One other note: I'm not really interested in debating the death penalty here, so please, don't go there. Why? Because such debates tend to generate more heat than light, and to be honest, I simply am not up for it. The art issue is, I think, independent of that. Also, my own views stem more from some basic convictions than practical issues, and as such, don't really lend themselves to this forum. Thanks.

If we can't tolerate some provocative pieces of canvas, how can we tolerate the very thing they depict?

I didn't realize we do tolerate the hanging of black men from ropes.

What exactly DOES go on over at your place, Mr. Whiteside? :)

BTW, it seems a rather strange thing to tease your readers that they might be making the wrong assumptions about your views on the death penalty, and then declare it off limits for discussion. Since the blog is necessarily about your views on any manner of things, it seems an odd tease indeed. Maybe folks would find it interesting if you shared?

Whether it be a cross, electric chair, hanging tree or gas chamber an involuntary flinch is invoked within myself when I see these images. My reaction is always unsettling to myself and I'm never sure quite how to deal with it.
That's just my jolt of reality that I too am a part of capital punishment...I thought I'd share.

I didn't realize we do tolerate the hanging of black men from ropes.

You might have heard of the idea of a "metaphor" at some point, and might even know that it's sometimes used in art - for example, a very clumsy metaphor for the racial disparaties in application of the death penalty.

Or maybe not.

BTW, it seems a rather strange thing to tease your readers that they might be making the wrong assumptions about your views on the death penalty, and then declare it off limits for discussion. Since the blog is necessarily about your views on any manner of things, it seems an odd tease indeed. Maybe folks would find it interesting if you shared?

There is a tendency in blogs for certain topics to immediately devolve into reprises of previous discussions. For example, any time I mention immigration, I get a boatload of comments about immigration in general (and not relevant to whatever the initial post was about). Similarly, every discussion of Bush here turns into a war debate, and mention of an event that takes place on Earth in your blog tends to spark comments about Metro and/or the mayor.

I choose things to write about because I think they're interesting things to talk about, and unfortunately that reflexive stuff tends to crowd out potentially interesting discussion. In this case, I think the idea of how we cope with representations of things that make us uncomfortable, but which we as a group support, is a interesting one.

People arguing about whether the death penalty is a good thing - not so interesting, and I think not really central to the question this news story raises. And, purely selfishly - I have no interest in starting and moderating the comments on such a discussion.

I thought that was clear from the original post, but just in case, I've elaborated on it for you.

The point being illustrated by the two pieces of "art work" is just how far we have come in our indifference to the suffering of others. Indifference is the human trait that makes even the angels cry. Comparing hanging to injecting poison is a shallow arguement at best. Are there any among us willing to stand up and say that they do not understand the statistically documented racial bias in capital punishment today?

I am more concerned that a single legislator took it upon himself to remove the artwork wihtout discussion. Yet another example of the ego that drives most politicians. He would likely be outraged if someone removed a piece he liked.

Oilacct is absolutely correct. I could care less if Rep. Miles was offended by a piece of art. Why would he think it was his role to determine what others should be permitted to see? The display was not his property and he should have kept his hands off. In some cases, taking what does not belong to you is considered theft. Not to an elected official, apparently.

Dennis, you took the words right out of my mouth. When I read the article in the Chronicle yesterday, my reaction was "and if I had done such a thing, I would have been handcuffed, Tasered, Tasered again, probably Tasered once more for good measure, then sent on an extended stay with the food old boys at TDCJ. On the other hand, this legislator could simply remove items he found objectionable from the Capitol, and suffer no repercussions."

Then I realized: every time we hold an election, we can also remove things we find objectionable from the Capitol. Maybe some of his consituents will oblige us the next election.

BTW, John, bravo on your final points. That is the very reason I took my son out to see what hunting and fishing were about when he was younger - that way he really understood that hamburgers and catfish fillets aren't simply grown at the grocery store.

~EdT.

