See what happens? That's a digital camera photo or I'll eat MRE's. For shame, poco. Tsk tsk tsk.
In the meantime, here is a new link on one fatuous (imo) wrinkle in the story, from today's Chronicle: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...AGJ370IVC1.DTL
[SIZE=1][color=SlateGray]What's with the woman in the bg? Looks like the same old Colwell kinky crap to me, cloaked in faux "political stance." What did Mark Twain say about wrapping oneself in the flag? YMMV, of course.[/color]
There is no mention of Haigh's attacker being her ex-husband. Where was this story reported? It does mention some other complexities to her past, however — strengthening my hunch that this whole business has far less to do with freedom of speech and Iraq than has been claimed.
Although I've yet to see verifications, I've heard that the IRS had an outstanding lien against Haigh as well. No wonder the artists were quick to remove their artwork, lest it get attached or impounded as evidence.
[size=3]Just now I also came across this: http://www.recirca.com/artnews/293.shtml#comments[/size]
Of course, if this is not what your political views want to let you hear, then I can't make you. (Old joke: "Use horticulture in a sentence") I know, people want the world to be politicized and sensational. Sometimes, though, it's all just plain old greed and bitterness.
Truly shows how digital bends reality to suit one's sick purpose. My sympathies as well!