BAGnewsNotes

Special (Photo) Ops

If you've been following the wires, the tactic of surrounding Bush with service men and women has reached almost manic proportions.  It's one thing to put Dubya on a chow line, but this shot -- taken yesterday during a "visit" with the US Coast Guard in Miami -- hardly pretends to be incidental.

Let's line up those war props -- uh, I mean crewmen -- then have the commander-in-cheese do a runway walk down the broom-swept dock doing his old "smoke 'em out of their holes" strut.  Shoot it from a low vantage so that Everyman -- with the rolled-up shirtsleeves -- looks as big as the ship.  Make him perfectly centered with the bridge and lined-up with the vertical red stripe to connote the utmost symmetry (cognitively contradicting the fact that absolutely nothing lines up anymore).  Have him move left-to-right, as if he's always transitioning from the past, yet always  (only) halfway.

But next time, kill that self-conscious business with the lips.  It clashes with the upward (optimistic), far-off (has the "vision thing") look.

(...Oops, and there is an American flag.  It's in the insignia -- close to the real power!)

(revised for clarity: 7:20 am 8/1/06)

(image : Paul J. Richards/AFP - July 31, 2006.  Via YahooNews.)

So, What's Your Point?

We've been witnessing Administration finger wagging for years now.  I don't recall an instance, however, when it came back at them like this.  Maybe "Old Europe" has finally had it with America's "New Middle East."

In the body language department, look at Condi's eyes.  One reason she has her head cocked is because she's a little teed off right now.  The other reason is to establish a higher plane for her gaze.  By elevating her field of vision, she negates (at least, from her mind) the very existence of Javier Solana's gesture.

Regarding this attenuation of vision, Digby highlights Mark Lynch's comments about BushCo's spectacular missed opportunity in Lebanon.  (Lynch's site, Abuaardvark, is indispensable for its coverage of Arab media, and gives generous play to the visuals, as well.)

Finally, check out this protest image close by the ASEAN forum (where the top pic was taken).  in the background is Kuala Lumpur's Petronas Twin Towers.  It's a not-so-subtle reminder of how the Administration's embrace of 9/11 evolved into a perceived war on Islam.  (Is the second "Rice" supposed to read "race?")  It's also one photographer's clever aside on how the WTC has been turned into wallpaper.

(hat tips: Brian, Bob)

(image 1: Dita Alangkara/A.P.  July 27, 2006. Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia  in YahooNews.  image 2: Vincent Thian/A.P.  July 28, 2006. Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia  in YahooNews.)

Any Boob Can Tell You

In about three weeks, the fam and I will be relocating to Spain for the coming school year.  (Don't worry.  I'll have more time to blog.)

Anyway, this is just one of the reasons why:

Breast-feeding cover upsets magazine readers

Associated Press
Jul. 28, 2006 12:00 AM

NEW YORK - "I was SHOCKED to see a giant breast on the cover of your magazine," one person wrote. "I immediately turned the magazine face down," wrote another. "Gross," said a third.

These readers weren't complaining about a sexually explicit cover, but rather one of a baby nursing, on a parenting magazine. It's yet another sign that Americans are squeamish over the sight, even as breast-feeding itself gains more support from the government and medical community.

Back Fire vs. Backfire

I've been meaning to post this fine cover since it came out one week ago.  My hope, if we could, is to focus on Israel versus Hezbollah in terms of results on the battlefield.

In the last few days, a forming consensus (exemplified by this NYT piece on Tuesday, or Billmon daily) is that Hezbollah has shown surprising strength while the fight has been going badly for Israel.  This cover surfaced, however, on the cusp of that impression.  So, while it might have originally had a more understandable skew, the image seems to be growing more ambiguous by the day.

On first pass, I assumed the Israeli soldier was standing next to a missile launcher, having just fired off a round.  After all, wasn't that the picture in Week 1 -- and historically, as well?  On that score, where the ambiguity specifically lies in this shot is in the feeling of Israeli isolation, the sense of absorbed shock and the implication of blowback.  Pushing it further, though, the photo might even suggest an IDF soldier suddenly caught in the open, dodging fire, maybe even disoriented.  In light of yesterday's ambush in Bint Jbeil, these latter suggestions -- no longer far fetched -- suddenly tap a whole new level of Israeli vulnerability.

(And, as a side note, how often would an American newsmagazine offer its audience something like this?  For all its suggests, this cover remains remarkably open ended. Credit The Economist  for trusting its readers to work with it.)

I'm sure you see other inferences here, and also have thoughts about the title.

(image: The Economist - North America Edition.  July 22, 2006.  Cover)

Spasms In Rome

 

Yesterday in Rome, Condi stymied a whole contingent of Arab and European countries, arguing against almost any notion of a cease fire in Lebanon.  At the press briefing following the meeting, she took an emotional pummeling for it from an impassioned Lebanese Prime Minister, Fuad Siniora.

