So I watched the evening news (an unusual event, since the evening news is so NOT balanced), and saw where an art gallery owner in San Francisco (I believe?) displayed “art” of U.S. soldiers “abusing” Iraquis.  Apparently some guy punched her in the face because he found it offensive and now they are debating on whether to prosecute it as a “hate” crime.

First let me emphasize, the guy should not have punched her in the face.  I think it is obscene that she would display “art” based on the actions of a few when so many serve with honor, but she still didn’t deserve to be punched in the face (or anywhere else, for that matter).

What I would like to address is this ridiculous notion regarding “hate” crimes.  Have you ever heard of a “love” crime?  Isn’t the phrase “hate” crime just slightly, everso slightly redundant?  Why do we feel the need to categorize crime, when crime, whatever its nature, is wrong?

I suppose thieves commit “greed crime.”  Maybe thieves who steal from people they don’t love commit a “hatefully greedy crime.”  People who lie commit “dishonesty crime.”  And so on and so forth.

I just wish we could get back to the basics where those who live moral lives are rewarded with peaceful lives and those who break the plain ole’ law reap the consequences. 

One thought on “

  1. You forget that the gallery owner probably did not choose to display that art. Have you ever been to a modern art gallery? Usually, the gallery owner rents out space to artists months in advance, so the owner would be honor bound to display this art that the artists has already payed to display.And what’s your problem with controversial art? Why are you putting art in quotation marks? When does art turn into “art”?


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s