Archives About Staff BagNews is dedicated to visual politics, media literacy and the analysis of news images.
June 15, 2007

No Other Besides Him

Posl07 Onthecover0707

(click for fuller size)

What if Bush had possessed more weight and substance?  What if he had actually been equipped to handle 9/11?  What if he hadn't submitted to the war mania of Cheney and the neocons?  What if Rice had had the bearing and the "vision-thing" to steer Bush on a more tempered and mindful path?  What if "Compassionate Conservatism" hadn't been a total line? 

Then, and only then, would these VF fantasies (the one above, and the "what might have been" cover with Bush and Rice) have had any legitimacy in the latest Vanity Fair/Bono/Leibovitz "20 cover" Africa chain. 

VF writes:

We at Vanity Fair didn't think there could be a silver lining to the Bush administration, but perhaps it is, of all things, President George W. Bush's work for Africa. As the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development—an independent monitor of global spending—reports, the U.S. has quadrupled aid to the continent over the last six years. In his 2003 State of the Union address, Bush pledged $15 billion to fight AIDS primarily in Africa, and two years later pledged a $1.2 billion initiative to fight malaria in the 15 African countries hardest hit by the disease.

The fact that Desmond Tutu has to close his eyes to pose with Bush, and the fact it takes someone of Leibovitz's skill to fabricate Bush as having the capacity for an honestly committed and contemplative mood (body and facial tension not withstanding) makes this cover seem more like the act of apologists. 

Seven years in, with all the damage done, if this is a great portrait, it's because Leibovitz captures the blind, perpetual, knee-jerk tendency, in looking at Bush, to imagine some kind of silver lining.  (Annie, by the way, is the same person who brought us this.)

I welcome your thoughts on this shot, the Bush/Rice cover, and the overall series.

Cover slideshow here.

All 20 in one place.

VF Africa issue TOC

(images: Annie Leibovitz/Vanity Fair. July 2007. vanityfair.com)

  • http://casadelogo.typepad.com/factesque eRobin

    Your first paragraph made me feel such an overwhelming sadness as I remembered the days right after 9/11 when I thought that all of what you described could be possible (despite my deep dislike and mistrust of BushCo). I remembered that my mom, on the day the towers fell, knew what would happen in the time ahead and predicted it nearly exactly to me – including the invasion of Iraq. I told her that she was being too cynical and that we have to give him a chance to do the right thing. I know I’ll never get fooled again.

  • Neal

    From The Independent 1/2/2007
    (quote)
    The OECD statistics indicate that under the Bush administration, U.S. humanitarian and development aid to Africa has increased from $1.4 billion annually in 2001 to $4 billion annually. In addition, Bush has demonstrated a growing commitment to combating HIV/AIDS and malaria in Africa. Egypt, Ethiopia, Sudan and Uganda are among the world’s top 10 recipients of aid from the U.S, and U.S. trade with Africa has doubled since 2001.
    and
    Some African specialists complain that because of such conditions, American assistance is still more about self-interest than altruism.
    “I know a lot of activist groups who believe that the President’s stated commitment to Africa is, at best, a play on words,” Nii Akuetteh, executive director of Africa Action, an advocacy organisation, told The Washington Post. “There are conditions that are attached where the emphasis is more on countries that open up their markets so American companies can go in and privatise things.”
    (end quote)
    “Small” error but big money, quadrupling 1.4 billion in aid would be result in aid of 5.6 billion, quite a distance from the trumpeted 4.0 billion. In fact the article that I read had the headline “Bush’s aid to Africa triples.”
    Second, the aid is not all about altruism. Egypt is a key proxy torturer in the “GWOT”, Egypt is a keystone of the Middle East Potemkin Peace Plan and must be bought off, and Ethiopia is the base from which US forces operate in Somalia, Ugandan aid was mobilized by the US Christian repugnance of the LRA. I’m not sure where the money for Sudan goes.
    Some aid does good though, and Desmond Tutu appears to be holding his nose and closing his eyes to be able to accept being near this ever so American American. Bush looks exasperated, impatient.
    Why is the light on Bush in both the Tutu and Rice photographs? Bush is forward and in the photos, both Tutu and Rice are dark and in the dark, and they are sliding out from the edges. They are not important. Bush, it always about Bush. Praising the bully child for not kicking over this table.
    Hagiographic.

