-driven commissions go to the most successful artists and they want the 'best' art for their project so the project funds, because they enrich the wealthiest and most successful artists, is not redistributive in nature.

 

For liberals, of course, the funding of art by government is part of a general and broad-based promotion of art of all kinds for all purposes and serves also the purpose of providing economic support for a traditionally economically deprived class of folks called artists (aka: redistribution.)

 

Your argument fits neither; rather asserts that government shouldn't insult anyone and therefore must turn its back on all art as someone might be insulted.

 

I can only surmise It is based on the notion that the artist is, by their nature, compelled to create art of their own choice and it is decision whether they do commissions of things they are paid to do or choose to produce art that is non-commercial knowing that if they go crazy, cut their ear off or otherwise act in odd and bizarre ways and they die a pauper because of that choice, it adds to the value of their art for those who buy and trade in it. Vincent Van Gogh and Mozart being models of the great artist because they died paupers. Andy Worhol being an example of a wealthy 'commercial' artist whose passion was, while weird, to get others to actually put the paint to paper in his quest for greater income.

 

Still, it is a novel argument.

 

pubby