« Chirac and Afghanistan | Main | More Veep speculation »

June 30, 2004

Comments

Ermmm, while I knew it was based on the Goya painting, and the Greek myth of Saturn, and while I am certainly no fan of Bush, his catastrophic administration, or his shameful policies, I don't think that the authors and publishers of this image thought that most people would see it and think "Aha, a political metaphor for Saturn's vain attempt to prevent his overthrow by his children." Generally, people don't know classic art OR Greek mythology, and besides, the metaphor is really streched. Something from the Horrors of War would have been more appropriate.

It's a picture of George messily devouring a human body. Let's not go all literary or nothin'.

Edward:

Nice post. I might go just a litle farther. Naif that I am I believe that both Messrs. Kerry and Bush want the very best for our country. They may differ in means but both have good intentions. Why don't we just put motives off-base entirely?

double+good,

Serra is one of the most brilliant minds in American art. He most definitely meant for it to be read in the context you reject.

Dave,

I wish I shared your POV. I really don't think Bush wants to destroy the nation, but I do think what he wants to do is not necessarily what he says he wants to do.

Actually, in the spirit of this thread, let me qualify that.

I wish the Bush Administration was less secretive. Nothing inspires confidence and trust like transparency.

Edward Serra is one of the most brilliant minds in American art. He most definitely meant for it to be read in the context you reject.

Do you think that he thought most people are familiar with Goya and Saturn (not the planet, not the car)?

How short people's memories are.

Do you think that he thought most people are familiar with Goya and Saturn

I think he's committed to the idea that intellectualism is not a sin and that if he's going to express an idea he's going to do so with the full intellectual strength at his disposal. The fact that some Americans may associate "Saturn" with a car before they do an ancient God doesn't require him to dumb down his message. That only cheapens it for everyone else.

great link Elayne...thanks!

It's also worth noting The Nation's longstanding policy of publishing ads regardless of their offensiveness or political content.
See this letter:
"At The Nation, however, we start with the presumption that we will accept advertising even if the views exposed are repugnant to some of the editors. In fact, we go out of our way to refrain from making a judgment based on our opinions of the views expressed in an advertisement."

And note that the letter was written about an ad by David Horowitz; it's not an ideological test. I am reasonably confident that the Nation would publish the same ad with Kerry or Nader's picture.

That Brooks column is terrible. One of his key pieces of evidence that the country used to be less polarized is that the liberal bastion of California voted for Gerry Ford in 1976. Well, California also voted for Thomas Dewey, Dwight Eisenhower (twice), Richard Nixon (twice), and Ronald Reagan (twice). Between FDR's death and Clinton's election California went Democratic exactly once, in the 1964 landslide. He writes that "whole regions are now solidly Democratic or Republican" as if that did not describe the "solid South" from the end of the Civil War to the early 1960s.

As for Kristof, I will just point out that the dictionary definition of the word "lie" is--

1 : to make an untrue statement with intent to deceive
2 : to create a false or misleading impression.

I am in favor of civility, but a lie is a lie. Sometimes clear language has to trump politeness. Especially the impolite language is directed, not at ordinary voters, but at officials of an administration that has no qualms about breaking Godwin's law in campaign ads and tells its opponents to go f*ck themselves on the Senate floor.

Reporters magically discovered the menace of polarization when Democrats started fighting back. It's a problem, but it's not one that Michael Moore or Howard Dean invented. Even forgetting the Clinton years, even leaving aside the possibility that Bush invites contempt because he is contemptible, Republicans are at least as uncivil as Demcrats.

Actually, I think the press itself bears a lot of responsibility for the Woeful State of Our National Discourse. He-said-she-said, two-sides-to-every-fact coverage rewards dishonesty and extremism.

Gotta disagree with you on that one, Edward. Publishing the image implies two parties involved in the art, and failing to consider the temperament and thought process of one's audience is arrogance. I don't have much sympathy for those who cry foul because many people, through no fault of their own, don't understand the connotation of the work, and interpret it as something else. It's not dumbing down the message, it's making the message understandable.

Edward:

I wish the Bush Administration was less secretive. Nothing inspires confidence and trust like transparency.

I agree completely.

Alot more people are aware of Goya and this painting today than were yesterday. Methinks that this was one of the points.

I recognized it as soon as I saw it. Of course, the first time I saw that image it was in a comic book making an homage to the same Goya image when I was about fourteen. It wasn't until college that I could place where I kept seeing all these monstrous old men eating women and children. But I think the image is distinct enough - and has been copied enough times - for most people to know that it's an allusion to something, and not just a guy saying "Hey, George Bush is evil and eats people!"

