But don’t you see – you’re just reinforcing my point with your sarcastic pomo irony, refusing to take our questioning of the AP seriously. And you do it without a comment on the Gorton-POwerline analysis of the photo. Read through the many comments in the Belmont archives, with more being written on today’s post, on why many of us kooky neo-con types think it is a staged photo, and tell us why we’re wrong, or be decent enough to say you can’t be bothered to be sure that all we say are indeed questionable inferences.

I’m not suggesting that everyone who works at the AP is a raving terrorist. Far from it. It is precisely the casual carelessness about the product they’re selling that infuriates me, the taken-for-granted assumption that blood sells and we want it, wherever it comes from, whatever the politics and agendas of those producing it. And if anyone questions us, heh, it’s a free market and we’re acting in it as moral neutrals, whatever that could possibly be. In practice, you can’t be neutral in a war – whatever the official or theoretical pronouncements of those who want to avoid trouble. The assumption that you can be neutral is perhaps the ultimate lie of pomo thought. Care to debate it?

TO the degree I am engaging in quick rhetorical shots, it is because I assume that we must locate this incident in a larger historical context to which the rhetoric is intended to refer. As many have asked, how is it that an American organization has come to be a thoughtless conduit for the muderous p.r. machine of the other side, even if indeed the photog had no prior knowledge that the killing was going to take place. What kind of morality thinks it appropriate to pay for and distribute such a photo under any circumstances? And put it up for a prize? Only people who take anti-Americanism for granted – and who find it a legitimate stance for American professionals to take up without professing what is their de facto support for the terrorists (since you can’t be neutral in a war) – cannot be upset by this photo. THis ultimately is what I want to debate, should you have the courage.

Try digging into the details–the entire story is IN those details–don’t just snap off a quick knee-jerk and ascribe the whole brouhaha to (insert-left-wing-cliche).

See what ya think when ya know the whole story. Frame it as though your daughter or brother is over there fighting–because, in a way, your daughter and your brother ARE over there fighting.

This actual thing actually happing is way, way too serious for this left/right sparring. let’s all try to get outside all this pre-packaging. Like real people, who used to be able to think.

GWB, for example: I think–because of his person alone–he attracts a lot of fury that ends expressed blindly, as an utterly unrecognized implicit betrayal of ordinary people, seeing them in the same form Saddam-types must see them: A big nameless Thing, silent, numb, without human aspect.

This ‘I’ve-been-personally-insulted’ fury wrote that NYT essay to wit above, it writes for old JJE here, it’s a fury that has willfully–because of fashion–blinded itself to any connection between today and all past policy causes/effects, political-economic history, and indeed human nature itself.

Just ask, if GWB was urban, urbane, accent-less, and looked Esquire-model elder-statesmanish, how much of his opposition would evaporate in a gnat’s eyelash?

Glib rhetoric has for sure–good observation–gone to the nth degree when its only purpose is to accuse action itself of being “glib rhetoric”.

Since it’s now at its nth degree, we can hope for a breakdown…we’re probably in that breakdown already, signs abound. Quiet dissolution–much better than a loud blowup. Thank you, Mr. President!

A polarized country and culture I can understand. But why is the one, shall we say left, side not doing more to promote intelligent commentary in order to bolster its position? Did you see the Glassman article in the NYT today on the photo? What utter drivel. It’s like the mark of honor for people today is to be top rank service providers for Propagandists R Us. No shame in it. Dumbing down, bald-faced partisanship, is cool. It’s obvious that we can never have a serious debate with the likes of JJE. But don’t they see how self-destructive this must be in the long run?

Do they take themselves seriously as (post)historical agents? Or is pomo irony taken to the nth degree seriously beyond seriousness? Buddy, I think you’re right that a renewed authenticity must be the next esthetic trend.

http://www.wretchard.com/blogs/the_belmont_club/archive/2005/04/11/1953.aspx#comments

I could link you to many analyses of the photo. BUt maybe a loyal school boy like yourself will be most impressed by the testimony of an MSM man. Check out the analysis of the photo, and of the lens likely used, by D. Gorton of the NYT:

http://powerlineblog.com/archives/2005_04.php#010128