ryan is the supernicety wrote:
] ] Bush photomosaic of Americans who have died in Iraq since
] ] the war president entered office. Link
]
] via boingboing

I was actually fairly offended by this. Its hard to explain but I'll try. Its like taking their bodies and using them for a selfish political purpose. A marketing purpose... like spam. Its seems disrespectful.

I don't care if you hate Bush. I don't care what your position on the war is. This isn't a kingdom and he is not soley responsible for the fact that these people are dead. Such a statement would only resonate with me if we lived in a dictatorship and these people were killed in domestic federal prisons.

Decius wrote:
] I was actually fairly offended by this. Its hard to explain
] but I'll try. Its like taking their bodies and using them for
] a selfish political purpose. A marketing purpose... like spam.
] Its seems disrespectful.

[ It's not hard to explain... it *is* offensive. Politicizing the deaths of our soldiers sits ill precisely because it dishonors their memory by making them a statistic, a number, or an infographic.

On the other hand, every time the president (or his staff) stands in front of the country and paints a rosy picture of the job being done in Iraq, or touts his leadership, or invokes the sacrifices of those very same soldiers in his bid for re-election, he's politicizing the same dead bodies. If Bush is going to use the good job he's done in Iraq as a campaign strategy, then it's only fair to remind people that there are a lot of dead americans to account for, not to mention the dead Iraqis, who we speak little of. Sometimes that reminder needs to be harsh to get the attention it deserves... people tune out numbers, they tune out statistics, they acclimate and stop paying attention to the endless parade of dead and wounded. If this sort of thing can wake them up to the reality of the situation then the purpose it serves tends to validate it.

I'd think a bit differently if it was John Kerry's campaign that put this together. If it turns out that that's the case, I'll be extremely disappointed, to say the least.

I'm sensitive to this issue, certainly. I reacted very harshly to the media right around 9/11, because I found it horribly inappropriate that they sit there and replay the same horrifying footage over and over again. Planes crashing into buildings, the towers collapsing, and worst of all, highlighted shots of people falling who had thrown themselves from the building in a futile attempt to escape. Is that news? The 3'rd time, 10th, 300th? That's dishonor. That's making spectacle out of tragedy in order to glue eyeballs to the set. The same talking heads yammered incessantly about the horror, and the sacrifice and how the country would never be the same, while trickling out the tiniest little bit of new information or speculation every so often, just to keep you hooked. I don't see this quite the same way.

...]

] I don't care if you hate Bush. I don't care what your position
] on the war is. This isn't a kingdom and he is not soley
] responsible for the fact that these people are dead. Such a
] statement would only resonate with me if we lived in a
] dictatorship and these people were killed in domestic federal
] prisons.

[... You're correct that many people had to work together to make this war happen. Congress and the DOD and the cabinet and the advisors all played their part. But be that as it may, the decision to commit our forces to a course of action rests with only one man. That's why he's called the Com... [ Read More (0.4k in body) ]

inignoct wrote:
] If Bush is going to use the good job he's done in Iraq as a
] campaign strategy, then it's only fair to remind people that
] there are a lot of dead americans to account for, not to
] mention the dead Iraqis, who we speak little of. Sometimes
] that reminder needs to be harsh to get the attention it
] deserves... people tune out numbers, they tune out
] statistics, they acclimate and stop paying attention to the
] endless parade of dead and wounded. If this sort of thing can
] wake them up to the reality of the situation then the purpose
] it serves tends to validate it.

Um, last I checked, the War in Iraq, and the number of dead, has been getting *enormous* attention. This isn't a backburner issue that people need to be woken up to, this is an issue that's already on every single front page.

I agree with Decius.

Elonka wrote:
] inignoct wrote:
] ] If Bush is going to use the good job he's done in Iraq as a
] ] campaign strategy, then it's only fair to remind people that
]
] ] there are a lot of dead americans to account for, not to
] ] mention the dead Iraqis, who we speak little of. Sometimes
] ] that reminder needs to be harsh to get the attention it
] ] deserves... people tune out numbers, they tune out
] ] statistics, they acclimate and stop paying attention to the
] ] endless parade of dead and wounded. If this sort of thing
] can
] ] wake them up to the reality of the situation then the
] purpose
] ] it serves tends to validate it.
]
] Um, last I checked, the War in Iraq, and the number of dead,
] has been getting *enormous* attention. This isn't a
] backburner issue that people need to be woken up to, this is
] an issue that's already on every single front page.
]
] I agree with Decius.

Ryan: That may be true; however, what doesn't get enough attention in my view is the administrations attempt to elude responsibility for it. People need to wake up and realize what has happened. It's like the bumper sticker says: If you aren't infuriated, you aren't paying attention.

