Rules for OT

[Sofiyya 1,687]

There will be many more threads where we can have our fun and beat down each other.

Ya, I've been coming here to say what I can't say on the other sites. To stay out of trouble, I'm working on opening a debate site where the rules are a little looser and I'll stay out of trouble.

[luckytxn 2,264]

Ya, I've been coming here to say what I can't say on the other sites. To stay out of trouble, I'm working on opening a debate site where the rules are a little looser and I'll stay out of trouble.

Life is good.

[PalestineMyHeart 1,897]

Imagine the reaction if I had posted an article from the "Global News Service of the Palestinian People" and somberly announced it was the "balanced" view.

[luckytxn 2,264]

Imagine the reaction if I had posted an article from the "Global News Service of the Palestinian People" and somberly announced it was the "balanced" view.

Morning.

[Glyn and Kathy 288]

I personally enjoy reading Sof and Wife's posts. I find them very informative and they make me dig for more truths. I don't participate in the P & R or off topic because quite frankly I'm a wuss , but I like getting their point of view and trying to understand things better. I do think they take a bit of guff here that seems one sided...and not in their favor. OK, going to run and hide now.....

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Here, btw - is a balanced account of the decision made by the Museum:

(JTA) --

This sort of illustrates the problem, doesn't it? One side is always "rational and balanced", while the other side is "inflammatory and biased". It appears AIPAC has bought another vote.

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

This sort of illustrates the problem, doesn't it? One side is always "rational and balanced", while the other side is "inflammatory and biased". It appears AIPAC has bought another vote.

I've had a look around and it looks like the JTA just copied the SF Gate article (which most non SF sources appear to be quoting)

Edited September 14, 2011 by Sousuke

[Sofiyya 1,687]

Morning.

Mornin'!

I personally enjoy reading Sof and Wife's posts. I find them very informative and they make me dig for more truths. I don't participate in the P & R or off topic because quite frankly I'm a wuss , but I like getting their point of view and trying to understand things better. I do think they take a bit of guff here that seems one sided...and not in their favor. OK, going to run and hide now.....

Hey, thanks! I'm sure there are a lot of wusses (said with affection) like you out there. Studies show that more people read message boards than post. Don't stay a wuss, though. Come, join the fun.

This sort of illustrates the problem, doesn't it? One side is always "rational and balanced", while the other side is "inflammatory and biased". It appears AIPAC has bought another vote.

I try to go out of my way to avoid posting articles from the Arab press and will even post from the Jewish press first to avoid accusations of being one-sided in where I get my info from. I'm still accused of that anyway, and, not posting from the Arab press has allowed people to remain unaware of straight news Arab sources and they don't see the discussion from that element. So, they keep asking questions like why they never see Muslims and Arabs condemning terrorism, and stuff like that.

I was pretty riled up last night, but I've always tried to be fair by Kathryn, as she's tried to be fair by me in the past. I may not have always agreed with her decisions, but the bias was kept to a minimum then. I'd say she was usually quite decent.

I see a definite prejudice in her lately, though. I don't know why, but I'd say this action and the biased lecturing involved haven't been a part of my personal interactions with her until very recently. Maybe she needs to take a break and regain perspective. Modding can make you lose it. I took 6 months off my sites earlier this year coz the pressure was getting to me. Then, you can return with a renewed apathy toward the views of others. That's nothing to be ashamed of.

[PalestineMyHeart 1,897]

I've had a look around and it looks like the JTA just copied the SF Gate article (which most non SF sources appear to be quoting)

The SF Gate article is far more extensive than the terse account in the JTA, and contains further details on the ever-changing story about why the exhibit was pulled:

"Our aim, as with all exhibits, is to foster insight and understanding," Sorey said in a statement. "However, upon further review and engagement with the community, it became clear that this exhibit was not appropriate for an open gallery accessible by all children."

Yet it wouldn't have been the first time the museum has featured wartime art by children.

In 2007, it exhibited paintings made during World War II by American children in the Kaiser shipyard child care center. The art featured images of Hitler, burning airplanes, sinking battleships, empty houses and a sad girl next to a Star of David.

In 2004, art by Iraqi children hung on the museum's walls. The pictures, made shortly after the U.S. invasion, included a picture of a helicopter shooting into a field of flowers.

