Art of the Union

Hello, my name is Mitchell. I am an artist and writer creating politically charged content. My goal is to use art and humor to introduce people to American politics.

Ask me anything.

View my portfolio.
Follow me on Twitter.
Like me on Facebook.
See me on Instagram.
  • May 21, 2013 6:01 pm
    In response to the allegation that his regime has deployed chemical weapons to combat the Free Syrian Army, President Assad responded with “Chemical whos-in-whats-its? No, never heard of them.” He then promptly released the hounds on the remaining reporters. View high resolution

    In response to the allegation that his regime has deployed chemical weapons to combat the Free Syrian Army, President Assad responded with “Chemical whos-in-whats-its? No, never heard of them.” He then promptly released the hounds on the remaining reporters.

  • May 3, 2013 6:01 pm
    Well, when I started this drawing it was relevant. I thought I’d still post it since I haven’t been on here as regularly as I used to be. As stated in my last post, things have been extremely hectic. I’m finally getting settled into my new home in Baltimore and it’s opening up more time for me to start posting here again. As much as I would’ve loved to post regularly for the past few months, sometimes life just doesn’t allow it. I make little-to-no money for the things that you see on this blog, so sometimes it has to take a backseat because my bills won’t wait for me to draw a picture of John Boehner in a diaper (by the way, I would never draw that. Don’t worry). So with that said, I apologize for the long gap and I will be back to posting art and commentary. Thanks for your patience! View high resolution

    Well, when I started this drawing it was relevant. I thought I’d still post it since I haven’t been on here as regularly as I used to be. As stated in my last post, things have been extremely hectic. I’m finally getting settled into my new home in Baltimore and it’s opening up more time for me to start posting here again. As much as I would’ve loved to post regularly for the past few months, sometimes life just doesn’t allow it. I make little-to-no money for the things that you see on this blog, so sometimes it has to take a backseat because my bills won’t wait for me to draw a picture of John Boehner in a diaper (by the way, I would never draw that. Don’t worry). So with that said, I apologize for the long gap and I will be back to posting art and commentary. Thanks for your patience!

  • April 10, 2013 1:00 pm

    I thought it would be a good idea to explain my lack of posts recently. These past few months have been incredibly hectic and it’s thrown my art and writing way off course. Just a recap of what has been making my blog so desolate - In November I was laid off due to the economic strains of my previous employer, spent December through March frantically updating my portfolio/learning new skills/applying to jobs to regain employment, and am now making my 2nd cross country move in a year’s time (from Florida back up north to Baltimore).

    I am truly appreciative of all of my followers, and ask that you please stick with me during this incredibly busy time. I am currently working on some new art, and once I get settled into my new apartment I will get back into the full swing.

  • March 12, 2013 8:10 pm
    samueldexterdavis:  Inspirational work Mitchell. I've followed your blog since beginning my own a while ago, as an aspiring illustrator myself I'd appreciate some feedback or advice from an illustrator who's work is highly politically motivated. I'm currently studying bachelor of illustration that I hope will lead to a masters in journalism. Regards, Sam.

    Thank you so much! As far as advice for illustration, it would be to mainly draw what and how you want. I feel like there’s this thing happening in the illustration field where more times than not art looks like James Jean or Yuko Shimizu work. While trends definitely are a dark part of the art world, I’m definitely much happier that I did my own thing. Of course, that’s not to say that you can’t take bits and pieces from artists who influenced you to make your style. 


    And for the political/journalism side of my art and writing, I’m just always following the news. The majority of my day is spent listening to podcasts, reading the news, or watching the God-awful cable news programs. It’s key to know what you’re art talking about, especially if you’re going to put it out there for others to see. A misinformed piece of art can reflect badly on how your work is viewed.


    I hope this helps. I’m also working on an online class about political art that someone such as yourself might be interested in taking. I will post the link when it is up. 

