"'I don’t encourage anyone to protest by destroying other people’s property,' said Ai, apparently forgetting that time..."

"... he dropped Han dynasty urns, cut up shoes, wrecked a bunch of chairs, and ruined some perfectly good bicycles. Mr. Ai claims that the Miami vase-smashing is 'very different,' because when Ai ruined pots and bikes and the lot, they 'raised some new questions.'"

(I previously discussed this art vandalism conundrum here.)

IN THE COMMENTS: American Liberal Elite said (quoting the linked article):

"It's a fair point to say that Ai owned the objects he destroyed, while Caminero did not." 

So, of course, it's a point, but is it a conclusive consideration, especially when we are talking about ancient artifacts? Do you accept destruction of unique objects? This reminds me of the flag-burning cases. To those who wanted it to be possible to punish someone who conveyed his message by burning an American flag, was it enough of an answer to say that the protester was burning his own flag? Don't you think that the destruction of ancient artifacts could be banned and should at least be condemned, even when it's the destroyer's own property? One could also view it as morally wrong to destroy any useful object, and it's certainly fair to express disapproval of expressive conduct that comes in the form of destroying things.

Kitty cymbal orchid.

You remember the orchid from Sunday morning. I said: "And let that orchid symbolize what you — and I mean you — know it symbolizes." In the comments, American Liberal Elite said "I see a cat playing the symbols/cymbals." I agreed.

Now, look what Chip Ahoy did. Look closely now: