Censorship and Self-Censorship at the National Portrait Gallery

"For better or worse, the government has made the
decision to fund art. That decision has been vigorously
debated over the past 30 years, and the argument
continues today. But once the decision is taken, does
anyone believe our politicians should be curating the
museums, dictating what is and isn't art?"

The folks over at The Economist pose the question very well in this story. They are addressing the latest (successful) effort by American Christian fundamentalists (in this case Catholics) to dictate cultural standards that comport with their own parochial sensibilities. It is difficult to know who to dislike more in this episode, the offended Christians and the censorious politicos or the craven curator seeking to rationalize his cowardly behavior.

Sowing Confusion? Throwing Us Off the Track? ... Those Clever Muslims

Well, it is working on me I'll tell ya! Here is a photo of President Obama - you know Barack Hussein Obama, the Muslim - along with his family, having just attended services at St. John's Episcopal church this morning. Huh? It must a one of those photo shop deals. That guy in the vestments doesn't look like a Imam, but I'm sure it's just a clever disguise. Must be. It's all part of a coordinated propaganda campaign. No doubt about that!

TIME & War Propaganda

You will likely have seen the original cover (top) and may be interested in this shameless rationalization TIME printed. The editors insist: "We do not run this story or show this image either in support of the U.S. war effort or in opposition to it. We do it to illuminate what is actually happening on the ground." Right. You ought also to see the second, photo-shopped version (Thanks Stan!) and read the reasoning of the fellow who took license with the original (scroll down the comments). His claim is only modestly less credulous. For some sensible discussion go here.

You might ask: So, you oppose the war? What about the Taliban and women's rights? Good questions. But, yes, I still oppose the war. And my simple, visceral retort is "What about, say, the Catholic church and women's (or children's) rights? What about the medieval attitudes that our own fundamentalists display regarding women's rights?"

My more complicated retort is, "OK, we can agree that the Taliban are fundamentalist thugs. But we are not going to get rid of them in any plausible scenario. And the ineffectual and corrupt Karzi regime is hardly an enlightened replacement. You might say the same of "our" fundamentalist allies in Pakistan. And, oh, by the way, let's have a graphic TIME cover story on the many various families we have bombed into oblivion in predator drone attacks - you know, the people we treat as collateral damage - and then talk support for the war." After all, we are deploying the drones mainly in hopes of avoiding American military casualties! I suppose Afghan lives are not worth quite as much?

This cover story is propaganda, pure and simple. TIME hardly is a font of feminist politics when it comes to our own relatively comfy lives. And, whether they admit it or not, they've adopted a moralistic stance in the service of a losing war.
__________
P.S.: The cover photo was taken, in the words of the TIME folk, "the distinguished South African photographer Jodi Bieber."