  • March 9, 2013 8:30 pm
    
With the Obama Administration’s nomination of John Brennan as CIA Director and Chuck Hagel as Secretary of Defense, drone warfare is being treated with the same caution as a kite-flying contest at a Cub Scout summer jamboree. While drone warfare may be hailed as a new, cost-effective way to wage war, it has many implications that often go unreported. One being the effect drones have on driving up militant group enlistment, another being the heavy psychological toll that they inflict on the inhabitants of drone patrolled regions.
But perhaps the most heated topic when it comes to drones is the civilian casualties that it produces. When politicians and media outlets claim that the drone program has low to no civilian casualties, it should be taken with a grain of salt. As a report conducted by Stanford and NYU states, the CIA declares all adult males killed by drone strikes as militants. The report also goes on to state that out of roughly 3,325 people killed in Pakistan by drones, between 474 - 881 were civilians. 
The Stanford/NYU report titled “Living Under Drones” can be found at http://livingunderdrones.org/

I wanted to touch on the drone warfare issue one more time while it’s back in the spotlight, thanks to Rand Paul’s filibuster. If you are unaware, Paul filibustered the nomination of John Brennan as CIA Director to obtain an answer from the Obama Administration about whether they had the right to use drone strikes against U.S. Citizens.
Siding with Rand Paul on any issue can open up a long and dark conspiracy cavern on infowars.com if you aren’t careful, but he was not totally off his meds by asking this question. No matter how unlikely or inconceivable it may seem, historical occurrence’s such as the Kent State massacre can act as an example that even the U.S. Government can muster enough gumption to kill some citizens.
With that said, Rand Paul’s question is not my biggest concern when it comes to drone warfare. Even foreign civilian casualties, which I’ve touched on before (see above) is not my biggest issue. My true fear when it comes to drone’s is that it marks another step forward in the United State’s population being completely disassociated with it’s countries operations. 
Our news media is noticeably absent went it comes to covering our war efforts, with Mother Jones’ fixture “We’re Still at War” being the only day-to-day coverage that I can think of. In fact, up until 2009, there was an 18 year ban on news coverage of dead soldiers returning from war zones.
Even more to that point, if the average American is aware of our war efforts, they probably only know of our recent adventures in the Middle East, being left unaware of our ever expanding war efforts into Africa. And yes, the African front has proved to be prime real estate for drone strikes.
Advocates for drone warfare often sight that it will make war cheaper and safer, but is that actually a positive? War inherently is not safe, cheap, or even good. When a nation goes to war, it should be an all in effort and experience, where even those who are not serving at least have some knowledge of what is happening. Drone warfare marks a change of sweeping war under the rug, not requiring the citizenry to be kept aware as the operations of the Government become ever more exclusive. View high resolution

    With the Obama Administration’s nomination of John Brennan as CIA Director and Chuck Hagel as Secretary of Defense, drone warfare is being treated with the same caution as a kite-flying contest at a Cub Scout summer jamboree. While drone warfare may be hailed as a new, cost-effective way to wage war, it has many implications that often go unreported. One being the effect drones have on driving up militant group enlistment, another being the heavy psychological toll that they inflict on the inhabitants of drone patrolled regions.

    But perhaps the most heated topic when it comes to drones is the civilian casualties that it produces. When politicians and media outlets claim that the drone program has low to no civilian casualties, it should be taken with a grain of salt. As a report conducted by Stanford and NYU states, the CIA declares all adult males killed by drone strikes as militants. The report also goes on to state that out of roughly 3,325 people killed in Pakistan by drones, between 474 - 881 were civilians. 

    The Stanford/NYU report titled “Living Under Drones” can be found at http://livingunderdrones.org/

    I wanted to touch on the drone warfare issue one more time while it’s back in the spotlight, thanks to Rand Paul’s filibuster. If you are unaware, Paul filibustered the nomination of John Brennan as CIA Director to obtain an answer from the Obama Administration about whether they had the right to use drone strikes against U.S. Citizens.

    Siding with Rand Paul on any issue can open up a long and dark conspiracy cavern on infowars.com if you aren’t careful, but he was not totally off his meds by asking this question. No matter how unlikely or inconceivable it may seem, historical occurrence’s such as the Kent State massacre can act as an example that even the U.S. Government can muster enough gumption to kill some citizens.

