I have not used labels and I haven't obscured truth. Instead I am asking for clarity: I have asked how the image I am looking at is waterboarding. And I am still waiting for an answer.

You instruct me to use "true names." I am. Boingboing labeled the entry as "Waterboarding in Cambodia." Waterboarding is a specific term meaning a specific methodology. The image in the boingboing post is not of waterboarding and therefore -- alas-- doesn't draw the straight line to the United States as heir to the practices of the Khmer Rouge. That line is only drawn if the viewer wills that connection.

No thanks. You are asking me to compare apples to oranges. The image I am looking at is not waterboarding.

No thanks. You are asking me to compare apples to oranges. The image I am looking at is not waterboarding.

How is this identical to waterboarding? I don't get it.

Perhaps I need to be re-educated to better see the straight line from the Khmer Rouge to the US of A.

Mark -- I agree with you completely. That is something upon which I can wholeheartedly agree. Thank you for reminding me.

Leo Tolstoy used to talk about great art as having two components namely, that which celebrates G-d the Father and affirms the brotherhood of humanity. Now doubtless the readers of BoingBoing, myself included, are too world weary to buy into that type of tripe. Just saying that a work of art is justified (and frankly I agree with GK Chesterton that a work of art is self justifying in itself and needs no validation from external sources) by its ability to engender community among its viewers seems to me starved for meaning. To say that this showing of art sparks community among those who agree with it seems, sort of simplistic -- and what I write here is doubtless an expression of my limited understanding. I say it is simplistic because there are many moments of artistic presentation that spark community but remain ugsome. Think here of Nazi rallies, Nazi art, North Korean propaganda extolling the Dear Leader, NRA Posters,etc. Are these all equally worthy by the mere fact that they engender community among those who already agree with the images presented? Or perhaps they are worthy of appreciation because they are given out for free. If either of these are true then art is worthless, like in Derrida's example of the power of a cliche (my apologies to those who are better spellers) which he likens to a coin whose markings are rubbed off by use and therefore without real value other than the value given by its user which is to say "It is worthwhile because I say so."

Now I am supposed to answer Kieran ONeill's bullet points. Ok. Let me take them in order:
1. I am thrilled that like minded people get together to explore an art project. Therefore I applaud grade school students, highschool students, residents of nursing homes, etc all of whom enjoy the benefits of community born of art projects.
2. Let's see do I protest that people join together to create anti war art? Nope. I think its pretty nifty. Since people coming together to create art is the sine qua non of artistic expression I simply can't wait to see the BiongBiong sites extolling National Rifle Association poster art contests....
3. Ok, number three from Kieran ONeill was asking if I was upset that number 2 wasn't done well. No I don't think that's what my beef is. But Kieran ONeill knows me better than that .... so before I read his answer (and thereby learn what I think) let me say that no, I don't think that a group of people who all agree with each other a conviction and so get together to applaud the convictions they share merits any attention from anyone. Why should it? What's great about a group of people rushing out to meet those they already agree with? That seems tautological to me.
4. This one seems like a tautology welded to number three. I say this because I don't know what standard by which we are measuring this art. If community with those who we agree with is the gold standard then by all means this is wonderful stuff on par with all of work produced by the USSR in the field of Socialist Realism, or in the US of A with the Republican Party's Idolatory of President Reagan.

All of which leads me to say that the best thing about an empty cliche (however you spell it) is that you can pour into it anything you want and agree with it and celebrate it.

I humble await your thoughts.

I don't think I am attacking anything; I am commenting. I am delighted by the happy thought that these artists created these pieces etc. I am not trolling, though I am interested that someone would see my comments as trolling. I forgot Kieran O'Neill that the role of comments is to applaud whatever is offered.

Calabanos -- I concede to your point. And thank you for such. Yet, I can't help asking what is the point of art work that aims to just bring like minded people together? It seems to unintentionally denegrate the medium. And I say that without a hint of scorn or sarcasm. I am open to being taught however.

Hughelectronic I love the sarcasm! Let's go burn a draft card together. And yes let's leave it to the politicians. Wow another slam-dunk cliche. Do something other than parade cliches in front of cliche lovers. Is anyone who supports the war going to see these images and suddenly stand up to say "Yes, that's right let's end it now!!" No. Just like no one changes their political belief because of a kickass opposition bumper sticker. It's pathetic really. But your shrewd, world wise sarcasm proves my point. Hit me with your next cliche baby.

Wow. I don't mean to sound bored but what a stampede of cliches this promises to be. The true believers gather like sheep to celebrate a collection of empty gestures. Very powerful I suppose if you're into the type of engagement that changes nothing. Keep dreamin' its 1968 kids!