It is reprehensible to me that the conservative commentators require we avoid talking about the needlessness of this war when the soldiers are in harms way without reailzing that the reason we (the anti-war folks) believe the war was needless BECAUSE of the human cost involved here. And while I didn't post this photo as the end-all be-all of political commentary (that's what the 30 political analysis blogs I read are for), I do believe inignoct's points are entirely valid.

ryan is the supernicety wrote:
] It is reprehensible to me that the conservative commentators
] require we avoid talking about the needlessness of this war
] when the soldiers are in harms way without reailzing that the
] reason we (the anti-war folks) believe the war was needless
] BECAUSE of the human cost involved here.

I've wrestled with this before. I don't think its simple. You've got people whose sons and daugthers, who certainly don't agree with the pacifist left as evidenced by the fact that they are in the military, are dying, and their friends and loved ones want to beleive that they died for a reason. And you've got all of these people claiming that they died for no good reason. This sort of noise makes it hard for those families to process the deaths. Its certainly not a good reason to eliminate criticism, but how do you criticise the war while maintaining respect for it's victims. Its certainly possible, but its worth noting that care should be taken.

inignoct wrote:
] Wether or not the war was just or ultimately
] positive, selling it to the citizens of america on false
] premises is a problem.

Yes, it is, but I see this as a separate issue, that is probably too complex to discuss in this context. Almost everything the government does is spun. Presenting the arguement that spin shouldn't happen is really to question the nature of a mass media driven representative democracy. (Which I would do.)

If we all agree that the stated reasons for Iraq weren't the real motivations, and we're all prepared to sit down and have a discussion about the real reasons we went to war with Iraq, which have been available long before the war, then lets do it. I want to do it. I have questions I feel are unanswered.

I don't see us doing it. What we're doing is saying that the stated reasons were wrong (which has always been obvious) and then claiming that we need to get out, and we shouldn't have been there, without stepping back and having the conversation about the actual reasons we went there. Usually, favorite conspiracy theory X about oil, personal issues in the bush family, or whatnot is inserted instead of the actual geo-political strategic issues and we rail against that instead.

This whole process is meaningless and political. Albright's essay in Forgein Affairs last summer about our relationship with Europe was the closest thing that I've seen to an actually geo-political response to the Bush strategy. And I agree with her for the most part. Unfortunately thats a niche journal that only nerds read. The mainstream political discourse has totally missed the reality of the situation. Its all bullshit.

] Reminding the country that people
] died, and continue to die, as a result, is entirely
] reasonable. -k]

Many of the points you are make in your post are valid. The problem comes when you tie them back into this picture. This wasn't an intellectual appeal. I'm not offended by left wing discorse about dead American Soldiers, the reasons for the war, the responsibility for the war, etc... Nor am I offended by right wing discussion of the exact same subjects.

This was not an intellectual appeal. It had nothing to do with any of that. This is on par with the Bush ads which included pictures of 9/11. It is a purely emotional appeal. It seeks to associate pain and suffering with Bush, personally. It defies all reason, thought, or discourse, and reaches straight for the most base kind of emotions. It is intended to produce hate. That is why it is offensive.

Decius wrote:
] If we all agree that the stated reasons for Iraq weren't the
] real motivations...

[ Alas, nationally, we don't yet agree on that. ...]

] I don't see us doing it. What we're doing is saying that the
] stated reasons were wrong (which has always been obvious) and
] then claiming that we need to get out, and we shouldn't have
] been there, without stepping back and having the conversation
] about the actual reasons we went there. Usually, favorite
] conspiracy theory X about oil, personal issues in the bush
] family, or whatnot is inserted instead of the actual
] geo-political strategic issues and we rail against that
] instead.

[... again, not obvious to some. Nonetheless, I think the resistance to discuss the actual geopolitical strategic issues as you say comes from the fact that the war wasn't presented in the context from the beginning. Frankly the oil theories and personal issues are bs, but they're not entirely a product of the wingnut left -- No one would've harped about personal reasons if W hadn't talked about Saddam trying to kill his daddy. Nevertheless, you're absolutely right that they miss the point. I think there were probably valid reasons for the war, but the administration didn't present those to the american people, so it doesn't get to use them ex post facto. If we start discussing all the good reasons we could've done it, we give them an out they frankly don't deserve. If those were the reasons, why didn't they use them to begin with? ...]

] This was not an intellectual appeal. It had nothing to do with
] any of that. This is on par with the Bush ads which included
] pictures of 9/11. It is a purely emotional appeal. It seeks to
] associate pain and suffering with Bush, personally.

[... Bush, personally, is the most responsible. This associates that real and actual responsiblity for dead soldiers with Bush. That it does so with emotion doesn't undermine it's validity, in my opinion. ...]

] It defies all reason, thought, or discourse, and reaches straight
] for the most base kind of emotions. It is intended to produce
] hate. That is why it is offensive.

[... I disagree. The photos aren't of dead bodies or mutilated wounded men. They're of people who gave their lives on the assumption that the guy in charge was using them for the best and purest reasons. If the first reaction one has to this is real, actual Hate, then I think that emotion is probably well established already. I don't actually hate Bush, but I do hate his falsity and I hate his obfuscation and evasion. I can't agree that hating someone's actions is offensive.