    With that said, Rand Paul’s question is not my biggest concern when it comes to drone warfare. Even foreign civilian casualties, which I’ve touched on before (see above) is not my biggest issue. My true fear when it comes to drone’s is that it marks another step forward in the United State’s population being completely disassociated with it’s countries operations. 

    Our news media is noticeably absent went it comes to covering our war efforts, with Mother Jones’ fixture “We’re Still at War” being the only day-to-day coverage that I can think of. In fact, up until 2009, there was an 18 year ban on news coverage of dead soldiers returning from war zones.

    Even more to that point, if the average American is aware of our war efforts, they probably only know of our recent adventures in the Middle East, being left unaware of our ever expanding war efforts into Africa. And yes, the African front has proved to be prime real estate for drone strikes.

    Advocates for drone warfare often sight that it will make war cheaper and safer, but is that actually a positive? War inherently is not safe, cheap, or even good. When a nation goes to war, it should be an all in effort and experience, where even those who are not serving at least have some knowledge of what is happening. Drone warfare marks a change of sweeping war under the rug, not requiring the citizenry to be kept aware as the operations of the Government become ever more exclusive.

  • February 24, 2013 8:48 pm
    This Tuesday is scheduled to be the Senate vote for defense secretary nominee Chuck Hagel, finally one step closer to the ending of this incredible storyline and letting Hagel take the nap that his face has been screaming for since it started.
You are probably familiar with the accusations that have been trotted out against Hagel, everything from the Dan Friedman “Friends of Hamas” joke that went viral in the Senate halls to the idea that Hagel hates Jews (the monster probably didn’t even cry during Schindler’s List). Tactics that don’t even involve Hagel have been used to block Hagel, such as Sen. Lindsey Graham vowing to block the nomination until he receives more information about Benghazi. Don’t worry though, every other embassy attack during 2012 is ok in Graham’s book.
Most of the holdups on Hagel’s nomination have been purely cosmetic, an effort by a handful of Republicans to make sure we know they still exist after the election. But then you get to the real criticism against Hagel, and it seems that he is being punished for being ahead of the curve when it comes to disowning George W. Bush.
The Tea Party movement and new Republican ideology was (supposedly) spawned in part by a party upset with the direction that had been taken under Bush’s lead. And don’t forget that the 2012 Republican National Convention hid Bush in a closet like was a young Harry Potter. And yet, Hagel is being put to task for his tendency to go against the Bush Administration, primarily when it came to the Iraq War.
Fast forward 2009, and the whole Republican party had turned their negative opinions of everything that happened during the Bush Administration into the Tea Party movement. Anti-immigration, anti-government, and anti-spending. Logic would tell you that Hagel would be the “not in the mainstream” wet dream that Republicans are always trying to brew up in their dusty cauldrons.
Unfortunatley for Hagel it seems that he was ahead of the trend. And as with fashion, no one gets credit for predicting a trend, it’s not cool until it’s accepted by groups in the know. Hating Bush 10 years ago only made Hagel the guy in a coffee shop with a handle bar mustache trying too hard. 

    This Tuesday is scheduled to be the Senate vote for defense secretary nominee Chuck Hagel, finally one step closer to the ending of this incredible storyline and letting Hagel take the nap that his face has been screaming for since it started.

    You are probably familiar with the accusations that have been trotted out against Hagel, everything from the Dan Friedman “Friends of Hamas” joke that went viral in the Senate halls to the idea that Hagel hates Jews (the monster probably didn’t even cry during Schindler’s List). Tactics that don’t even involve Hagel have been used to block Hagel, such as Sen. Lindsey Graham vowing to block the nomination until he receives more information about Benghazi. Don’t worry though, every other embassy attack during 2012 is ok in Graham’s book.

    Most of the holdups on Hagel’s nomination have been purely cosmetic, an effort by a handful of Republicans to make sure we know they still exist after the election. But then you get to the real criticism against Hagel, and it seems that he is being punished for being ahead of the curve when it comes to disowning George W. Bush.