It does become difficult to discuss the civility issue without prompting an uncivil response, I'll admit.

I did think while reading Brooks' column that no one on the Bush side was too worried about civility back during the 2002 elections. I recall lots of gloating and nose-rubbing. And clearly the VP's interest in civility seems unidirectional. But the virtue of being dedicated to a liberal progressive direction for the nation is that one believes there's room for everyone, and every opinion should be heard. I do think my side has forgotten that somewhat.

I remember being outraged by Reagan when he was in power, but never once did I assume he was trying to destroy the country. Something changed with Clinton's presidency.

From where I sit it looks like the right felt the keys to 1600 PA Ave. were their birthright (and two incidents shortly after Clinton won convinced me of that: one, the very next day I saw a bumper sticker on a car that read "Clinton/Gore, Gone in Four" and two, a conservative co-worker of mine who I told I had danced at the Clinton Victory party sneered quite meanly at me and warned me that the nation was going straight to hell because of this).

I don't recall being anywhere near that angry (or impolite) when Mondale or Dukasis lost, but then my side hadn't held the White House for all but 4 of the past 20 years.

I guess this is the wrong thread to suggest that Brooks and Kristof go f... Oh, nevermind.

Alot more people are aware of Goya and this painting today than were yesterday.

Great point wilfred!

double-plus-good,

Gotta disagree with you on that one, Edward. Publishing the image implies two parties involved in the art, and failing to consider the temperament and thought process of one's audience is arrogance.

You know who the intended readership of The Nation is, no? This charge falls flat given that the average Nation reader would most likely, as Iron Lungfish points out, "know that it's an allusion to something, and not just a guy saying "Hey, George Bush is evil and eats people!"

No, only Brooks should go....nevermind. Kristof is still easily the best Times columnist in my book. He reports. He changes your mind. He;s original. He did a very good, very important thing in Darfur. I just wish he didn't feel obligated to phone in one of these lame fair-and-balanced efforts every six weeks or so.

Edward You know who the intended readership of The Nation is, no? This charge falls flat given that the average Nation reader would most likely, as Iron Lungfish points out, "know that it's an allusion to something, and not just a guy saying "Hey, George Bush is evil and eats people!"

Excellent point. I concede.

I just wish he didn't feel obligated to phone in one of these lame fair-and-balanced efforts every six weeks or so.

Lame, I'll give you (right up there with the Senator from Connecticut), but don't you think the left should lead the way with fair-and-balanced? Or are we embroiled in fight to the death and there's no time for that?

Serious question.

Good point, IL. I'm ashamed to say I didn't recognize the source, but I knew it was some piece of art and was probably trying to say something more than "Bush eats babies," which is inconclusively proven.

The Poor Man dismantles Kristoff here.

Thanks for that Harley. Solid Fisk.

Meteor Blades has a go too.

I think they both miss the forest for the trees somewhat, but I can't argue with their logic.

Put me with Double-plus-ungood's first post:

Ermmm, while I knew it was based on the Goya painting, and the Greek myth of Saturn, and while I am certainly no fan of Bush, his catastrophic administration, or his shameful policies, I don't think that the authors and publishers of this image thought that most people would see it and think "Aha, a political metaphor for Saturn's vain attempt to prevent his overthrow by his children."

Even when a cigar is more than just a cigar, it's still a cigar. Or something like that.

