QandO

All of 'em. Gotta be fair and diverse, y'know.

Posted by: Mike at March 12, 2004 08:33 AM

And a poll taken by Andres McKenna Polling and Research found that Americans overwhelmingly believe "the terrorists would prefer" Mr. Kerry to win the election.
The poll of 800 registered voters, taken in February, showed 60 percent thought terrorists would be happier with Mr. Kerry, while just 25 percent said the terrorists would prefer Mr. Bush

Kerry will be toast, no matter what the polls say now. THIS is a damming statistic

Posted by: shark at March 12, 2004 09:57 AM

That's an easy one: the Dems would have cast a Reagan or Bush look-alike as the terrorist. Either that or a white Christian male.

A few years ago, it might have been Gingrich...

Posted by: Roy Jacobsen at March 12, 2004 11:25 AM

We wouldn't have cast anyone in that role. Casting anyone in the role of terrorist in an ad is really only be a cheap scare tactic. That's he's olive skinned is just iceing on a shit cake. If the ad would have portrayed him as actually doing something threatening then you might be able to say this reflects a gritty unfortunate reality. But the only scarry thing this guy is doing is moving his eyes around. Apparently that's all an olive skinned person needs to do to look like a terrorist to you guys.

What would we have done instead? I don't know. Probably talked about what reasons these people might have to be upset with us, what we might do to change the situation, and what security measures we might put in place in the mean time.

Posted by: Ragdrazi at March 12, 2004 04:11 PM

Change "is really only be" to "can really only be." Four hours of sleep typo.

Posted by: ragdrazi at March 12, 2004 04:13 PM

Ragdrazi: I understand your contention, but TV is a visual medium. And a brief one, too. 30-60 second ads simply don't have time to explain "nuance"....they have time to get a message across, using as much content-delivery as possible. The visual aspect to that is vital...central.

And is it really that great a leap to portray an Islamic fundamentalist as olive-skinned? You can be damned sure I'd portray an IRA terrorist with white skin. No racism necessary....they're white.

Posted by: Jon Henke at March 12, 2004 04:32 PM

Of course it might be worthwhile to note that the terrorism this country has suffered has come at the hands of people who, in the vast majority, have 'olive skin'.

It would be like insisting that if the KKK is to be portrayed, we do so by pretending the members don't have white skin.

Posted by: McQ at March 12, 2004 04:48 PM

Actually, I'm under the impression that the vast majority of terrorism we have seen on this country's soil has come from groups like the KKK. I'm also under the impression that Bush has done very little to keep an eye on these groups in recent years, and that, in the mean time, they have become much more well armed.

Anyway, you don't often see portrayals of KKK members out of uniform do you? Here we have presented nothing to identify this person as a murder, no actions, no words. Just his olive skinned eyes.

"content-delivery" "scare tactic". . . "potato" "potahto"

I'm pritty sure there's a whole lot more room for "nuance," then what we saw presented here. You want to say John Kerry is soft of terror? Then say it. Tell me -why-.

Posted by: Ragdrazi at March 12, 2004 05:50 PM

To continue my already over long post, GOOD LORD you guys! Think of this just in terms of politics for a second. There is this whole group of, perhaps, somewhat conservatively inclined voters who feel like on September 12 this entire country turned against them, started treating them like murders just because of their olive skinned eyes. But who cares if you alienate them. Its not like you need "votes" to win a presidency is it?

Look, if you guys were so desperate to get messages out there with a lot of "content-delivery" then why not present scarry images of the eyes of actual terrorists?

Posted by: Ragdrazi at March 12, 2004 06:08 PM

... the vast majority of terrorism we have seen on this country's soil has come from groups like the KKK.

In days gone by, you'd have a point ... but that's hardly germane to the "vast majority of terrorism" and its perpetrators now. Like it or not, they mostly have olive skin and a middle eastern affiliation.

Now while that may be uncomfortable for you, pretending it isn't so won't change the fact that it IS so.

Kerry wants to treat terrorism as a law enforcement issue. Of course that's how we handled it before under Clinton, and the result was the first WTC attack, Kobar towers, the African embassies and the USS Cole. Since we've elevated it to a war status, we've enjoyed much more success.

