Surviving Picasso

|

I suppose you could consider this a testament to the power of art.

NEXT: Outraged at Their Own Verdict

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. I suppose you could consider this a testament to the power of art.

    No, more a testament to the widspread inability of people to comprehend the distinction between the deliberate targeting of civilians (as at Guernica and in suicide bombings) and the unfortunate and unintentional possibility of civilian casualties risked in the noble purpose of liberating suffering Iraqis from the despotic oppression of Saddam.

  2. The “possibility” of civilian casualties? If someone’s being delusional here, Mark, it’s you.

  3. Mark:

    Is this what the neocons mean by “moral clarity”? Here’s a tip for you: just because the state SAYS its motivations are noble, doesn’t mean it’s TRUE.

    Look at a good history of the role of the CIA, the School of the Americas, and various other components of the jackbooted National Security State, in propping up just about every military thug and death squad regime since World War II. I strongly recommend Killing Hope, by William Blum. It’s a case by case analysis, VERY heavily footnoted.

    In the case of both Serbia and Iraq, U.S. forces deliberately targeted water treatment facilities and the rest of the infrastructure that civilians needed to keep alive. The neocon ideologues who cheerlead the perpetual warfare state explicitly said, “Deliberately killing civilians is beyond the pale, but deliberately destroying the infrastructure that keeps them from starving is copacetic.”

    The state may SAY it’s just working for sweetness and light, but what it’s really about is “a boot stamping on a human face.”

  4. I don’t see why they want to cover that piece up. It’s only a depiction of “Destruction, Suffering, and Hope”. It’s not like is shows anything as offensive as say an exposed female breast. – Sheesh

  5. It’s actually got a female breast in it, Warren (not counting the cows). But I figure Ass-crap would have got around to covering that up anyway. Now if you could just work in a calico cat…

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.