Nah, Rougey. Henson couldn't harm me at all in any direct, open manner - he seems an especially soft-headed, fragile-bodied and pampered petal typical of those pretentious mediocrities too often spawned of his class. I'm sure Henson and his worshippers could and would cause me grief by less direct means, especially if they happened to be my landlord, or could compel cops to do their bidding. Also, Henson could indirectly cause serious harm to my children (I'm unsure whether he could cause them direct harm - I can't presume to know his actual proclivities or whether he is just a pandering opportunist seizing his chance at fame with pedo art). More generally, I think it appears clear that he and his ilk have already caused this country and society direct harm.

"The power to turn away"? No thanks. We need the power to have our demands met when we expect a responsible and brave enough government, uncorrupted by pedophiles and other such decay. If that power is not granted, then we will probably end up eventually in a situation of such chaos that vigilantism becomes necessary. That ugly possibility will only loom larger during this current global crash, its onrushing depression, and general inaction by that same, generally corrupt and cowardly leadership elite. By contrast, many among that elite appear only too willing and ready to help infiltrate fascism into our political and legal systems.

Oh, did Klimt take snaps of naked kids too? I had no idea such old symbolist/art nouveau painting and collage was so relevant to this case. And did Adolf, Benito and El Caudillo all come to power on some drive to protect kids from rock spiders?

[If you haven't checked your report card, Rougey: it's a big "FAIL". A tick for your spelling of Niemoeller though]

Fract:
Good choice of words. Yes, the Hensonites have indeed "covered the ground" here, but to be specific, they've covered it repeatedly with smoke, camouflage, and other magic tricks of misrepresentation (as defined by the term "sophistry"). Rouge followed your brief name-calling spurt with another demonstration of such antics.

Mil-observer

Interesting post that last one.

I did ask about the origins or basis for your analysis of me, the “libertarian / neocon “

I see you failed to follow up, probably a lifetime trait.

Well since you cannot enlighten me further, I will at least review some of the sentences in your posts

Starting with

“myself and many others (we're a large majority”

Pack mentality, feels strong when running with other small minds but definitely a follower, not a ‘leader’.

“the implicit harm of such artistic soft kiddie porn.”

The ‘implicit’ alludes to an absolute, underlying truth.
Hard to argue when anyones and everyones sense of “Art” in inherently subjective.

-except for despots.

“Libertarians/neolibs may as well complain (as some do!) when the state acts to prevent someone from following through on their free choice to become a degenerate, dehumanized ice junkie.”

This is the bit which interests me - “dehumanized ice junkie”

A strange analysis of this “Libertarians/neolib” I keep wondering where it comes from?

“Rougey.” I have a logon name,

please try to rise to manners and use it.

Your abuse of it implies a familiarity whole unjustified and something which, even with all the pleadings you could ever muster, will never be fulfilled (you have been rejected).

“checked your report card, Rougey: it's a big "FAIL".”

I guess the self appointed ‘despot’ will always “Fail” the libertarian.

It stands to reason.

Back to the “pack mentality”, of course, that is the bully coming out.

For all your pomposity, you are only hiding the insecurities of the weak, the physically and/or intellectually inadequate, the under-achievers who hide in the pack and behind bullying behaviour.

Have a nice day

"art. It can be anything. "

I don't think so, else you would'nt have 'bad' art. Basically, art is a skill, a talent or trait, when it is expressed in a manner which enriches or elevates the senses. Displaying the obvious does not become art only because one has the means to exploit it. Is there anything to gain in showing us how a child also has the same skeletal structure as an adult?

Many also exploit sex to front as art, but IMHO, 9 out of 10 points should be deducted for such exploitation, and it is better to seperate the art from the titilating.

> "Displaying the obvious does not become art only because one has the means to exploit it."

You are approximately a century out-dated in your understanding of art. Art is far more than a simple craft. No wonder your mentality/argument is so primitive. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fountain_(Duchamp) <- add the extra bracket.

-=-=-=
"In December 2004, Duchamp's Fountain was voted the most influential artwork of the 20th century by 500 selected British artworld professionals.[12] The Independent noted in a February 2008 article that with this single work, Duchamp invented conceptual art and "severed forever the traditional link between... art... and... merit".[13]"
-=-=-=

"Art is far more than a simple craft."

Here you are focusing on the wrong and lesser factor, conveniently. The issue is not whether art is a craft or skill, or inherent human will to express what is not pos with words. The issue is that art is not any and everything, thus the link what art is becomes irrelevent.

Art is definitely not a photograph displaying only a child's natural shrouded form - there is no input here from the camera. Its like calling the sun hot as an artform. Going further, mere titilation of the taboo is not art, and certainly not an elevation of that faculty. The other factor missed is the lessening of humanity by exploiting a child's rights and the terrible impact it can have in how adults view a child. Consider the term ARTLESS.

My wings well and truly “Klimpt” (sic). Rougey repeats sharp jabs from a feather duster, following with a lightning right cross from a bean bag. Hold the intrepid steely close by too when you need to hit out with your heavier weapons e.g., whiteboard erasers, flotation tubes or bubble-wrapped balloons.
Nowadays those who pretend most to exclusive knowledge of art/culture/philosophy so often betray in the clumsiest and most obvious of ways their superficial appreciation of those very fields. This situation would be consistent with generally accelerating conditions of civilizational decadence, socio-economic injustice, and widespread approval for and encouragement of moral degeneracy.
Bowden's article and its pristine clarity stand undented (and mostly uncomprehended) by those uttering unexamined libertarian cliches and slurs here. C'mon guys, let's hear your case supporting that enterprise you regard so necessary (if not valuable) i.e., “adults making and/or using photos of naked children for entertainment purposes”.