  • http://justbetweenstrangers.blogspot.com/ acm

    1) I’m pretty sure that most of that “pledged” funding hasn’t been sent, to the great frustration of all involved in handling it.
    2) Bush’s expression looks to me like one of his typical adolescent petulant expressions — “how long do I have to wait for this guy to think?” or “look patient, George” or something along those lines…

  • readytoblowagasket

    The operative words are: We at Vanity Fair didn’t think.
    Of course it’s hard to even get any fact-checking done when Bono (ohmygod!) is on line 1.
    So we just cribbed copy from everyone’s press releases to save time. I’m sure everyone fact-checked their own press releases.

  • croatoan

    If you go through the slide show of all the covers it looks like they’re playing Telephone.
    Desmond Tutu likes Brad Pitt more than he likes President Bush.

  • arty

    Since this site is ostensibly about photography, let’s remember that of the 20 Vanity Fair covers, only one (Bush and Rice) is a “real” photograph. Saying “the fact that Desmond Tutu has to close his eyes to pose with Bush” buys into Vanity Fair’s hype in an extremely oblivious way.
    The others are all electronically spliced together, acts that would get any actual news photographer fired if caught. Accepting this PR crap just because the sainted Bono is the supposed editor does no one any favors.
    “Caught” is the important word here. Unfortunately there are a lot of photographers and picture editors out there sweating bullets, waiting for someone to write in saying “Uh, about this picture that ran…”

  • Asta

    “AFRICA” is transparent, ephemeral, ghostlike.
    The particular red that was chosen for the background makes me uncomfortable, it is the color of dried blood.

  • paulimorph

    R-QB1

  • Dale

    This is not the first time that Vanity Fair, with Leibovitz’s help, tried to put lipstick on a pig… though back then, we had as yet to see how fat and rotund the pig really was. Shortly after 9/11, she shot a series of outrageously flattering White House portraits for the VF cover that made them look like they were subbing for the Royal Tennanbaums. The colors leapt off the page, and everyone had the crisp, bold outlines that screamed “decisive” and “power brokers.” Even Cheney looked good in the picture.

  • Priscilla

    I imagine this photograph was taken the moment Ms. Liebovitz asked GWB what types of fish he stocks in his lake.

  • http://www.dock.net/fuming_mucker/ Darryl Pearce

    …sigh. I was confused when I saw the covers and I remain confused now. Visually I see a collection of what might have beens in a scintillating colliope… leaving me–well– sad.

  • Anne Feldhacker

    Considering the blood George has on his hands, this cover is pornographic. What sort of fantasy land is Leibovitz living in?

  • http://nomoremister.blogspot.com Steve M.

    I can’t begin to tell you how much I despise Vanity Fair, Wolcott excepted. Africa = celebrities! It’s such a repulsive way of looking at things — and then, beyond that, we on the left in America get this worldview hung around our necks, even though we’re not the ones who actually keep electing celebrities.

  • Gahso

    I think there is a principle at work here whereby GW’s attrocities, of which there are a large number, get ‘balanced’ by any possible positive press he (& Karl) can muster. If there is anything positive at all to say, then the judgement of GW is immediately “mixed”.
    This is why his attrocities have got to brought to trial. GW has committed crimes against America, international crimes of aggression, and crimes against humanity. We simply cannot loose our focus on these issues because he is able to use his office to get a fluffy picture taken once in a while. He is a MURDERER and a TRAITOR.
    Agree with Anne F. – I’ve absolutely reached the tipping point where there are no happy images of George Bush. Show me a smiling photo and I only see blood gushing from his eyes.