Not to mention, i think this entire milti-page thread proves directly that emotional appeals can produce an awful lot of reason, thought and discourse. -k]

inignoct wrote:
] [... again, not obvious to some. Nonetheless, I think the
] resistance to discuss the actual geopolitical strategic issues
] as you say comes from the fact that the war wasn't presented
] in the context from the beginning.
] If we start discussing all the good reasons we could've done
] it, we give them an out they frankly don't deserve. If those
] were the reasons, why didn't they use them to begin with? ...]

Much like the reasons, its complex. The most important part is that people just don't understand international relations. They don't appreciate the subtleties. They like their reality simple and loud and short term. You can't really be honest when you're trying to sell something complex and subtle and forward looking to a nation that loves muscle cars and electric guitars. We can't get everyone up to speed on the issue fast enough for them to have meaningful discourse about it. (This is kind of why we're a republic and not a democracy.)

Most things are small enough that you can do them by proxy and no one really finds out. Frankly, I didn't even hear about Somalia until Black Hawk Down started as a series in a philly news paper and someone pointed it out on a mailing list. Some things just happen to have simple, clear explanations, like the invasion of Afghanistan. Some things you have to hide with a sex scandal. Sometimes you just gotta come up with a bullshit story and hope it sticks. This time the story didn't stick, and if the republicans can pull an election out of it I'd say they got through by the hair of their chinny chin chins.

In this case in particular you have the added difficulty that this war was basically the worlds greatest global media mind fuck. You can't tell people that you are screwing with them if you expect it to work.

I don't like this aspect of the way things work. I think that people get screwed in this process because their interests are only on the table to the degree that the figure out whats up.

I'm hoping the internet will help people get more tuned in. Unfortunately, right now its mostly a wasteland of identity based partisanism, and thats when it is at it's best. However, the truth is out there. The net has been tremendously helpful to me in getting a clue.

] [... I disagree. The photos aren't of dead bodies or
] mutilated wounded men. They're of people who gave their lives
] on the assumption that the guy in charge was using them for
] the best and purest reasons.]

] Not to mention, i think this entire milti-page thread proves directly
] that emotional appeals can produce an awful lot of reason, thought
] and discourse. -k]

Sorry man, I can't reconcile those comments with this one:

] showing imagery of a casket being pulled from the wreckage is the
] lowest sort of emotion grabbing politics i can imagine. Despicable

If its your contention that the issue is bodies vs. not bodies you'd have to concede that the Bush ad would have been OK if he had used pictures of victims instead. I don't think you're prepared to do that. I'm not.

] If the first reaction one has to
] this is real, actual Hate, then I think that emotion is
] probably well established already.

You're certainly right on that point. This pic is for insiders. It re-enforces already established notions. The bush 911 ads weren't persuasive to dems either.

Decius wrote:
] ] Not to mention, i think this entire milti-page thread proves
] directly
] ] that emotional appeals can produce an awful lot of reason,
] thought
] ] and discourse. -k]
]
] Sorry man, I can't reconcile those comments with this one:
]
] ] showing imagery of a casket being pulled from the wreckage
] is the
] ] lowest sort of emotion grabbing politics i can imagine.
] Despicable

[ That's a very fair comment. I've had to refine my thinking in this area. I think there's still a diference between a the candidate himself widely running TV spots like this, and individual people expressing themselves. As I said, if this had come out of the Kerry campaign, I would be just as displeased about it as about the 9/11 ad (or I hope I would). It's a profit motive thing i guess. Perhaps it's naive of me, but the source really matters. I don't deny that the creator of the image had an agenda... it's just not as offensive to me if that person isn't trying to profit directly from it.

And also, no, I don't think I would have reacted as harshly had the Bush ad used pictures of people. I'm far from perfect and I've been faced with self-contradiction before, which I hope I've learned and grown from. Nevertheless, as we've seen in the past week, there's a distinction between hearing about the dead, and seeing an old picture of them, and seeing bodies. There's a continuum of emotive content. I still think the 9/11 ad crossed the line, given it's source. So yeah, I guess it's a double standard... I hold the president to a higher one than just about anyone else. -k]

Decius wrote:
] ryan is the supernicety wrote:
] ] ] Bush photomosaic of Americans who have died in Iraq since
] ] ] the war president entered office. Link
] ]
] ] via boingboing
]
] I was actually fairly offended by this. Its hard to explain
] but I'll try. Its like taking their bodies and using them for
] a selfish political purpose. A marketing purpose... like spam.
] Its seems disrespectful.
]
] I don't care if you hate Bush. I don't care what your position
] on the war is. This isn't a kingdom and he is not soley
] responsible for the fact that these people are dead. Such a
] statement would only resonate with me if we lived in a
] dictatorship and these people were killed in domestic federal
] prisons.

I can agree with that. But the administration has yet to provide a non-evasive reason for why he had these people die. It should be "in his face," and in that way, I can see the point. It is rude to the families of the dead used in the mosaic, but probably less rude then lying to them about the reasons why they died.