Let me finally solve the mystery of the painting which won a contest in Democratic Representative from Missouri Lacy Clay’s district—which features angry black people inciting violence against police showing them as pigs—literally. It has no place in the American system of debate—it isn’t representative of the American experience, and it’s just disgraceful. So it should not be put up in any fashion on Capitol Hill. It isn’t a work of free speech—it’s the work of hatred. It is irresponsible for Lacy Clay to encourage the 18-year-old artist who made the painting because such a thing does nothing to heal the problems that we have in America regarding urban culture and suburban culture. They don’t like each other for obvious reasons—and those reasons aren’t black and white skin colors—it is in that they share completely different values and philosophies—and nothing will be fixed in that realm until lawmakers understand that.
A controversial painting on Capitol Hill depicting a police officer as a pig was becoming the very definition of a political football Tuesday as Democratic and Republican lawmakers repeatedly passed it back and forth in a growing tit-for-tat.
Democratic lawmakers tried – twice – to put the painting back on display after a GOP colleague took it down Friday amid outrage from law enforcement groups.
But every time they did, it was taken down again. Most recently, Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, R-Calif., took it down late Tuesday afternoon and brought it to the office of Democratic Rep. Lacy Clay, from whose Missouri district the picture came. Clay once again hung it up, saying he was “an expert at hanging artwork.”
Rohrabacher called the painting an “insult to all police.”
It’s unclear whether House leadership or some other office will step in to resolve the dispute.
The personal values of the stereotypical urban dweller are deplorable—they are all too happy to live in tight quarters, are disrespectful to others, they dress terribly, speak horribly and don’t set their sights very high doing no justice to those around them by way of creating a competitive driver toward better self-fulfillment. When a person who does work on dressing nicely, is respectful to others, and sets high goals for themselves encounters people of the opposite no matter what color their skin is or their gender—they won’t like them. They won’t desire to eat with them. They won’t want to park their cars in the presence of such loose characters. And they won’t choose to give their money to people who they really don’t like. They won’t shop in their stores. The suburbanite won’t seek to relish in the arts of the urban dweller because the two have nothing in common except their eating habits and desires to procreate.
Radical left leaning activists have for too long ignored the obvious problem—it’s not race that divides our nation—it’s the values of the low reaching not being compatible with the values of people who have value. If an urban dweller is fine playing on broken glass in an alley, they won’t have much in common with the suburban kid who plays in a nice back yard with parental supervision who brings cold drinks to the children and a towel to wipe away the sweat. America has to make a decision, does it want to be a great country that dreams great things—or do we want to play down to the most animalist ambitions of the human race—to mate, to steal from others, and to get through life doing only what is absolutely required?
There is a reason some of the great wonders of the world architecturally, and artistically feature excesses of ambition—it is because in the human race—to do more than is required is considered a noble endeavor. When a person tries to do more—there is a quiet rebellion going on against lackluster effort. It is the human proclamation to say—I am above the average—whether that work is the Eiffel Tower in Paris, the Great Wall of China, or a clean car neatly washed for a Saturday night on the town—putting forth the extra effort to be shinier than the other cars. I can say from experience which I have a great deal of in dealing with both factions—the two groups just don’t go together. Take a nicely polished Ferrari and park it at a meter three blocks north on Race Street in Cincinnati, Ohio and you will come because from the Aronoff to find it vandalized. Park that same car in the parking lot of Target in West Chester and it will be as you found it even if left alone for six hours a night. For all the vandals know, the driver of the Ferrari could be a black man or woman—but they don’t care. They hate the car because it screams to others that it is above the average of other cars, and the urban dwellers around that car will seek to knock it from its perch—because they don’t want to look up at it. They want to destroy it and bring it down to their low ambitions. It is there that the core of racism today percolates. It’s not about skin color, it’s about values.
Knowing that, the painting hung on Capitol Hill by Lacy Clay has no place in American culture because to display it and accept it is to yield to the values of the very average limits of urban ambition. It’s not skin color that people are afraid of—it is the behavior of people who would rather destroy those working to be more than average. Those who do try to be more than average aren’t going to chose to associate with those who think a conversation should be something like, “man, I lik to tap that shi.” They would more appropriately say, “Would you like to go on a date, see a movie—then let’s see what happens.” And the assumption of such an experience would be to go to a nice restaurant, see a nice movie, then end up in a clean bed. What both parties have in common is the desire to procreate, but the differences are phenomenal and not even compatible. Their methods are just too different to have anything in common and a nation cannot build itself around two distinctly different approaches to the same objective. That artistic painting which means so much to Lacy Clay does not belong in a country where people strive to make a few million dollars during their lifetimes to support their families with a few trips to Disney World sometime along the way before death finds them leaving it all to their family and friends.
The problem as suggested by that Capitol Hill painting against police isn’t whether there is discrimination of law enforcement against the black community, it is the cultural boundary which exists between urban dwellers against suburban occupants. The law is a mechanism of the suburbanite—the educated, value filled people who want more than just an average life. But that protector of private property—the cop—does not have much to do in a community of people who don’t care if their neighborhood is damaged with vandalism or drug dealers work every corner along their street. So all they can do is attempt to uphold the values of the suburbanites who actually pay their salaries—because after all—he who has the gold rules—which is a human trait—not one of race. People who refuse to participate in an open capitalist society will always have less gold and will be beaten by the very ambitious. The lazy will always resent the hard-working. And it will always be the people with gold who pay the cops—and the cops essentially exist to protect the rights and property of everyone. But for the slug that sleeps on sidewalks, sells drugs, and has children with nine different women without a job to pay for any of them, those people will never like cops—so there is no way to reconcile with them. America can only have one type of philosophy and if it really wants to be a great nation—it can’t celebrate art like the painting Lacy Clay supports. Because it’s not about race—it’s all about value and a nation can’t have it both ways and maintain its sanity. America has to choose.
Rich Hoffman
CLIFFHANGER RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT
Sign up for Second Call Defense here: http://www.secondcalldefense.org/?affiliate=20707 Use my name to get added benefits.
Occasionally, some of your visitors may see an advertisement here
You can hide these ads completely by upgrading to one of our paid plans.
The Overmanwarrior 