  • http://www.woodka.com donna

    Oh come on, he let Darfur go up in flames and genocide. “George Bush doesn’t care about black people.” Unless they have oil he can take, of course….
    And that cover is an atrocious mess of bad photo splicing and bad typography. A visual disaster.

  • http://nettertainment.blogspot.com Mark Netter

    I read it completely differently. Bush looks like a fallen man. Tutu looks like he is praying for his eternal soul.
    Am I the only one who sees it very intentionally like this?

  • Asta

    Maybe Tutu is praying for God to save us all from George Bush.

  • http://ruinsofempire.blogspot.com/ Rafael

    First reaction:
    “Hey is Desmond Tutu on the cover of Vanity Fair! Nice red color too! Wait, whose the other guy with him?”

  • Kitt

    I haven’t yet read the article or anything ‘The Bag’ wrote related to this; I’m simply reacting to the photo.
    Whatever the context, Bush appears resistant. It’s his mouth; it’s set. There’s tension there.
    Then, I saw the words: ‘We are African, everyone.” I can just see from Bush’s posture, his saying, ‘not me, bud.’ It actually made me laugh out loud.
    (Am I the only one not impressed with Annie Lebovitz’s work?)

  • Kitt

    Dammnit…
    I think the background color is likely more to blend with Rev. Tutu’s clerical garb than to be reminiscent of the color of dried blood.

  • http://home.comcast.net/~sfs73/index.html MonsieurGonzo

    YouTube => You’re So Vain
    You walked into the party, like you were walking onto a yacht
    Your hat strategically dipped below one eye
    Your scarf it was apricot
    You had one eye on the mirror as you watched yourself gavotte
    And all the girls dreamed that they’d be your partner
    They’d be your partner, and…
    You’re so vain, you probably think this song is about you ?
    You’re so vain, I’ll bet you think this song is about you ~
    Don’t you? don’t you?

  • silly con carne

    I remember reading here a while back that a black border around an envelope in Eastern Europe, Germany(?), is a death notice. It’s done to prepare the receiver for bad news – sit down for this.
    Kitt – AL is good, no doubt, but not impressive, no. That would be like saying Wolf Blitzer is impressive. Once you go that far in the MSM your impression has been made and is only repeated again & again. I bet she has a nice portfolio, and I’m not talking pictures.
    The red? Any shade of red near W looks like blood. He is the vampire. It could represent what he’s done/doing to the Treasury, it’s bleeding red, as well. It’s a nice color … but imho – brings to mind team color of the winner in the 2010 World Cup in sunny South Africa: Portugal.

  • Robin Lee

    I’m really surprised that the only “real” picture in the series is the one with Bush and Rice. When I saw all of the pictures the first time (in the Barnes & Noble Window) I had kind of hoped that Tutu had actually had a moment to talk to Bush. Bush just looks vacant and it’s unusually unflattering of Rice. It looks like he’s just about to realize that there’s someone taking his picture. The next shot (if the photographer took one) would be the crap-eating fratboy grin we’re so used to seeing.

  • http://spiritspeaks.blogspot.com sravana

    I thought that several of the shots were almost pornographic, the Tutu/Pitt, and the second one with Madonna.
    In fact, I found most of them disgusting – celeb faces/flesh that relate only tangentially to Africa.
    Boo hiss!

  • http://www.fromthearchives.blogspot.com Megan

    Yeah, I didn’t like the series or understand the links between famous people here and how that helps Africa. I didn’t get it. I also thought that in most of the pictures, one person was a supplicant. Most of the supplicants were white, and they were … what? Asking for authority granted by blackness? Getting permission from a black authority? Why? For what? Is a black American celebrity an authority on African issues? Enough of one to hold a superior posture over a white celebrity, who also has no authority on African issues?
    I just didn’t get the whole thing.