    The Tea Party movement and new Republican ideology was (supposedly) spawned in part by a party upset with the direction that had been taken under Bush’s lead. And don’t forget that the 2012 Republican National Convention hid Bush in a closet like was a young Harry Potter. And yet, Hagel is being put to task for his tendency to go against the Bush Administration, primarily when it came to the Iraq War.

    Fast forward 2009, and the whole Republican party had turned their negative opinions of everything that happened during the Bush Administration into the Tea Party movement. Anti-immigration, anti-government, and anti-spending. Logic would tell you that Hagel would be the “not in the mainstream” wet dream that Republicans are always trying to brew up in their dusty cauldrons.

    Unfortunatley for Hagel it seems that he was ahead of the trend. And as with fashion, no one gets credit for predicting a trend, it’s not cool until it’s accepted by groups in the know. Hating Bush 10 years ago only made Hagel the guy in a coffee shop with a handle bar mustache trying too hard. 

  • February 20, 2013 7:21 pm

    I’ve been watching the new Netflix series “House of Cards.” A quick synopsis for those unaware: “House of Cards” is a political thriller/drama based on various characters dealing with life and business in Washington, DC (The main 2 characters being House Majority Whip Frank Underwood and reporter Zoe Barnes.)

    To be honest, I love the show and have become completely enthralled with it. But, every time I watch the show the same question rings in my head - “What political world does ‘House of Cards’ exist in?” You see, “House of Cards” is a show populated with handsome men, beautiful women, and all are definitely not left wanting in the coolness category. Juxtapose that with the political world I worked in which consisted of a bunch of dudes eating Cheeze Nips in a small office bathing in their own smells. Sure, everyone was nice, but I feel like I missed out on a party.

    Now granted, the political scene of Florida is probably a very different scene than that of Washington, DC. But still, every character looks like they just got off of an L.L. Bean photoshoot and are on their to an Aerie video shoot. Has anyone actually looked at the political elite while watching the news? At best they look like a mannequin pulled out of a Marshall’s store window. On average, they’re like watching a turtle exhibit at the National Aquarium.

    Also, I feel like the bravado and intent on display by the characters is a bit of a fairy tale. Main character Frank Underwood (Kevin Spacey) is a calm, cool, and conniving Southern Democrat. He’s what we would’ve gotten if Charles Bronson ran out of death wishes and ran for Congress. His wife, Claire Underwood (Robin Wright), is a supermodel who heads a non-profit. The closest real life example I can think of to this power couple is the Gingrich’s, and the coolest thing they can boast is that their hair hasn’t moved out of place since the 90’s.

    Obviously this is just nitpicking, and the show is a great watch. It especially is worth checking out if you are tired of the same dull real life story lines of Washington do nothings that seem to be on a repeat track these days.

  • February 17, 2013 7:04 pm
    Anonymous:  Your art is so different from anything I've ever seen before. I really enjoy it.

    Thank you! I’ve been going through a bit of a creative slump so things like this really help lift me up.

  • February 3, 2013 9:28 pm
    artbyandy:  I don't have a question, just a statement. Love your line work.

    Thank you! I checked out your work, love the colors and the pattern work. 

  • February 3, 2013 5:33 pm
    I will be rooting for Baltimore tonight, for multiple reasons. The main reason being that I’m a Dallas fan, so there are 4 NFC teams that I’m inclined to root against: The Redskins, Giants, Eagles, and Niners. Reason number 2 being that I absolutely hate the Pittsburgh Steelers, so seeing their nemesis win the Superbowl will bring me great joy as I picture all of the terrible towels laying silent in a closet as The Ravens hoist the trophy over their head. View high resolution

    I will be rooting for Baltimore tonight, for multiple reasons. The main reason being that I’m a Dallas fan, so there are 4 NFC teams that I’m inclined to root against: The Redskins, Giants, Eagles, and Niners. Reason number 2 being that I absolutely hate the Pittsburgh Steelers, so seeing their nemesis win the Superbowl will bring me great joy as I picture all of the terrible towels laying silent in a closet as The Ravens hoist the trophy over their head.