I will get in all sorts of trouble for saying this, but why not. I honestly believe all the following about high ranking members of the Bush administration:
--They exploited my worst fear (nuclear attack on Manhattan) to deceive the public into a war that makes that fear notably more likely to come true.
--They are dangerously incompetent, and there is a real though remote possibility that their incompetence could contribute to the death of a close friend(s) or family member of mine. More specifically:
--They have failed four three years to address a very real but very easily fixed threat to the U.S. I'm talking about stockpiles of nuclear weapons and fissile material in the former USSR and other locations around the world. Fixing this should be a no brainer and one of our highest priorities. They haven't done it.
--Also on the subject of nuclear weapons, they have no real idea what to do about North Korea, Pakistan, Iran, or the world's "nuclear walmart".
--They don't know how to deal with Saudi Arabia either.
--They are incapable of even starting to win over Arab and Muslim hearts and minds. Hell, they can't even win over Canadian and Irish hearts and minds. Either they don't care about world opinion or they're completely tone deaf.
--They fundamentally misunderstand the nature of the terrorist threat. They exaggerate the danger from states and ignore the danger from non-state-actors. They made this mistake when they took office, made in the run up to the Iraq war, and still make it today.
--Their economic policies are driving us into bankruptcy, and there is no reason to believe that will end with a second term.
--They have the worst environmental record of any administration since the environmental movement began. We will not make even changes that should be obvious and noncontroversial, because they are completely in bed with the oil and coal industries.
--They have turned misleading and deceiving the public while maintaining just enough plausible deniability to cover themselves into an art form.
--They do not take domestic policy seriously, not even a little. They will do nothing or worse than nothing about poverty, affordable housing, health care, labor rights, or the problems with the criminal justice system.
--The anti-gay-marriage amendment shows a willingness to target an unpopular group and change the Constitution permanently and dramatically for the worse to win an election.
--They keep their actions secret from the public at every opportunity.
--They never ever ever ever admit a mistake, unless absolutely forced to.
--They are willing to go to great lengths to attack their political opponents. The most obvious example is Valerie Plame.
--They believe in almost unlimited executive power in a time of war.
--They have condoned torture. I do not believe that they wanted or foresaw what happened at Abu Ghraib, but they approved waterboarding, extraordinary rendition, hiding detainees from the red cross and in secret from their families or lawyers. The results of these policies are predictable. They have never admitted any responsibility or changed these policies until press coverage and political consideration forced them to. They are still stonewalling the Abu Ghraib investigation, still have not admitted any mistake in the Arar case or the roundups of immigrants and the abuse in Brooklyn jails in the months immediate after 9/11.
--These dangerous tendencies are exacerbated by bad Senate leadership and even worse House leadership. A Republican Congress will not seriously challenge this administration.
--If there is another major terrorist attack on the U.S. while they are in office, there is a real though remote danger to the survival of our Constitution as we know it, and a real and immediate danger to the consitutitional rights of Arab-Americans and immigrants.

Now, should I not say these things? I usually don't, and certainly not all at once like this. But that's partly tactics and partly cowardice. Apart from the fact that it will cause right wingers to call me a moonbat, and that it may be better to meet moderate voters where they are and talk about one issue at a time, is there anything WRONG with saying these things? Are they outside the sphere of respectable debate?

I don't think so. There is an obligation to be honest, and to be reasonable, and to be reasonably polite to the people you're speaking to. I don't think there's any obligation to be polite about George W. Bush.

This doesn't excuse dishonesty about the President, or namecalling for it's own sake, or hysteria. But I don't think I'm doing any of those things.

Edward, as to Kristof--I'm all for fairness and balance, and criticizing liberals when they deserve it. What I'm not for is criticizing liberals for the sake of burnishing your own moderate credentials, or because you criticized conservatives last week.

Edward, Katherine, Harley, politics is hardball. Once in a while, politicians are civil, usually because there is a "greater issue" (Dewey in 44) in play. We should just face it, the WoT is just not a greater issue at the moment. Maybe when a rogue nuclear weapon explodes, it will be, but then again maybe not.

The problem today is that politics is 365-24, as compared to prior cycles. As both parties vie for political power, the games will continue.

And as we work this out, we can always rely on our Allies, you know like France's recent hissy fit on Afghanistan.

Von,

It depends on whom the cigar is intended for, no?

Serra didn't plaster this on a billboard on Houston Street. The publication's audience would expect a more complicated intent (Serra's not a very "light" artist). It would clearly read as a parody and demand to be judged in that context.

Bloggers taking it out of context are confusing a cigar for a cigar whether it's more than just a cigar (or something like that).

Also on the subject of nuclear weapons, they have no real idea what to do about North Korea, Pakistan, Iran, or the world's "nuclear walmart".

First, Katherine we are aware of the World's nuclear walmart, that in and of itself is a huge improvement from where we were four years ago. Second and related, exactly what would you propose with regards to Iran and North Korea. I am curious.

Hey, just because it's a reference to a Goya painting doesn't mean Bush doesn't eat babies right?

Katherine,

That's worthy of a dozen posts or more.

Good on you!

Two points. Yes, it's ok to discuss "Bush" as an abstract, representing the executive branch of the federal government, and so there is no obligation to be polite within that context. In the grand scheme of things they work for us and we deserve to be demanding. It's even OK to discuss "George W. Bush" as an abstract, representing the candidate or politician (whom we all know has his policies discussed as a group, his speeches written, his every public move choreographed), and so there's no obligation to be polite within that context.