  • ummabdulla

    I didn’t get the whole thing either, and I’m not going to spend much time trying.
    What are there – maybe 2 or 3 Africans out of all those people?
    I also was disgusted by the Maya Angelou/Madonna picture especially – as if they’re even in the same category. The next picture should be Maya Angelou swatting her away like an annoying pest.
    And I’d be curious to know how much of the money pledged to Africa by Bush has really come through. And how much of it is something other than military aid, like the weapons that have allowed the U.S. to use a proxy army to destroy the only stability Somalia has had in years, because it refused to let an Islamic government take charge.

  • ummabdulla

    And Tina Brown on “Princess Diana – The Love That Got Away”? C’mon…

  • Cactus

    This whole thing just makes me sad. That Liebovitz has been forced (or sunk) to the level of splicing photos for appearances’ sake……..will we ever be able to trust her photography again? Does she even care? That all too often in this 20-cover series the African “stand-in” could just as well have been a poster tacked up behind the “real” person. It shows nothing so much as a lack of respect for the subjects and the viewers. Yes the light is always on The W. In fact, the light is almost always on the white faces, dark on the black faces. I wonder why? Of course, we could be philosophic and say that it is because Africa is still under a cloud of under-development. Or we could go back to when it was called ‘the dark continent.’ Or even further when the phrase “darkest Africa” was common. Of course, that referred to the lack of exploration by the white man. The Africans knew very well whereupon the light shone.
    As for the cover above, I really don’t want to comment on it because it is a setup. It would have been more honest if the editor and artist had done a sketch of whatever was on their minds. Did they intend it to look like Tutu is praying FOR The W or wishing him away. Or is he thinking, ‘where’s a unicorn when you need one?’
    If you blow up the only real shot, The W and Condi, it looks as though The W is copping a feel (hence the wicked grin) and Condi is shooting him a ‘hands-off-stare.’ The W has the same 1000-mile stare into nothingness that he had when he was giving Merkel the Texas two-handed step. The man has no sense of anyone outside of his fingertips.
    I must say, if he had been on the cover of the VF that I bought, I probably wouldn’t have bought it. I wonder what the sales figures are for the different covers.

  • readytoblowagasket

    I always have the same two-part reaction to Annie Leibovitz’s work: My first response is always disappointment that the image is so superficial. Then, after I let some time pass and the editorial cover clutter fades (when all the insistent text and design overlay stops clamoring for my attention), I have a second reaction, wholly different from the first. Only after I give up on Leibovitz can I finally discern her wicked wry commentary, and I fall in love with her all over again. If she were to write the cover blurb for this Bush/Tutu image, it might say:
    The Devil and the Holy Man
    So while the editors are hallucinating a silver lining that doesn’t exist, Annie Leibovitz manages to slip in the statement that will endure: Bush is irredeemable.
    In the meantime, let’s do the math for Vanity Fair (since they were too lazy to do it): Spread $15 billion (which includes $5 billion that had been previously committed anyway) over 15 countries (not all of them African) over 5 years (time’s up in October 2008) with many strings attached (including abstinence-only education), and you have Bush’s global AIDS policy. It’s exactly like all his other policies: it’s worthless.
    Read more about PEPFAR (President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief) here.
    P.S. The background color is likely intended to signify blood. AIDS = blood. (Hence, the red ribbon.)

  • http://www.wednesdaywire.com Hubris Sonic

    is Tutu hearing his confession?

  • http://solarray.blogspot.com gmoke

    Bishop Tutu is a really small guy. I saw him once walking by Memorial Drive near Harvard one day. He is maybe 5 feet 2 inches tall.
    He also did one of the most courageous things I’ve ever seen on TV. In the days of necklacing, putting a tire filled with gasoline around a person’s neck and then lighting it, Tutu waded into the crowd around the necklaced one and removed it. It was on CBS News that I saw it. The expression on his face was determined and angry. He was magnificent.
    More recently, he has been talking about prostate cancer and sex education. He is a true hero in my opinion.
    Notice the peace and character in his face and compare it to the pruney pursed lips and almost audible sigh of boredom on W’s face.

