More religious insanity

Paul Prescod paul@prescod.net
Mon, 28 Jan 2002 11:01:46 -0800


carey wrote:
> 
>...
> 
> Well by that, why have art in the background at all ?  If we have to
> relegate it to the least distracting, or the least offensive, or the lowest
> common denominator, lets just paint the walls white and say to hell with
> art.  

That gets distracting also.

> ... Everyone gets distracted by something.  I find it hard to believe that
> somehow tits (aluminum ones at that) are so distracting that people aren't
> paying attention to whatever Ashcroft has to say.

The article clearly implied that journalists were working extra-hard to
make the statues a distraction. Lying on their backs etc.

> And who is to say that a covered tit is going to be somehow LESS
> distracting?  

They made a decision, like whether red and white bottles are likely to
sell more Coke or perhaps some other questions. Because the decision
involves a breast you want to some want to claim that it is his religion
and others want to claim that it is his ideology. But marketers make
similar decisions every day without giving a shit about either. They
will obsess about whether the Helvetica font distracts from the Times
New Roman logo.

> So you don't want to call it religiously based, that's fine. I'm more than
> happy to bash the conservative-close mindedness of the Ashcroft crowd.

I'd suggest you save your venom for issues that matter.

 Paul Prescod