Good shot Ed. It is quite troubling to me as well that we ignore the reality of so called justice in Texas. This is one of the most active states in executing crooks, yet we have probably one of the most flawed systems of justice of any state. In Illinios, they stopped executing crooks because they found so many innocent people facing execution because of outright fraud on the part of the police. The rate so far was about 18% of those on death row were found to be innocent.
The court of Criminal Appeals in Texas has basically said that they will not function and will refuse to overturn virtually all convictions. I saw Chief Justice Keller's interview on TV in which she said that. I was astounded at her statement. It was in regards to another case which was not a death penalty case in which she discounted DNA evidence showing the innocence of a convict. The painting showing in effect the link between lynching and the death penalty should indeed give all of us pause with our current courts and state of justice here.
The legislator concerned should be a LOT more worried about the state of justice here than any painting. He can actually DO something about it and do it LEGALLY too.

Two quick points:

1) There is a process for selecting and removing artwork in such a situation. Miles violated it, and therefore deserves condemnation without consideration of his motive.

2) As a black Democrat, I can understand his offense -- after all, he is a member of a party that promoted the lynching of black men for decades, and so is rightly ashamed by the reminder of his party's heritage and the betrayal of his people that his membership in that party represents.

From sex to sausage-making, there are many things that we tolerate (or require) as a society, but which should not necessarily be depicted in public.

Miles had young children with him. As a parent I understand the desire to filter images that enter their realm. The Holocaust Museum is a great place to learn and contemplate, but I wouldn't take a five year old, as I know that the depictions created there may be too disturbing for very young eyes.

The art described does a service to minds that can and should contemplate choices that we as voting adults are asked to support and atrocities that should not be forgotten.

While I usually agree with your opinions, I'm going to have to disagree with you on this one. Yes, as a society we need to be reminded of the ugly side of the policy decisions we choose to undertake. However, there is a time and place for it.

For instance, I believe that the government should not come in and tell a woman whether the unborn fetus she's carrying is considered a human being or not. There is a wide variety of opinions in this country regarding when life really begins. Some say conception. Some say viability. Some say birth. Regardless, as a society we've decided to permit abortion. That doesn't mean that I want to drive down the freeway and see billboards of mutilated fetuses. Nor do I believe that would be appropriate for a child's eyes. While not being an entirely comparable analogy, I think that such disturbing images of the ugly side of our policy decisions should not be put in a public place where children might have access to them. Miles should not have personally removed the displays, but whether he followed proper protocol in removing the pieces of art doesn't affect the greater point you were making about being willing to see the ugly side of our policy decisions.

Rhymes - I really don't think you meant to identify yourself as a black Democrat, which I feel fairly certain you are not. I believe the proper sentence structure (not that we should have to be giving
English composition lessons to a certified public school teacher)is: "I can understand his offense, as he is a black Democrat." Picky, picky, picky, I know. But if one cannot communicate clearly, it is difficult for ones words to be taken seriously.

Carlos, you said

"That doesn't mean that I want to drive down the freeway and see billboards of mutilated fetuses... While not being an entirely comparable analogy, I think that such disturbing images of the ugly side of our policy decisions should not be put in a public place where children might have access to them."

The simple fact is that we can't insulate our children from the ugly realities of life. For example, the "ugly side" of our policy decisions to let people drive cars at high speed, and to consume alcohol to excess, is on display pretty much every day. While admittedly our policy doesn't permit the two to be done together, our policy does prevent the ability to preempt such behavior with 100% certainty.

Think of it this way: if we create a "clean room" environment for our children, to protect them from things we find disturbing, what happens when we can no longer protect them? They are older, but without any experience in dealing with such things, they may well freak out (think about this in relation to violence and suicide among teenagers who can't handle rejection.)

~EdT.

For Rymes I would remind him that it is the GOP now which is the welcoming home to all the racists and bigots who used to be part of the Democratic Party in the south. Even simple white bigots understand that and vote accordingly. I am afraid that you are not even as clever as they are.
I also have to remind some not so bright folks that it is the GOP who has elevated Sen.Lott to a leadership position. He is the one who thought that segregation is a great idea and still supports such a thing. The GOP ran David Duke as their candidate for Governor of Louisiana too. The Klan, while it is true USED to be the terrorist wing of the Democratic Party in the south, it has NOW moved to the GOP and found welcoming arms which is why the south is now solid for the GOP.
The reason I am a Democrat now, and not before, is that I could NOT be a member of a party that supported such racists in the past. The bigots have all left the Democratic Party and are alive and well in the GOP.