  • http://www.groupnewsblog.net Hubris Sonic

    oh, and i am sorry but “20 Historic Covers”, give me a break, 20 pictures of celebrities? what the hell is historic about a magazine publishing pictures of famous people. jeez. Historic,… I am off for a “Historic” trip to the mens room.

  • slouching towards paranoia

    Its almost embarressing to say, but something about Condi’s expression, the direction of her gaze, and the set of her mouth,seemed pretty lusty to me. I see “I would like to take a big romantic bite of this guy” written all over her in this photo. W is of course oblivious, which I imagine is how we controls his women, by iliciting this sort of response and then ignoring it. I wonder if even this one is nt photoshopped…if so, AL has even a more wicked humor than I’ve noticed before.

  • MPGuy

    Let me get this straight, GWB gets himself elected to the highest office in the world, gets how many millions of people to vote for him, and a bunch of arrogant little typists smugly call him stupid, dumb and a variety of other things. Oh, to be so wise, not through facts, experience or logic, but by some kind of liberal osmosis that pervades these sites.
    I try, I really do try to visit a variety of places to understand what is being said and why. But sites like this literally drive me away with their total lack of depth and knowledge, much less maturity. Hatred gone wild is not too strong a term.
    And for the record, George Bush has been a tremendous disappointment and has betrayed many things that are important to me. But at least he has had the guts to be in the arena and take the low end crap thrown his way every day.

  • Asta

    MPGuy, perhaps you don’t understand that George is not EVER exposed to the “low end crap thrown his way every day.”
    He lives in a sterile environment. He’s immune. Like you.
    GWB was not ever elected to office. Deal with that fact first, then we might talk.
    Oh, and just to remind you, George really is stoooooopid. Geesh. How come all you NeoCons can’t grasp that? He is a PUPPET.

  • silly con carne

    “Hatred gone wild”
    The Republican mission.
    + An overused Republican buzzword/phrase taken from the list of jargon Republicans are given because they dare not speak for themselves.
    I agree with what Bloomberg said. This country is in trouble. It’s the Republican’s fault. Plain and simple.
    MP, re-read your comment, you’re only insulting people. That’s not living up to your own standards that you seem so focused upon. Confusing, for this tiny mind. Oh, it hurts when I think, ouch.

  • MPGuy

    Asta:
    On what basis do you know that he is in a sterile environment? Isn’t that just a convenient assumption? How do you have any basis for saying he is immune? You don’t know what he sees, reads, hears. Just like you don’t know me, but you know I am “immune.”
    You say he was never elected? Again, there were many institutions that went back and reviewed election results and none, not even the NYT, came up with a different outcome in Florida. At some point, the record has to be acknowledged. It is easy to run around just declaring one does/does not believe something- ask those UFO chasers in Arizona.
    Stoooooopid, Puppet? Why, why, it just is! Can’t you see that?????
    You make my case. And you call me immune.

  • MPGuy

    silly con carne:
    I’m not sure where you picked up that as a catch phrase- I hadn’t heard it before. It just seemed like a way to make a point. In fact, for all the talk of tolerance, inclusion, diversity, etc. it has been my experience that far left people are the real haters out there- one just has to hate the right people.
    As to the rest, we are really in trouble not when Bloomberg declares it, but when a sarcastic smirk passes for truth or wisdom.

  • silly con carne

    Example #1
    Example #2
    Example #3
    Haters, haters, haters. Marcia, Marcia, Marcia …
    Don’t buy into the hate. It’s a load an astronaut diaper couldn’t hold.

  • MPGuy

    To silly con carne:
    Amen!

