catapult magazine

Great article:

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/05/16/politics/16IMAG.html

I understand how you could say that the image Bush produced on the Lincoln was not identical to what was going on behind the scenes, but I don’t know why we have to call what goes on behind the scenes “truth” or “reality”, and what Bush produced “unreal” or “false”. The shadows on the wall are shadows, not deficient representations of what’s really real. Let the shadows be shadows. The danger arises when the shadows aren’t acknowledged as shadows.

I guess what I’m thinking about is N.T. Wright’s book about Jesus that I reviewed last issue. Wright shows that what matters about Jesus is His public ministry, what Jesus chose to make public. We don’t focus on Christ’s excremental achievements or sleeping habits to get a “real” picture of Jesus!

I don’t mean to equate Bush with Jesus by saying this, but I don’t think Bush should be at fault for staging what he wanted to make public about his role as “commander in chief” of the strongest military in the world. But I am still pondering Bush’s use of the prophet Isaiah on the ship, which may send the message that military might brings about peace and blessing to the people of the world (but perhaps that part of it was not meant to be consistent with the entire backdrop; and we can’t be so quick to rule out God’s use of military force because God uses sinful nations like Babylon and the U.S. for His own purposes).

My question to you, though, is how you would publicly acknowledge a successful campaign in Iraq without falling under the same criticism you’re leveling against Bush. A ceremony is a ceremony, a public display of one’s values and beliefs. I wouldn’t want to go to a wedding where, instead of vows, the bride and groom said: “We’re not going to have any of that false pomp and pizazz because it’s a bunch of B.S. We’re not going to make unrealistic promises, not going to say we’ll love eachother no matter what, not going to pretend that we won’t want to have sex with that pretty woman or gorgeous guy when we see them walking down the street.”

We need such ceremonies. On what basis, then, do you disagree with Bush’s ceremony? Dan thought it was in bad taste. He doesn’t like battleships, war planes, and people who take off their ties in the background. I much prefer Bush’s image to pictures of more buried bodies and starving children in Iraq five or ten years down the road, when the world is obligated to enter the Mid-East by force anyway. Such a ceremony of the future might look more like the gory funeral at the end of WWII when Germany’s crimes were finally uncovered.

Fine, the shadows are shadows. I agree. But some shadows are more clearly and accurately defined then others.

I can think of instances where it would be important to focus on the fact that Christ shat, or to wonder whether he snored. (This is more in terms of a distorted image—a shadow on the wall?—of Jesus that doesn’t recognize his humanity. I had a camp counsellor once who tried to teach us that Jesus never farted.)

As far as ceremonies, I guess I think it’s improper to compare a ceremony like a wedding (in which you make vows for the future) to a ceremony marking something that has already happened in the past (in which you deny what has actually happened and sugar-coat ugliness into something that seems only beautiful). I would say, why not acknowledge some of the ugliness? In the graduation ceremony of the students of Columbine, do you think it would be appropriate to paint a picture of the years there as something completely beautiful? I’m not saying we need to dwell on the bad, but I think it’s important to acknowledge it. (“I know some people think what I’ve done is a ‘sin,’ but I’ve got this image that I’m presenting to people, and we’re just going to let shadows be shadows. Why call what I’ve done ‘reality’ and this beautiful fa?ade ‘unreal’?”)

I agree, the image that Bush presented in his speech was much more preferable to images of burned and starving children. The problem was that its polished beauty obscured images of dead children, wounded mothers, and other horrors that our bombs produced and made it easier for America to go along happily without realizing what really (yes, I said “really” again) happened. It’s harder to right a wrong if you aren’t really aware that the wrong ever happened.

But maybe we should move away from the example of the aircraft carrier photo-op/speech. Maybe it would be easier to talk about another example that doesn’t involve a political figure who we have to either support or condemn absolutely. (That’s tongue-in-cheek, by the way. I think he’s a mixture of good and evil, like the rest of us).

How about Kenneth Lay? Should he be at fault for staging what he wanted to make public about his company?

Should the Iraqi Information Minister be at fault for staging what he wanted to make public about a weak regime that was under threat of war?

Should the Pentagon be at fault for staging what they wanted to make public during a time when things were tougher than expected and America needed a boost of morale?

Call me old-fashioned, but I say a lie is a lie. (Granted, that depends on what the definition of “is” is.)

The Isaiah thing could probably have its own thread if you wanted to discuss it further. :)

Another, related, NYT article…“Top Gun vs. Total Recall”

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/14/arts/14RICH.html

The beginning of the article deals with Arnold/etc and Hollywood politics, the end ties back to Bush:

A related op/ed piece…

lately i’ve been thinking about this issue in a related but slightly different way—not as just a “hollywood” presidency (eg. the set-ups for speeches, lighting, people in the background without ties…), but as the marketing of politics and the suppression of anything that doesn’t tow the party line, which is of course an issue of a much larger scale.

i’m thinking of:
[ul]
[li]the fact that bush doesn’t read the newspaper because they’re not objective (rather, he trusts objective people—namely the administration he’s surrounded himself with). i say, if they’re not objective, no one is. (i mean that).
[li]the fact that this administration is arguably the most secretive administration ever and inform us of relevant details on a “need-to-know” basis (usually with anything that might oppose their own agenda blacked out)
[li] the fact that after a few weeks where violence escalated and the media actually reported on it, the administration ramped up it’s publicity campaign by going directly to regional media where their message could get through without the “filter” of the national media. (remember: their message is objective as they give it to us, so we just need to learn to accept it instead of asking pesky questions)
[li] the whole intelligence issue from before the war
[li] the editing by the administration of reports by scientists that talk about global warming (and the cutting of parts that don’t lend support to the administration’s position)
[li] the huge (and growing) list of “sensitive” documents and information that suddenly become classified for unknown reasons; especially that most of them probably wouldn’t bring very good publicity to the administration or their actions. (tell me again why the energy task force needs to be classified?)
[li] the fact that rumsfeld wants to revive his “office of strategic influence” under a new name (ministry of truth?) to help market u.s. policies better overseas; the old one was closed last year after reports that it was issuing false information to influence public opinion. or, is it back in action already?…(aside, from an old edition of satirewire: “We got ya, sir, we’re ‘closed’,” said a winking Major Chad Brumley when Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld found him at his desk again today. “There is no one here spreading misinformation now, and certainly there won’t be anyone here spreading misinformation daily from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. Sir.” …“Every time I say ‘Go home,’ they just nudge me in the ribs,” Rumsfeld said.)
[/ul]

am i just blowing things out of proportion, or is there some sort of a scary pattern here?

added 11/1
[ul]
[li] just stumbled across this…“White House site prevents Iraq material being archived”
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/10/28/1067233141495.html
[/ul]

http://www.ajc.com/opinion/content/opinion/bookman/index.html

you raise an interesting point there, laryn, but don’t you think it’s possible that our president is only introducing this veil of secrecy to protect us from evil men who want to hurt us, instead of simply to curtail accountability?

thanks for your comments, laryn, i was starting to think i was the only one reading this thread.

i guess in answer to your question, i have to say, no, i don’t really think that’s possible. so much of what has been “classified” is not related to security and is pulled only after a report in the media draws attention to it in an unflattering light.

why just today i found another article on this issue…

http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1107_2-5102379.html

i can see how you could be disturbed, laryn, but i think you’re reading it wrong. you see, the media has this “filter” which is bad, and the bush administration just wants to protect us from the filter.