There is an important distinction, I think, between "George W. Bush" and George W. Bush that escapes people (not saying you) and that leads to all kinds of moonbat comparisons between him and Hitler and other such nonsense, some of it even threatening to his well-being. Somewhere short of that we should all be able to agree is too far.

You've convinced me that Kristof is confusing "George W. Bush" (who should be called on lies, but still respected for the symbolism of the office if nothing else) and George W. Bush (who I understand can be quite personable and who I believe was shaken to his core on 9/11 and really wants to make sure no further attacks happen on his watch). I think Kristof is calling for a tone that stops short of personalizing the attacks. He chose a weak metaphor, but I think his point is worth considering.

Second, I think you're right about Kristof attacking liberals this week because he attacked conservatives last week. I think I'm a bit guilty of that myself (and I've been working to avoid it).

If there's a more honest/effective way to strive toward moderation (in the interest of civility, not to abandon my progressive leanings), I wish someone would share what it is.

"If there's a more honest/effective way to strive toward moderation (in the interest of civility, not to abandon my progressive leanings), I wish someone would share what it is."

Banish the Other. Deny its very existence, no matter the provocation. The real Dark Side lies in forgetting the essential bozoness of humanity and the general busness of the universe; a person can come back from a lot of things, but once he or she starts walking down the path of not seeing the essential human nature of the opposition it's going to take a whole lot more than a barking dog to keep him or her from blithely walking over the cliff.

Failing that, denial works surprisingly well. It at least gets one over the roughest spots.

When you consider that the only other picture on pleasevote.com is a rendition of a prisoner at Abu Ghraid, it's pretty clear to me that the guy who photoshopped Bush onto the Goya painting didn't do it for art's sake or art appreciation. Also, the image wasn't placed in Artist Quarterly, it was put in a hyper partisan political magazine. Quite frankly, Edward, it smells like you're rationalizing the rank demonization of political opponents. I thought you were better than that. If you think Bush-on-Goya is acceptable discourse in the marketplace of ideas, then I was under the misimpression that you endorsed a higher standard of conversation.

Moe, I expect I'll agree with your comment 100%, once you explain the "general busness of the universe." Are you saying the universe is big and yellow and emits dark smelly smoke?

Ah, but it does contain a bunch of dirty people talking to themselves and it smells faintly of Wild Turkey. The similitude is apt!

For those who can't let go of their hatred how far do you believe that you can escalate the bitterness?

Should you say these things? I believe in government by reasoned discourse and this would not appear to move things in that general direction. Perhaps I'm wrong. Perhaps we should get angry enough to start shooting at each other. I doubt that that would move things in the direction of reasoned discourse, either.

As I said earlier: take the motives off the table. You don't know them. I don't know them. And I'm willing to bet that none of us has enough insider information to make a reasonable inference.

Ed --

It depends on whom the cigar is intended for, no?

Nope.

Look, on one level Serra is making a nuanced point about the notion of government and riffing off a well-known painting. On another, he presents a picture of a demonic Bush devouring a naked dude (and the parallel to the Abu Ghraib scandal shouldn't be missed, btw). Assume, as you seem to have done, that Serra only intends the first point and not the second. (I don't think that's a particularly good assumption, but let's roll with it nonetheless.)

Does the fact that your presumed Nation reader understands that Serra is making a nuancy point one mean that Serra has not also made Bush=demon point two? No. Is this hypothetical Nation reader unaware of Bush=demon point two? No.

When we talk about a piece of art having multiple levels and meanings -- some of which accessible only to the properly educated or in-group -- it doesn't mean that only "valid" levels are those accessible to the properly educated or in-group.

(And thus I display my postmodernist leanings . . . .)

About civility: I think C. S. Lewis gets it right. "The real test is this. Suppose one reads a story of filthy atrocities in the paper. Then suppose that something turns up suggesting that the story might not be quite true, or not quite so bad as it was made out. Is one's first feeling, 'Thank God, even they aren't quite so bad as that,' or is it a feeling of disappointment, and even a determination to cling to the first story for the sheer pleasure of thinking your enemies are as bad as possible? If it is the second then it is, I am afraid, the first step in a process which, if followed to the end, will make us into devils." (Mere Christianity, p. 106)

I think that if one really tries to live by this, one will be inclined to say many fewer harsh things, and those one does say will in general not be said in a way that is needlessly divisive. And if one is aware that really trying to be charitable does not ensure success, then one will also think hard before saying harsh things, in order to be sure that one does not allow oneself to be motivated by the desire to think ill of one's opponents. One will also try to see even really bad people as both comprehensible and redeemable, and if one is in a position to do so, one will try to reach out to them. And one will take seriously the possibility that one is mistaken about them, and even hope that one is.