Perhaps you can explain to me why its important to again downgrade it to only a law-enforcement issue in light of what just happened in Spain?

Posted by: McQ at March 12, 2004 06:13 PM

Waves of KKK suicide bombers. Got it.

Posted by: Lee at March 12, 2004 06:34 PM

"In days gone by, you'd have a point ... "

Wasn't our last lynching in 95? Ah, it's neither here nor there. My point is that if 9-11 thought us anything, it's that a small group of highly focused well funded individuals can throw down a whole bunch of shit. KKK has the focus, and now they have the money. I mean, we're interested in learning lessons from 9-11?

"Now while that may be uncomfortable for you, pretending it isn't so won't change the fact that it IS so."

I think you should re-read my postings from yesterday. The point is not that al-Qaeda is mostly olive skinned, which is, of course, true, but that in this ad we are "presented (with) nothing to identify this person as a murder, no actions, no words. Just his olive skinned eyes." What we have presented in this ad is a situation in which olive skin automatically equals terrorist. That's why we're upset.

"Kerry wants to treat terrorism as a law enforcement issue. Of course that's how we handled it before under Clinton, and the result was the first WTC attack, Kobar towers, the African embassies and the USS Cole."

Well, none of that's presented in the in ad. More then that, it isn't necessarily true. If you read the very well researched, "Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them," you will see that Clinton actually had a plan for going to war with al-Qaeda but that he didn't enact it because he "did not want to had an open war" to a successor. Bush then, essentially ingored the warnings until it was too late. I'd excerpt that part of the book, BUT I CAN'T FIND THE DANG THING RIGHT NOW!!!! ARGH!!!!

"Since we've elevated it to a war status, we've enjoyed much more success."

Have we. . . "in light of what just happened in Spain?"

"Perhaps you can explain to me why its important to again downgrade it to only a law-enforcement issue"

Well, first and foremost, I don't know if this can ever be anything but a law-enforcement issue. The fact that al-Qaeda is an international organization, with many of its cells operating illegally, contrary to law, within their countries. Therefore, this can't be a conflict between states, "war", or between factions within a state, "civil war." That just leaves law-enforcement. There's also the fact that the operatives in this case do not wear uniforms, and therefor the most effective method of discovery is internal investigation, by definition a law enforcement action. The methods that should be used to keep us safe from this are, again, by definition, law enforcement methods. These are truths. And they point to an answer to the al-Qaeda problem which by definition should tend away from large scale military action. The problem with al-Qaeda, however, was not that it was treated as a law-enforcement problem, but that it was simply ignored as a problem for too long. What just happened in Spain was yet another example of this. While we wasted our time going after Saddam, al-Qaeda regrouped and rearmed, and is starting to come back strong.
I'd take it a step further, though, and point out that our own hands were not clean going into 9-11. As vile a murder as bin Lauden is, he is not wrong in saying that we have done some particularly vile things to his part of the world. How do you deal with a group of people who have been driven to murder by your actions? Throw them jail no doubt. But more then that, aplogize and fix the things you did that got them so pissed off in the first place so it never happens again. Its all just comes down to practicality.

Posted by: Ragdrazi at March 13, 2004 04:09 PM

Sorry. Long post.

Posted by: Ragdrazi at March 13, 2004 04:35 PM

Ragdrazi - interesting comments, and I appreciate your considerate and intelligent tone. I'm afraid a great many denizens of Atrios don't have the same consideration, and that doesn't facilitate the exchange of ideas.

Of course, I still disagree with a great deal of what you said. When I have time this weekend, I'll either respond in this comment section or dedicate a post to the topic. McQ may, as well, though I won't speak on his behalf.

Nice to have you here to have this debate, though.

Posted by: Jon Henke at March 13, 2004 04:58 PM

Wasn't our last lynching in 95?

One could say that, altho there have been rumors down in Texas that the victim had been known to his killers for some time. Of course it is relevant to point out that, altho this fact has been widely ignored, two of the three killers in that case received the death penalty from predominantly white juries.

Posted by: triticale at March 13, 2004 07:12 PM

Had to duck out for finals. But you never wrote me back.

Posted by: Ragdrazi at March 22, 2004 04:23 AM