Keenly focused on facial expression, the visual media honed in on the resultant, and highly accentuated signs of strain.  In the top image, look at Condi's neck muscles.  Bottom left, check out the cheek, nose and neck.  Bottom right, look at the forehead.  Stressful, yes.  But considering Rice's extraordinary rigidity and self-control, to what, specifically, can we attribute this straining?

Your Turn: Biblical Proportions

Whenever I'm running low on zzzz's, I know I can rely on the readership to keep maintain the pace.  At the same time, your interpretative skills are becoming so developed, it takes an accomplished picture to measure up.

With the Lieberman primary coming soon, Thomas Dworzak offers up this freakish photo in the latest New York Magazine.  Yes, I read the whole feature, but mostly to find some background on this background. Coming up with zilch, the best I could do was read it against the title -- Joe Lieberman’s War -- and the heading: The hawkish senator finds himself in an epic battle—with his own party.

Maybe it's all those World War III references I see suddenly, but the juxtaposition between cross and bible, and "war" and "epic battle" makes me think that fear of holy war seems to be permeating just about everything these days.  In that way, is this background simply exploitive?  If not, what lands it in such prominence?

Religion, race, gender, lightening -- the collection of symbols is truly hair raising.  What kind of charge do you get out of this?

(hat tip: Justin)

(image: Thomas Dworzak/Magnum.  New York Magazine.  August 7, 2006)

Tuesday Bulletin Board: "America♥Lebanon"

If Sunday's NYT Week In Review thought America's Middle East policy lacked a compass, they should have waited till Monday to see our stance on Lebanon do a 180˚.

If your going to conduct foreign policy by photo op, and you want to leave the impression you suddenly gives a damn about the locals, should a handshake with the President really be that big a stretch?  And, unless absolutely unavoidable, why make the other guy do all the straining (unless, your real intent is to reach out while putting the guy in his place).

The Marines Have Landed. (Pass Your Luggage.)

If you closed your eyes for a moment, couldn't you see this image as having some kind of connection to international, rather than domestic politics?

Instead, however, the visual media -- once again doubling as the Administration's PR arm -- floods us with dramatic pics of sea landings and helicopter air-lifts to help reframe the Government's delayed response to citizen's pleas for evacuation.

I just love the shot, reeking -- as it does -- of authority, resourcefulness and spirit.  At once, it conjures iconic WW II beach landings.  It shouts out: "Dark days may be upon us, but we will prevail!"  And best of all, those college students and seniors are so distant, it almost appears like the Marines, on Lebanese soil, are making a (larger) difference. 

(image: Kevork Djansezian/Associated Press.  July 21, 2006. New York Times. Cover.)

A Touching Man, Part II

(Conclusion revised: 9:16 am)

(click for full size)

The thing about those "Merkel massage" video frames is that -- like scanning a flip book -- they are mostly concerned with the story line.  In this case, the climatic moment occurs in shot #3, with Merkel doing the big flinch.

Breaking the sequence into "before" and "after" (or, "before," "during" and "after"), however, I was particularly interested in shot #1.  Here comes Bush, the boy with the silver spoon.  Look at that cocked left arm.  I'm the baddest guy in the bar.  This is Bush without the script -- but unaware that he needs one.  This is the guy who, one weekend, suddenly decided he would nominate chum Harriet Myers to the Supreme Court -- and he would do it before anybody (specifically Rove or Cheney) could get to him.

So, did Bush have this Merkel stunt in mind when he entered the room, or did it only come to him after frame #1?

Recently, I wrote that the war in Iraq was an impulsive act on Bush's part.  In reply, a reader countered that this was impossible; it had been planned for months.  This can be true in a technical sense, but not necessarily a psychological one.  An impulsive can always take time.  That doesn't mean, however, that much more processing will be going into it.

Really, it doesn't much matter if Bush actually conceived his "massage strike" on the German Chancellor when he entered the room, or it just came over him at the last instant.  The interesting thing is that Bush -- pre-set to carrying out his "prankish" agenda -- registers not an iota of change in his demeanor (shots #2 - 4).  There's no time, you say?  That's not true, however -- especially given the fact Bush was  physically connected to Merkel's body.  (In comparison, just look at the range of movements, actions and, especially, reactions Merkel goes through in those 3 or 4 seconds.)

As much as one can tell, however, Bush physically and emotionally "stays the course."  Merkel couldn't have given Bush a more extreme cue if she had jumped out of her seat, or thrown back her arms and clipped Bush in the nose.  The example is no different in the larger world, by the way.  Political situations can shift and react as suddenly, dramatically and unexpectedly, and Bush wouldn't deviate (from his at one time impulsively determined, and then fixed agenda).

These stills suggest that he just doesn't feel it.

(images: taylormarsh.com via You Tube)