That being said, I don't think that the answer is not to speculate about people's motives or character. I think I should try to be charitable, to consider seriously the possibility that I am wrong, and to express myself in a way that leaves that possibility open. But I also think that the character of our leaders in particular is extremely important, and that it would not serve us well to stop thinking about this. Moreover, I think that we have enough information to draw some conclusions about their character, and that we can also speculate where we lack conclusive evidence, as long as we are clear that that is what we are doing. But we should always try to remember that politicians are people like everyone else, as liable to confusion and weakness as the rest of us, and that it is no more permissible to say hateful things about them for the hell of it, than it would be to do this to someone we actually know.

At least, that's what I think.

Thank you, hilzoy. What a great contribution to the discussion!

I'd like to give your comment it's own post, hilzoy.

Moe:

Hear, hear!

Oh ... well ... since it's fine art and all ... and it has a complex historical political context ... that makes it much more of a ... OH WHO THE FUCK AM I KIDDING, THAT AD WAS ATROCIOUS.

Ed, you take semantics to new vistas.

Coarsener!

Unclean!

Moe -- it would be an honor.

I think there's a flip side to that C.S. Lewis quote, though. He was certainly inclined toward prudence, but not at all costs: he was not a pacifist, for starters, either before or after his conversion to Christianity. He believed and taught there are are evils against which one must take up arms and be prepared to kill others, even though rank and file soldiers are not the primary authors of the evils to be addressed. War apart, he was willing to condemn ideas and policies that he regarded as promoting evil, unnecessary suffering, and other bad things.

So while it's always good to be prepared for humanity and virtue to turn up everywhere, there is also some threshold where one can stand and say "they're on the far side of this, and though I hope at every moment for their repentence and turning away from this course of action, what they're doing now is wrong and must be stopped". There's also a point for saying "I can't see into the heart and judge motives fully, but I can see that this action produces harm and can be justified only when one begins by ignoring immediately observable reality, and that's bad".

I don't go around actively hating many people. I seldom feel I know enough to do that. But I still feel comfortable saying that Bush and his advisors are proceeding with an active disregard for the world at large, the zealous pursuit of their own private ambitions at any cost, and the enrichment of their cronies no matter the cost to others. All of that is, I think, justifiable by data that don't require me to be telepathic to judge. And it's more than enough to keep me feeling comfortable in my resolute opposition to them.

And I don't think that eating people is all that overblown a symbol for the costs in human lives, hopes, and well-being for what we've gotten the last few years: unnecessary wars, the cause of anti-Western terror nourished as never before, the vast majority of the population losing ground in wages and prospects, and all the rest. The number of literal bodies created in the grand crusade is fairly small (until we start counting non-Americans in as well, and the victims of wars and atrocities that the US might have done something about, and....), but the number of souls diminished by avoidable misery is large.

Bird Dog,

As I've noted, the image is not flattering to Bush, but as folks here (and on Tacitus) are debating whether the first impression or second impression (in either order, depending on whether you recongized the image immediately or not) a) Bush eats Children; b) Goya had expressed a universal truth that still applies) is the dominant one, many of you (and here I include you) are ranting as if the second one doesn't exist or add any depth to commentary or stop and make you think beyond an incipient "Stop this Hate Speech" reaction.

My whole point...my WHOLE point...is that if we stop expecting the very basest of intentions here (and you and others are arguing that you're not able to get past what you see as very base intentions), we can raise the civility of the discourse.

How beautiful would it be if instead of insisting that I'm "rationalizing the rank demonization of political opponents" you and I were debating whether Serra was on the mark or not by choosing "Saturn Devouring one of his Children" for this lampoon. Whether there was a better image he could have used to make his point.

Or, if at the very least, we were actually discussing his point (i.e., overcontrolling state ends up devouring liberty, prosperity, and virtue).

Now I can see where a gentler image would have left your indignation enough elbow room to allow you to even want to do that, but I've noted many times that images of Clinton as Hitler (or fire-breathing Gore's) simply make me laugh and actually make me contemplate the commentary. (But admittedly, images are my business, and so I'm used to looking deeper before judging.)