The art by the Palestinian children was similar in content.

http://articles.sfgate.com/2011-09-10/bay-area/30138074_1_oakland-museum-museum-board-member-exhibit

However, such information is much too "biased" and "inflammatory" to be reported in such a "balanced" source as the JTA.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

I've had a look around and it looks like the JTA just copied the SF Gate article (which most non SF sources appear to be quoting)

Perhaps. But using the "(JTA)" byline, and calling it "balanced" is rubbing salt in a wound, deliberate or not. That is part of the problem: The prejudice runs so deep, even among rational, well intentioned people, that many slights go unnoticed by them.

But Kathryn is good at dealing with the obvious ones, and tries to maintain a balanced hand. So, just a little nudge, nothing serious.

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

The SF Gate article is far more extensive than the terse account in the JTA, and contains further details on the ever-changing story about why the exhibit was pulled:

However, such information is much too "biased" and "inflammatory" to be reported in such a "balanced" source as the JTA.

The Washington Examiner did the same thing. Most secondary new sources summarize the originals.

Officials at an Oakland's children's museum say complaints have prompted them to cancel a planned exhibit of drawings by Palestinian children showing how they saw the Israeli assault during the 2008-09 Gaza conflict.

The Museum of Children's Art had planned on displaying the drawings from Sept. 24 to Nov. 13. But the San Francisco Chronicle reports (http://bit.ly/oiCkpp ) that museum officials said after getting complaints from Jewish groups and other members of the community they notified the organizer of the exhibit that they were pulling the plug on the showing.

The drawings, done by children between the ages of 9 to about 11, showed bombs being dropped, tanks and people getting shot.

Hilmon Sorey, the chairman of the museum's board, said in a statement the exhibit was "not appropriate" for the museum.

Information from: San Francisco Chronicle, http://www.sfgate.com

Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://washingtonexaminer.com/entertainment/2011/09/museum-cancels-exhibit-palestinian-children#ixzz1XwyaM4Vw

[Sofiyya 1,687]

Andres Serrano's "Piss Christ" is ok with art museums and wins awards, but Palestinian children's drawings from their real lives must be shut down as too inflammatory.

Edited September 14, 2011 by Sofiyya

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Andres Serrano's "Piss Christ" is ok with art museums and wins awards, but Palestinian children's drawings from their real lives must be shut down as too inflammatory.

That would be reopening a closed topic. But, yeah, art is a form of expression, and just because a portion of the population, even a majority, disagrees with the message being expressed, that is insufficient cause to censor it.

Edited September 14, 2011 by Crusty Old Perv

[Sofiyya 1,687]

That would be reopening a closed topic. But, yeah, art is a form of expression, and just because a portion of the population disagrees with the message being expressed, that is insufficient cause to censor it.

. . . unless it's children's art.

[Kathryn41 3,205]

You're missing the point - the museum did not censor the exhibit. They had been working on it for a full year and fully knew what it contained - the pros and the cons. They decided not to show it when the exhibit began to be used as a political football to support specific agendas in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict so that the focus was no longer on the children's portrayal of the events but on continuing the battle through the exhibit.

The exhibit itself sounded fascinating and was far more extensive than just the 50 selected pieces from art therapy programmes to help them deal with the trauma. If people had been willing to focus on the theme of the exhibit - the war in Gaza from the children's view - all of their views - not just the horrific ones, then the exhibit would more than likely have continued. The museum is not adverse to showing controversial material and has in the past. What was different for this exhibit from all others they had hosted was how the various supporters of each side were trying to use it as justification for their own particular perspectives. The children's perspectives were totally lost and the exhibit itself was being used as a weapon by the various sides as ammunition against each other. The museum decided not to participate in that battle and so chose to cancel the exhibit.

A lot of time, work and money goes into planning and installing an exhibit. A decision to cancel one is not made lightly. If it were merely the controversy about the nature of some of the pieces of art shown - which the museum would have anticipated and planned for - the exhibit would probably have opened. It was the exhibit being turned into a pawn in the actual war that was not anticipated and thus led to its cancellation.

The thread was closed because it too was trying to turn the exhibit into a weapon and the article chosen was written with the intent to inflame and create anger and animosity, which violate TOS.