« Krugman: Wishful thinking (in pictures) | Main | IHT: Many children of expats denied the right to vote »

March 10, 2004



...and this photo, planes and all is not considered disprespectful? This is beyond sick.


ROTFLMFAO! Brilliant!

Jim, if this were an actual anti-Bush campaign ad, then I would consider it in very poor taste. But this is *satire,* which is by its very nature irreverent, if not out-and-out disrespectful. It's a bit different, at least in my view.


I seem to recall another invidivual who also engaged in "satire", so he said, and many in EAB, myself included, were offended by that.

I would have to agree with Jim, if Bush isn't allowed, is condemned, or who are offended for his use of 9/11 for his campaign ad's why would this be considered acceptable?

The jets that crashed into the WTC, the WTC in which several thousand people, firefighters, police officers, and other emergency service people died on that day are being used for "satire" or would this be called "political satire"? How is that acceptable?


Chris, Jim... this is a comment *on* Bush's exploitation of 9/11 - not just in his recent campaign, but throughout his term.



In that case then Bush's use of 9/11 in his campaign ad could also be considerd a comment
on his leadership during those eventful days.




Whoops, you got in quick! I meant "exactly" in response to Tim. :^)


Remember that classic satire, Jonathan Swift's "A Modest Proposal"? When he wrote about killing and eating Irish children, it was the powers-that-be that had created and exacerbated the problems of starvation and poverty that were the target. To have taken offence on behalf of the Irish poor would be missing the point entirely.

Satire - and humor in general - is a way for those without power to call to account and express anger at those in power. It often uses exaggeration and controversial images and statements to make its point.

Abusing fellow posters who are seeking intelligent debate on weblogs is not satire. It's just offensive, unimaginative and pointless.

Bush exploiting other people's tragedy for political gain is also unacceptable. Hence the need for satire to call him to account.


In other words, if it serves your purpose, you're ok with it.


"Abusing fellow posters who are seeking intelligent debate on weblogs is not satire. It's just offensive, unimaginative and pointless.",
on that I agree with you miriamg. However, that individual did view their posts as "satire".

While I did find some of the images in Bush's campaign ad unnecessary and even in bad taste
this image presented here could also be considered exploitive of other people's tragedy
in order to illicit a response for the purposes of political gain, unnecessary and in bad taste.

But, then that's just my viewpoint.. As they say all's fair in love and war.....

BTW, I did find it somewhat humorous....


Perhaps a little Remedial Satire 101 homework is needed.

Read "A Modest Proposal" (full text and crib notes available widely online). Compose a riposte to Swift, declaiming him for exploiting the suffering of the Irish poor for the advancement of his own career, the lousy hack. Attack him for his bad taste and disrespect of Protestant landowners and Catholic children. Miss the point entirely AGAIN. Write your own proposal condemning the use of controversial images by political cartoonists, while supporting their use by incumbent politicians.

Please! Some brain-engaging here, please, rather than knee-jerk Bush-supporting. Here endeth the lesson.


Intersting how one side can view a set of images with such disdain, condemn, rebuke, and cry foul
while applauding another image of the same event, come up with all manner of justifications, excuses, well worded arguments supporting it,
throw in a few berating phrases to boot, take on a holier than thou attitude, and be completely oblvious to their own tunnel vision. Fascinating, absolutely fascinating.

Now that's something to "ROTFLMFAO"....


"Abusing fellow posters". Is anyone who disagrees with someone here abusing them? Granted, I know MOST of you think that anyone who is slightly conservative is evil.
It's odd that using an actual 2 second image of something that actually happened and affected Presidential decisions (rightly or wrongly) over the next 2 years is considered obsene. However, drawing a cartoon to satirize the President and using images of the two planes and the towers is ok.
You see no double standard here?

C'mon call me names and insult my intelligence. I love it.


Oops, I didn't check my spelling. Let me have it.


BTW, I wasn't referring to Jim in my previous post on the matter of abusing fellow posters nor
on the subject of "satire". I was referring to another person; if that matters.


Of course, we could all focus on the correctness or incorrectness of images and ads OR focus on the real core issues like this one:


You think?


Or possibly this one?


And they said there isn't a problem with Global Warming?


Chrish - I understand that you are comparing this example of satire to something, and I understand that it has to do with Del.....but what example of Del's satire are you comparing this with? I'm confused.



Sorry, I don't understand your confusion? Yes,
I am comparing Del's "satire" with this "satire".
Del used satire on this site which many found
offensive and inexcusable. I also found his use
of "satire", as he called it, offensive as well.

Yes, I chuckled at the image but, also found the use of it offensive just as you, no doubt, found
Bush's use of some 9/11 images offensive. Which,
by the way, I also was offended by some of the images in his ad.

My point being either way both sides are using the
images and suffering of 9/11 to further their own political agendas whether Pro-Bush or Anti-Bush
and that I do find offensive.

But then, that's just my opinion.

The comments to this entry are closed.

February 2005

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
    1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20 21 22 23 24 25 26
27 28          
Blog powered by Typepad
Member since 10/2003