  • Asta

    Of course, silly con carne’s examples are extreme neo-con hacks and hate-filled people themselves.
    Why do I hate Bush? Oh, am I supposed to feel all warm and fuzzy when I know we are all being lied to? That such immorality should inspired affection? I think not.
    A SELECTED, not elected, sociopath is in the oval office, lying about a war, justifying massive loss of life with more lies, and he’s the one sneering at us.

  • silly con carne

    … examples are extreme neo-con hacks and hate-filled people themselves.
    Exactly, using the word hate in headlines and text, in total orchestration.
    ‘Use your own negatives to attack your opponent with. Apply them to the opponent and your own negative issues don’t look as bad. Toned down in the confusion. Truth or not, no matter.’ Remember, ‘hate’ is now a form of crime.

    Frank Luntz
    taught them to do this, very well (btw). And it works … encouraging folks like MPGuy to think he’s observing all this hate, when he’s really being told what to think and say.
    MPguy, if you really are an MP, thank you for serving.
    Fwiw, I don’t hate any one person, I hate the AWFUL situation our country, and the World, is in due to the worst leadership this generation of humans has ever had to endure.

  • Asta

    “Fwiw, I don’t hate any one person, I hate the AWFUL situation our country, and the World, is in due to the worst leadership this generation of humans has ever had to endure.”
    That was well said. I respect you for taking the high road in voicing your opinion and will aspire to do the same.
    But it’s gonna be hard. I cannot bring myself to even look at a photo of Bush without cringing. He represents such wanton corruption and destruction (oh dear, I am beginning to sound like a Moody Blues song) and he seems so oblivious to the despair and pain he has brought to millions of people. (Consider the 9.9 million Iraqi refugees as a result of our occupation.) Yep, he’s spreading Democracy in Iraq and they are fleeing as fast as they can.

  • readytoblowagasket

    Regarding hate, sometimes metaphors are useful:
    Bush and the neocons are like roaches. I hate roaches.

  • silly con carne

    Amen!

  • Cactus

    Why to freepers like MPGuy come to this site and insist on posting? Because their sole purpose in life is to agitate progressives. They insist on parroting ‘freeper frases’ as truth in spite of massive evidence to the contrary. And they can’t resist calling all progressives by what they deem to be insulting names. Then they disappear. Thank goodness! Whenever I come across them, I remember this:
    The Woolly-Thinker’s Guide to Rhetoric
    Be dismissive: Go on, don’t hesitate. Brush people off, especially if they know about something you don’t know about. If they later turn out to be Nobel economists or widely-read philosophers, just pretend you’ve forgotten the whole episode. “When? Where was that? I don’t remember that at all, you must have me confused with someone else.”
    Moral One-upmanship: If people disagree with you, accuse them of Eurocentrism or elitism or intolerance or narrowness or conventional thinking or scientism or homophobia.
    http://www.butterfliesandwheels.com/rhetoric.php

  • readytoblowagasket

    Cactus: I recommend Moral One-Downmanship (that is to say, if people disagree with you, accuse yourself of Eurocentrism or elitism or intolerance or narrowness or conventional thinking or scientism or homophobia).
    I didn’t see it on the butterfliesandwheels list, but it really throws freepers. ;)

  • Cactus

    Awww, rtbag, you’re taking away all their fun.

  • MPguy

    To Cactus:
    I don’t know a thing about “freepers,” though I may like them if they agitate a bit. But I have to ask: what in the world are you talking about? I didn’t call a single individual a name or send any insults whatsoever. If you think I did, please cite them.
    Also, I didn’t disappear I just took the weekend off.
    Last, if as you say there are overwhelming facts to support your perspectives, why hasn’t a single poster ever put forth EVEN ONE? Go back over the whole exchange and see the things that were sent in reply to my posts. Do you see anything other than insults, assumptions and stereotyping? Nope- they are just like yours.
    bye

  • readytoblowagasket

    MPGuy: I didn’t call a single individual a name or send any insults whatsoever. If you think I did, please cite them.
    Okay, here’s a list of direct quotes:
    1) a bunch of arrogant little typists
    2) smugly
    3) Oh, to be so wise, not through facts, experience or logic, but by some kind of liberal osmosis
    4) sites like this literally drive me away with their total lack of depth and knowledge, much less maturity
    5) You make my case.
    6) it has been my experience that far left people are the real haters out there
    Insults to the group still count as insults. So don’t cry about a pile-on when you do that. If you want your point of view to be taken seriously, then present a legitimate argument.

