Home | About | Donate

On Shooting the 'War Thug' Presidents in the (Paint) Balls


#1

On Shooting the 'War Thug' Presidents in the (Paint) Balls

Sam Husseini

A new political mural has gone up in Washington, D.C. Well, sort of new. The mural has been there for a few years, but it’s been transformed just recently. Some might say, made more whole, reborn.


#2

Factually, every aspect is true. No one wants to change the course. The politicians want to get benefitted from it. The entire economy of our country is war oriented. Therefore the war would continue even in the far future until the tax payers back is completely broken. It is severely bent now. The rich, 1% would never ever care. Then again the presidential circus is already in town and all the clowns are preparing for their shameless performances. None of the politicians have any conscience or shame. But the world is changing. The idiot 1% has neither the culture or any talent. You don't need to go far just view again the last night clown festival at FOX. They have the power to misuse the tax-payers' money for their own war enjoyment. When it would be stopped the nation will be fully bankrupt although it is partially done.


#3

"Clinton I"?

I hope this is A mistake and not A plug for Hillary-


#6

This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.


#7

Keen observation Matt-It may very well be both, although that is A stretch when you relly thing about it-
The results of unintended consequences or subconscious, unintended approval?


#8

Vandalism is vandalism, whether inflicted by spray paint, paint balls, or any other means. Most of the perpetrators don't really give a bleep about forcing everyone else to experience their "art"; they are simply nihilists.
But every once in a while, someone decides that their superior moral perspective trumps all else, and justifies their juvenile attempts at relevance... they shot paint balls at their balls (giggle); how clever!
This mural was not made "more whole, reborn". It was vandalized by someone too lazy to create their own mural, too lazy to make their own statement. Too much effort required. So much easier to do a drive-by shooting.
And people wonder why the level of discourse in this country is so low? How does this help?


#9

Was this vandalism?


#10

The Iraqi invasion of Kuwait was approved by the US. Saddam complained that Kuwait was drilling slanted oil wells from Kuwait into Iraq and he asked the US Ambassador if it would be OK if his troops put an end to that practice. She told him that it would be OK with the US if Iraq invaded Kuwait in order to stop slant drilling. Saddam was suckered into the invasion.


#11

Thanks for calling a spade a spade. I just talked with someone at the restaurant and yes, they said it was/is vandalism. They are spending big bucks to clean it up, oil-based paint on oil-based paint is a problem. So the original artist is in consultation now with sources to figure out how to clean it. I love the idea, of paintballing the war thugs, yes that is what they are, but it would have been much more powerful to do something original. This party who did this is creative, just a disappointing use of that creativity. I saw an exhibit several years ago, at the Aldrich Contemporary Art Museum in Ridgefield, CT showcasing the work of Irish artist Tom Molloy. His art engages with global events, and in particular with America and America’s place in the new world order and he spares no punches.


#12

No. In equating the explosion of the symbol of Naziism and the vandalizing of a mural of American presidents, the only things being vandalized are logic and common sense.
Godwin's Law: Rational discourse ceases at the first reference to Nazis.


#13

Why is that? Because the American presidents are good guys and Nazis are bad guys?


#14

Vandalism, eh? How about drawing dicks on military recruiting posters?


#15

This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.


#16

that's been done.


#17

Talking Tuna Fish, Thinking Death.


#18

Are you for real?

And what do you call what all these president did? It was a little more than vandalism, eh?

I think the benefits of the strong moral statement that needed to be made far, far, far outweighs the negatives of what you call "vandalism". And as far as the monetary cost of fixing it, the old Palestinian woman's restaurant can choose to simply not fix it - or ask for some community volunteers (Adams Morgan is a very wealthy yuppie neighborhood known for its fashionable global-south-oriented ethnic cafes and restaurants) to fix it if they want.

I used to walk past this place all the time back before Obama's election ended all anti-war activism. We would ride the Red Line up there to a favorite Eithiopian restaurant and then some apre-protest drinks after a long day with a lot of other angry people down at the White House, Mall, or other low-lying reclaimed-swamp-parts of DC. I would have loved to have vandalized this mural if it had been there in those days.

(My favorite Adams Morgan building-mural used to be that 2-story one of what looked like Agusto Sandino shame I found out it wasn't him, but something from a Toulouse Lautrec poster)


#19

If you vandalized every image of every president, where would it stop? A "strong moral statement" does not come out of the business end of a gun, paintball or otherwise. Anyone with the courage of their convictions would have stood by their "work". Whoever did this was too gutless to own up to it.
You give yourself away with comments such as "old Palestinian woman's restaurant". OMG, an Arab! They deserve to have their establishment vandalized, especially since they're living in a country where their chances of getting shot for expressing a poitical opinion are considerably less than in Palestine!?!?
"A very wealthy yuppie neighborhood"! Well, jeez, that makes it even more all right. Those greedy yuppies can clean it up themselves!
"some apres-protest drinks after a long day with a lot of other angry people..." Well, at least you didn't all go wilding instead. Do you do anything with that anger besides wave signs, spray paint,and whine about "the man"?
"I would have loved to have vandalized this mural if it had been there in those days". Well , at least you admit it's vandalism.
I thougth Vietnam was a mistake, Iraq was a bigger mistake, and agree that most of the presidents during my lifetime were too quick too resort to military solutions. We'd likely agree on a lot. But the juvenile methods you applaud undermine the responsible anti-war protesters, and (pardon the analogy) paint us all with the wrong brush.
Grow up!


#20

"As Daniel Ellsberg has noted, the U.S. uses nuclear weapons constantly, like a thief robbing people by waving a gun around. You don’t need to pull the trigger to “use” the gun".
Every bomb amerika drops, every shell fired from an amerikan tank or howitzer, every large caliber "HEI" (High Explosive Incendiary) round fired is made up of DU (Depleted Uranium). Every time amerika fires one of these ordinances, they have detonated a "Dirty Bomb". You remember dirty bombs, don't you? The George W Bush administration was very fond of accusing others of trying to get dirty bombs, while amerika has been using dirty bombs in all of it's wars of aggression over the last several decades!


#21

Change does not happen without direct action - strong direct action. This tacky mural was not art, it was government paid, government propaganda. The paintballs and the remark "The war thugs" was an artistic statement. If you believe in the sanctity of art, then you believe it's expression trumps any kind of so-called "private property rights".


#22

The government does not pay to have murals painted on private property. If the owner wished to make a political statement on her own private property, that is her right. Are you positing that there are no "so-called" private property rights- comrade? It's a shame you missed your chance to express your opinion in the USSR- before its citizens got fed up with the lack of "so-called" private property rights.
You miss the point. If you are assuming that your own personal vision of art is so morally superior that it trumps that of the person who has her own vision of what constitutes art, and gives you the right to vandalize hers, you are nothing more than a preening narcissist, alienating the people whose views you purportedly are trying to change. Why else make such a public "statement"? Vandalism is sanctifying? Please.
When I see vandalism, I don't think: "Bravo! A statement by a bold young man with a superior moral view, unafraid to flaunt conventional social mores in an amusingly clever way!"
I think (as do most people): "What a f*cking jackass!"