The problem isn't liberals. If the Geneva Convention is being violated and there's visual proof, why shouldn't people be made aware of it? To hell with embarassing the Bush administration - what about press freedom? The Geneva Convention means nothing without a means to publicly acknowledge whether or not it is being properly enforced.

And, I might also point out, the liberal media is a myth. The American media is by far more conservative than it is liberal. It is a convenient myth for right wing career politicians who are intent on left-bashing to advance their own interests.

If you don't like the way the images of prisoners are being used in the media, that's fine. Fact of the matter is that I don't either. But find something other than liberals to pin blame on.
Before the knee jerk two step goes much further I want to interject. The pictures being shown are not of just what our soldiers did, but how about the atrocities that were done like the murders? Remember the pictures taken by the iraqi's of prisoners being tortured, hung set on flame and such from a bridge and then their bodies being drug through the streets? That happened well before the pictures at issue were taken. Or how about the recent beheading that took nearly 15 minutes to accomplish that was shown? that happened before the pictures our soldiers took (weeks ago) theirs. Yet we are willing to stop those photos? Both should be shown if one is shown. No wonder I refuse to watch general tv programing.

As for the liberal media verses the conservative media? both are myths. try Corporate entities that are willing to print what ever the people in that region are willing to pay for! It's dollars that drive media.

Realistically it comes down to choices. Would I fund the NEA? NO. Why? Because I would make a choice to fund those things that I deem more relevant than the arts. Right now there is a crisis with Social Security. I would rather feed an elderly person and make sure they have adequate medical care than fund the NEA. Sure I like the idea of helping communities with problems by teaching them the arts. But if I had to look at the community and only had so many dollars to spend which would i do? Would I take care of the people and make sure they have health care and food, or would I give them a teacher to teach dance? Hard decisions. I know which I would choose. I wish there was enough money to go around for everything but there isn't.

Should the arts be censored? No! should you take responsibility for doing the censorship if it offends you? yes! You have the right to turn off the television, not go to a movie, not buy a magazine, not read a newspaper, not surf the internet. If everyone thought the same as you, the media that produced the art would soon go out of business.

Yeah a while back I started a thread about people on here who had porn sites as their web links on their profiles. Now what was the real problem with that? they were bogus names that were only used to join with so their websites would get more traffic and there fore profit. It was not about art or photography it was about commercialism in its worst form. (sorry Mike but that is one commercialism I abhor)