Dec

16

From a marketing standpoint, it’s not a good move. In fact, it’s such a bad move that there have been a couple of whispers that he is not really with the Resistance, but a ringer for the occupation thugs!

This argument is countered by Resistance realists who point out that thousands of people have been in the streets on many other occasions, in fact on a pretty constant basis since the occupation began, and that amid recent reassurances from Washington that the change in on-camera talent does not and will not mean any letup in the slaughter and assorted other atrocities, that it is unlikely that this one gesture is going to cause the Resistance to be any more effective against the weapons champion of earth than anything else has been.

Occupations end when they cease to be profitable, and this one shows no signs of ceasing to be profitable any time soon.

On the contrary, as key industries move forward to achieve their goals and objectives, the theatre will continue to expand, as we have seen recently in the little uptick in the low-profile occupation of Pakistan, which has been in place in its current incarnation, affectionately known in certain waggish circles as “Raj II” or “Raj Redux,” since the installation of Mr Mush.

This should not be taken to mean that the Resistance will falter. As the various “operations,” occupations, invasions, etc of the warlords themselves escalate, so will the Resistance.

It is, as it always has been, the wild card in the Great Game. Though not considered any serious threat to revenue in the paneled boardrooms, it would be disingenuous to assume that it will not impact other sectors, including many whom it would behoove to join the Resistance rather than oppose it, since in terms of that “impact,” the “average American” and the “average Resistance fighter” share a common enemy.

The difference is that the Resistance fighter knows who the enemy is, while the perception of “average American” on that question and the facts have some differences.

It is not for lack of marketing, although obviously no population in history has ever been on the receiving end of more marketing than the US public in the 21st century, marketing in theatre has been taking place, and not just the absurd “As Seen on TV” stuff involving airdrops of little leaflets informing those whose homes have been destroyed that they are now, at long last, free to praise the Washington regime.

If memory serves me, shortly after the invasion went on camera, I believe that at least one US mainstream media commentator characterized the shoes thrown at US gunmen  as the Iraqi way of expressing admiration and gratitude.

I regret that I do not remember the name, but it was probably somebody on Fox news. Maybe someone else with a better memory than mine can call upon his patriotic spirit to give a repeat performance, to allay any concerns that might arise among the US public that the Iraqi people are not grateful.

It’s a long shot, but it’s about the only thing I can think of that could save Muntazer’s life, or at least obtain for him the boon of a swift and humane execution.

Whether he acted on behalf of Resistance or invaders will not, of course, have any effect whatsoever on his fate, or the fate of his family.
In the event that he was acting as covert collaborator of some kind, he will not have been informed of that aspect of the operation.

Saddam Hussein wasn’t, either.

Dec

2

“Are you going to blog about the attacks?” someone asked me the other day.

“Which ones?” I replied.

Of course I knew which attacks my friend was asking about. Like so many people, myself included, she had stayed glued to the TV screen, watching the coverage of some attacks that the giant US networks had chosen to cover.

These attacks happened to occur in Mumbai, and while little is known about much of what actually occurred, and when, and how, what is known is that many, many people lost their lives, many more suffered horrible injuries.

Some of the survivors have been telling their stories in the media now, doing what is called “putting a face” on the tragedy.

During the time that CNN was providing its wall-to-wall “coverage” of the Mumbai attacks, there were, of course, other attacks occurring in other places, attacks about which little maybe known about what actually occurred, or when, and how, but many, many people lost their lives, and many more suffered horrible injuries.

We will not, however, be seeing any of the survivors being interviewed by US media, it is not intended that all such tragedies should receive a face.

While the impact on victims may be 100% objective and neutral, the dead equally dead, the blood of the injured equally red, regardless of where the attack took place, who was the ostensibly intended target, who were the actual victims, the way the news of the actual events is presented, if and when it is presented at all, is very different.

The murder of “civilians,” meaning people who are not employed by or acting on behalf of any entity participating or allegedly participating in a particular conflict, especially if this fact is more or less obvious, as in the case of children, the aged, the infirm, and as a practical matter, especially in some cultures, most women, especially young mothers, is considered by the US mainstream population, for example, excusable and understandable in some cases, as long as those cases involve stated intentions of a beloved entity and object of loyalty and reverence to kill someone else.

Someone who is said to oppose, even resist, the will of that beloved object of reverence and loyalty.

They call it “collateral damage,” and invariably issue statements of regret, and frequently, depending on that media situation, may offer money to the families of the victims.

Occasionally, they may assert that the victim was not really a “civilian,” but in fact someone who opposed or resisted their will, and the viewers nod to each other, just shows you can never tell, and for a while peer a little more suspiciously than usual at certain carefully selected neighbors and co-workers.

“Kinda stupid, doncha think, to complain about a double standard in a war?” was representative of some of the more polite emails I received the last time I dared to touch on this topic (elsewhere).

And I guess he has a point. Maybe the double standard is so accepted that he would not complain about purchasing a videogame player that did not work, or a restaurant meal contaminated with visible debris.

After all, could those businesses not claim that they, too, are in a war for surivival, as more of their counterparts and competitors are being consolidated into larger companies, or simply going out of business?

It is considered the height of poor taste and extremely offensive to point out that the attacks in Mumbai, just like all the other attacks that occurred elsewhere during all those hours of CNN coverage, were basically acts of business, the result of business decisions, taken with the objective of increasing revenue, of making profit, or making more of it.

Such sentiments could, if not limited to a handful of easily dismissible individuals teeming with undesirable characteristics to begin with, jeopardize the acquisition of revenue.

“Attacks” are not free, regardless of how they may be presented on (or ignored by) CNN.

Although effective marketing can lower, even eliminate, some labor costs, the fact is that every time a bomb explodes, someone makes money. Several someones, in fact, just as every time we brush our teeth, that simple act of hygiene reflects the passage of money into a long and convoluted train of pockets - from acquisition of raw materials, through the manufacturing process, down to the pittance paid to the neo-serf who placed the toothbrush - and the toothpaste on the shelves.

Blogroll

WP Themes