What To Say?

Via The Light Of Reason, I see that Bush has changed his views on media responsibility for violence, and about whether the White House should tell journalists what to do. Either that, or it makes a difference that Newsweek is not involved this time:

"President Bush said Friday that he did not think photos of imprisoned Saddam Hussein clad only in his underwear would incite further anti-American violence in Iraq. "I don't think a photo inspires murderers," Bush said. (...)

The White House declined to say what decisions news organizations should make about disseminating the photos. "That's your job," he said.

With the inquiry ongoing, he also would not comment on how the pictures may affect the U.S. image abroad. But the president downplayed the importance of the photos in stirring up the Iraqi insurgency.

"I think the insurgency is inspired by their desire to stop the march of freedom," Bush said."

Consistency: the hobgoblin of small minds.

Comments

[John Thullen]

Boxers or briefs?

I calibrate my rioting.

[Catsy]

Boxers or briefs?

No offers of money, alcohol, or women could entice me to find out.

Well, except perhaps offers of hilzoy. But then I'd have to gouge out my eyes after the Saddam-viewing.

[Anarch]

The sole silver lining I've found in some of the more absurd moments these past years is the private wager with myself on when, exactly, Arthur Silber's head is going to explode. Anyone else want to play?

[hilzoy]

My theory is that if it wasn't made of adamant, it would have exploded already, so plainly it's a losing proposition to try to anticipate when it will finally give way.

Of course, if you really want to make his head explode, you can send him a donation now, when he isn't having a fund drive.....

[Jackmormon]

Doesn't Hussein count as a prisoner of war? Isn't there a Geneva Convention about that sort of thing? This just seems gratuitous.

I found it so hard to believe (even with your tag on the bottom, hilzoy, I wondered whether the quote was from a parody site) that I clicked on the link (ABC news), to find Bush saying the utterly useful following:

"These people are motivated by a vision of the world that is backward and barbaric," Bush told reporters in the Oval Office where he met with the prime minister of Denmark, Anders Fogh Rasmussen.

In the context of the article, the effect of this quote is to conflate the categories of people who might be appalled by the wide dissemination of this photograph and people who might be violent, backward barbarians. Not helpful. None of it.

[Anarch]

My theory is that if it wasn't made of adamant, it would have exploded already, so plainly it's a losing proposition to try to anticipate when it will finally give way.

Even adamant can crack, hilzoy, given enough stress. [And hoo-boy, what stress it's getting!] It's just a matter of time.

BTW, I second the commendation of donations to Arthur. And also to Gary. Feed them, my pretties, and they will grow to such majesty as those of us who slither upon the ground shall never know! Or something.

[hilzoy]

Heh. I just did something that might hasten the moment...

Right about Gary, too. (Not that he ever, like says thanks or anything. Not, on the other hand, that I care; I'm just having fun.)

[Jackmormon]

Okay, I retract some of my horror at Bush's comments. This article from the NYT (probably soon to disappear behind subscription) makes clear that the photos were leaked by some misguided private US military personnel to the Sun. Bush's quote, perhaps a little strangely framed in the ABC report, is an attempt at international damage control. The NYT article gives much more context, though the paradoxical message on media responsibility remains, for us concerned with domestic politics.

[Anarch]

BTW, before the comment police can get to you: the full quote is that a "foolish consistency" is the hobgoblin of small minds. Whether the above represents a foolish consistency is an exercise I leave to the reader.

[Blar]

The fuller quote is: "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines. With consistency a great soul has simply nothing to do. He may as well concern himself with his shadow on the wall. Speak what you think now in hard words and tomorrow speak what to-morrow thinks in hard words again, though it contradict every thing you said to-day."

Emerson's point being that, if you didn't have a little mind, then you would be willing to revise your opinions based on further thinking instead of thoughtlessly maintaining that you still agree with every position you've ever held (remind you of anyone?). Even with this understanding of Emerson's quote rather than the more popular understanding, Hilzoy's ironic point is perfectly clear.

That should keep the comment police at bay. Unless they've already arrived on the pretense of preemptively policing the comment police...

[Anarch]

Even with this understanding of Emerson's quote rather than the more popular understanding, Hilzoy's ironic point is perfectly clear.

I agree. My point was simply that, whenever the phrase is given in its simplified form, someone invariably bounds in to the fray to correct them and I wanted to preempt that.

That should keep the comment police at bay. Unless they've already arrived on the pretense of preemptively policing the comment police...

Hardly. I can barely police the dust in my apartment, let alone the toings and froings of a comment section on a blog.

[Jay C.]

"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines."

Great cite, hilzoy (as usual): I had forgotten that this quote was by Emerson, and still less the second part about the "little statemen and philosophers and divines"...sound like anyone we know (or see in the news every day) ??

I had to wonder, though, reading the material in Blar's link, if old Ralph Waldo would have made a good blogger, were he around today to take advantage of the technology?
(probably not...too thoughtful, not nasty enough)

[hilzoy]

For the record, I was aware of the source and the full quote, but decided against further clarification, mostly because it involved, um, certain levels of irony that I didn't particularly want to make explicit, especially since I figured that you all were more than capable of putting them together for yourselves. As the present discussion illustrates. ;)

[Gary Farber]

"Not that he ever, like says thanks or anything."

Lately I have, actually, but only erratically in the past. I'm deeply neurotic about money and taking charity, and have trouble dealing with the whole thing, which is no excuse whatever. Thank you. (I'm actually in trouble in absolutely-broke-land at the moment again, but haven't been able to bring myself to write about it yet, despite direness.)

[hilzoy]

Gary: I was only tweaking you. Since I have more or less the same neurosis, I probably should have known better.

[Gary Farber]

No, I deserve it. But now I say no more on that.

On other fronts, if anyone is interested in discussion of deleted scenes in Revenge of the Sith, I have several posts on the script up at you-know-where.