Boys Vs. Girls

That is just about how it works.

In Which Offense Is Taken

The inter-tubes are all abuzz over the news that some leftish entertainment network had the audacity to include an image of former President George W. Bush's likeness poised atop a pike.  I am sure that Vlad the Impaler is having a modest chuckle over this episode.

I must admit to having twin responses to this story.  One response was "oh no" expressed with modest bit of appreciation for this mischievousness involved.  The other was "oh no" with a more serious and negative emotion attached.  Is it possible to have such divergent responses simultaneously?  I did.

Observations about the lack of outrage emanating from the media over this incident when compared to the (thus far theoretic) notion of an entertainment company doing the same thing to the likeness of Barack Obama, or Bill Clinton, or John Kennedy are accurate, cogent, and appropriate.  Our leftish dominated media reserves such moments of outrage solely for those occasions when their oxen are being gored.

The discovery of this singular act of poor taste and crass partisan ship was revealed on the audio commentary portion of the DVD.  A screen shot of the frame where Mr. Bush's likeness appears does not overtly suggest that his countenance, although the resemblance is obvious once it is pointed out.

Despite reports from some theoretically professional quarters, [coughCNNcough] this was not discovered by an astute viewer, but instead was more closely examined upon hearing the aforementioned comments.  A small lesson here...folks, sometimes it is better not to tell all you know!

From the audio commentary:

“The last head on the left is George Bush,” the producers say in the audio commentary. “George Bush’s head appears in a couple beheading scenes. It’s not a choice, it’s not a political statement. It’s just, we had to use what heads we had around.”

After a modest amount of complaining, the producers offered:

“We use a lot of prosthetic body parts on the show: heads, arms, etc. We can’t afford to have these all made from scratch, especially in scenes where we need a lot of them, so we rent them in bulk. After the scene was already shot, someone pointed out that one of the heads looked like George W. Bush.”

And this is where I get offended.  Precisely how stupid do they think I am?

Given that their program has precisely nothing to do with U.S. national politics, how did they come to be in possession of Mr. Bush's likeness?  What other visages do they have in inventory?  Is their inventory of faux heads an assortment of known faces, or is it a collection of the nondescript with a Presidential profile added just to spice things up?

I'm willing to bet that the real story is that Mr. Bush's likeness was needed for some other production; for good or for ill.  When that show ended, someone saw the head and thought "I've got to save that for something special", and not in a good way.  When this program came along, they saw an opportunity to exercise a bit of codology and went for it.

Understanding that this is an entertainment oriented [and therefore more skewed politically to the left] environment, they saw no harm in letting others in on the gag.  One reasonably suspects that this modest bit of tomfoolery actually enhanced their reputation at the time.  Not so much now.

They were acting from within an environment that is known to accept that sort of behavior.  They were safe.

Was it a choice?  Hell yes.

Was it a political statement?  Hell yes.

The producers and anyone else responsible need to man-up and accept responsibility for their actions that further coarsen our political discourse.  Of course, making a couple of heads roll would probably help as well.

Kum Phuc

Do you know the story behind this photo?

Nick Ut / The Associated Press

If you think that this image has something to do with war-mongering Americans dropping napalm on innocent civilians, then perhaps it is time to reassess.

It Didn't Work Then

Periodically, I have moments where I enjoy my online reading preferences.  One of those was a couple of days ago when Mr. Obama's campaign began pushing the idea that Mr. Romney favored fewer firemen, teachers, etc.

The Blogfather had the perfect quick take on the subject.

As my father-in-law once said, when they talk about taxes it’s always for teachers, firemen, and police — but when they spend your taxes, it always seems to go to some guy in a leather chair downtown you never heard of.

As Reason noted, a lot of the stimulus money was advertised as going to help local government jobs like teachers, cops, and firemen, but on those few occasions when the money actually supported those jobs, those people got laid off anyway after the gravy train ran empty.  Not exactly the sort of jobs program that was advertised up front.

From Mr. Romney's campaign:

“President Obama fundamentally believes in raising taxes to grow government. He believes that we must hire more government workers to fix the economy. Every day, we learn why President Obama has not been the leader to take us out of this economic crisis. President Obama wants to stimulate government, Mitt Romney wants to stimulate the real world economy.” 

It's good to understand the talking points before they come out so I can just bypass the conversation altogether later on.

Go South Young Man

In the "news you can use" category comes an assessment of energy consumption based on various regions of the United States.  Do you love Mother Earth?  Then perhaps you ought to be moving south!

Perhaps the blue model politicians whose tax and spend policies are driving businesses and residents out of their states are smarter than they look. They could be green activists, steadily working to save the earth by driving people out of the northeast. We look forward to green activists introducing legislation in Congress to levy new taxes on those whose choice to live in cold states imposes costs on the more virtuous and eco-friendly inhabitants of Texas and South Carolina.