blog entry

my title is creative. i know.
ok, anyway: although i found the comparison of the war to a disney movie a bit of a stretch, i understand the point: the war was a highly advertised, pre-packaged debacle. the media coverage made it seem more like a high-tech video game than an actual event. i don't know why, but during the war, i did not really grasp what was going on. perhaps because it did seem like a video game i did not understand the seriousness of the entire situation.
as for the advertising aspect, i felt that a lot of the war posters appealed more to the masculinity of men than anything else. as discussed in the book, there were posters in which soldiers glared out at the looker. i think the posters were more or less a way to attempt to guilt trip people - almost as though, THIS MAN IS FIGHTING, WHY AREN'T YOU, WIMP?! i felt the entire war was more or less a way for america to try to insert their dominance and attempt to prove something to the entire world.
as discussed in chapter 1, consumers went out and purchased more BMWs after the james bond movies. that reminded me of the patriotism of americans. during the war, people invested more money in american flags & american flag apparell. i also felt like consumers suddenly felt the need to buy military-esque hummers and large SUVs like thos seen in Iraq on CNN. at least, that was what i observed.
other interesting points brought up by the book: violence was replaced with technology. when i think of war, i typically think of huge guns and swords. [i don't know why i think of swords, i just do.] to think that we were being shown more of the technological side of war seems as though the gov. was trying to avoid showing actual deaths and more the "cool" side of war. perhaps for more support, i don't know.
oh, also - pg. 21 -- did we really name our targets "pussy" and "galore"? i certainly hope not.
next, i really liked the Winston Churchill quote on pg. 61. there is a reason why, i just don't remember right now. maybe in class i will.
i also found it interesting how we changed the terms of war to make it more friendly. news flash: WAR IS NOT FRIENDLY. let's get real. if we are too ashamed to use the harsh terms of war, perhaps we should be too ashamed to commit those acts. just a thought.
i also wanted to further discuss the freedom of news reporters. or, the lack of freedom. i found it ridiculous that the gov. tried to control what was printed in the press. AGAIN, if we were too ashamed to print what was really happening, perhaps we should not have been doing it. Although i felt that the press had a right to write, i also felt like maybe they should not have printed some information -- like where troops were located or what we were planning to do. more so for the safety of the troops. i wonder what everyone else thinks?
let's see.... i also wondered how many of us watched extensive CNN coverage? in the book, there was a quote from a man who claimed he watched it from the time he got home until midnight. i personally found myself getting bored with the coverage. i felt like it was the same, pre-packaged news report every night with some flashes of high-tech war techniques.
ok, well, hope everyone had a great weekend!
ps - the alice in wonderland link is not working for me. boo!