However, I'm also not so sensitive as to expect the basest of intentions immediately. That's not to say they're not sometimes the intent, just that it never crossed my mind that you were advocating the rank demonization of political opponents with your fire-breathing Gore image. It was funny and thought provoking for God's sake.

Can we let thought-provoking images actually provoke more than knee-jerk reactions please? Or is Bush's image somehow sacred?

Before we focus on civility, I would like to limit the stupidity of the NYT

The actual trials should not begin until an elected government takes power, a step planned for next January. Starting them sooner might produce political dividends for the appointed Iraqi interim government or the Bush re-election campaign

Edward, a nice thought, Can we let thought-provoking images actually provoke more than knee-jerk reactions please? but then Or is Bush's image somehow sacred?. And it came to me people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

Before we focus on civility, I would like to limit the stupidity of the NYT

The actual trials should not begin until an elected government takes power, a step planned for next January. Starting them sooner might produce political dividends for the appointed Iraqi interim government or the Bush re-election campaign

Edward, a nice thought, Can we let thought-provoking images actually provoke more than knee-jerk reactions please? but then Or is Bush's image somehow sacred?. And it came to me people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

Sorry for the double post

Not sure what your point is Timmy, but the question was sincere (at least when I wrote it, although perhaps I understand now how you took it).

Let me rephrase: Or should using the President's image (whether he/she be a Dem or Rep) be considered off limits across the board?

"Everyone from David Brooks to Nicholas Kristof is calling for more civility ..."

I take it Krugman's desk is located outside theirs, rather than in between.

"Brooks: To a large degree, polarization in America is a cultural consequence of the information age."

Oh, no... Polarization is natural in our politics and was *worse* all the way back to George Washington's administration, which was a bit before the information age. And I mean *inside* his Adminsitration, with Hamilton, Jefferson, Adams et. al. engaged in constant consipiracies to destroy each other, literally, by blackmail, bribery, honey traps, government-paid-for libel sheets etc. all justified by their conspiracy theories about each other. And that wasn't even a case of the in-party versus the out-party.

I mean if you think things are shrill today, ask yourself: when was the last time a sitting Vice President shot his top political opponent dead then returned to the Senate to preside?


Edward,
I removed the image of the fire-breathing Gore for the very purpose of not wanting to demonize him. I only put it there in the first place because it was the first one I stumbled across. I will also say that I'm not as irritated about Bush-on-Goya now than I was yesterday. But the thing is, the political atmosphere is highly charged right now. The Nation knew what it was doing, and they chose turbulence. The sheer volume of demagoguery is pretty amazing and pleasevote.com's offering only adds to the panthenon. I'm with von on this one.

Apparently it's just me, but Firefox isn't displaying any image for the Nation picture, Edward. The Goya picture is fine, and I've yet to have a problem seeing any other image elsewhere.

Looking at the page source, your img src HTML is preceded by "id="more""

I don't know what that does, but it appears it's preventing display of your img to Firefox. Maybe you could fix this by by removing it, please?

Edward, I'm using Firefox, too, and I'm not having a problem seeing the Nation picture.

Edward, I'm using Firefox, too, and I'm not having a problem seeing the Nation picture.

It's a Mystery, then. I still have no problems seeing any other pictures on the Web, but there's no there there in this single case, for me. I think it's because you hate me!

Or my computer hates me! My computer is in league with you in hating me! You're all against me!

On the other paw, I'd still be curious to see what happens if that mysterious bit of HTML was removed. Do you know what it is supposed to do, Moe?

Let me rephrase: Or should using the President's image (whether he/she be a Dem or Rep) be considered off limits across the board?

Edward, no.

I'm against limits when it comes to political speech.

Gary the id=more tag is simply the anchor, the Continue reading "Too Sensitive for Serious Debate?" destination, so that's not the problem. The only other nonstandard bit of html I see in there is the link to the pleasevote.com site (which ends in shtml, rather than html) and I'm guessing it's possible that if you browser isn't reading the link around the image, it's not going to display the image...but that doesn't seem too likely.

I'm stumped quite honestly.

here's the direct link to the image

http://www.pleasevote.com/images/ind_main_goya.jpg

without turning this thread into an html workshop, what do you see, a broken image or nothing at all...if a broken image, can you right click and see properties on it? what's it say?

"Gary the id=more tag is simply the anchor, the Continue reading "Too Sensitive for Serious Debate?" destination, so that's not the problem."

Okay; thanks for that, and the url.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Blog powered by Typepad