  • MPguy

    If these things constitute insults, etc., how in the world do you ever debate anything except with those who you agree with? The points you label numbers 5 and 6 in particular are simply espressions of a position. If these are insults, then the real issue is that you take offense at anyone not of like mind who dares to express themselves. Certainly they should never use the term “smugly.”
    Man, it’s a big world out there. I’ve got sixty teamsters working for me and if I had your thin skin I would have gone crazy a long, long time ago. They are a hell of a lot tougher than what happens on these posts. Defend your ideas with logic and facts and you won’t have to get upset so much.
    I will agree that “arrogant little typists” is harder edged, but let me ask, is better or worse than roaches?

  • silly con carne

  • Asta

    If I may add something to this discussion:
    The way I see things now is — this web site, Bagnewsnotes, is kinda like someone’s home. Dr. Shaw created it, takes care of it, feeds it, mows the lawn, pays the bills.
    When we visit Dr. Shaw’s internet home, we should be respectful of all the guests here. We are all invited to visit this wonderful site filled with sights and sounds and ideas. We should be mindful of that and not trample the flowers, spill wine on the carpet or forget to flush the toilet after ourselves.
    That said…
    MPguy, I don’t think you quite understand the basics when it comes to simple good manners. You enter here, and because you don’t agree with some of us, you feel free to trample the flowers. You entered here as a conscious act of free will on your part. None of us have ventured into your space because you guard your space by not making information about your email addys or URLs or blogs available. You have a wall, and therefore, the playing field is not level in this case, because there are no walls HERE.
    So how is it you can justify getting your panties all in a wad when we call your hand on your inflammatory remarks? Explain please.

  • readytoblowagasket

    If these things constitute insults, etc., how in the world do you ever debate anything except with those who you agree with?
    Since they are your words, they are precisely what you intended them to be.
    If you want to debate, however, then challenge my argument about Bush’s AIDS policy with facts and logic. Or counter my interpretation of the cover image with your own insights. I’ll wait. Otherwise, this comment thread is not actually about you.

  • MPguy

    OK, one last time and then I will leave all of you alone.
    Readytoblowagasket: your approach would be fine with me. My initial comments, however, never addressed the aids policy or your interpretation of the picture. My comment was directed solely at the tenor and tone of the commentary. There was a long series of Bush is stupid, etc, and the usual invective and name calling. My point was how stupid could he be given that he managed to get elected to the most poweful position in the world. I really have no argument with you on the aids issue. As to your interpretation of the cover, whose to know one way or the other? Your interpretation is just that, an interpretation that is as good as any other.
    to Asta: Let’s see, if I trampled the flowers it was only because I presented my views on the content of a few posts. If to be a good guest means to agree with the other guests, and possibly to throw an insult or two at the administration, then I am not well behaved. Well, so much for discussion boards. I can’t play by those rules because I have something different to say.
    As to my wall, tried that once. Have you any idea the wave of, well let’s just call it “stuff”, that gets unleashed when one posts an unpopular opinion on some sites? I intended no insults here and with the possible exception of the typists comment, I don’t think any were put forth.
    With that, I’m on my way….

  • silly con carne

    Are MPGuy & MPguy the same person?

  • Asta

    Buh-Bye! Thanks for the dialogue. Hope you pay those teamsters a living wage.

  • ummabdulla
Refresh Archives

Random Notes