?

Log in

No account? Create an account

The Past | The Previous

Don't Dream Alone In White

It must be frustrating to be one of the people responsible for the bombs in London. A couple of days later, and the British response can be summed up by an elderly lady at morning tea saying, "Please, you call that a bombing? I've had a bad pot of tea that caused more horror."

It's been good to see. The attacks were not on the scale of September the 11th, but when they were first reported, the media were stepping easily into the narrative that allowed them to push that. In Australia, our media followed the same pattern in response to the Bali Bombing on October the 12th. Now that I've seen the British response, which has been nothing short of admirable, I think we missed something by not getting up and saying, "Come on, you call that an explosion? I've opened warm beer than caused more damage."

It's Saturday night. I'm writing academic words. It's like pulling teeth out of my mouth with tongs that have rusted black and flake with every movement. Thank you for asking.

(EDIt: Image removed this morning because it bored me.)

Comments

( 18 Soaking Up Bandwidth — Soak Up Bandwidth )
deborahb
Jul. 9th, 2005 01:15 pm (UTC)
I'm not sure, but I think I see a face in it. And above the face, a hat. Or a bucket.

It's like a Rorschach. You can use it as a way of seeing into people's psyches.
benpeek
Jul. 9th, 2005 01:23 pm (UTC)
it makes me think of the creature from lieber's OUR LADY OF DARKNESS, where the main character sees a brown thing in his window and up a mountain, but only from a distance.
blindsidepubs
Jul. 9th, 2005 01:32 pm (UTC)
I hate to be unimaginative, but my first thought was a tree trunk.

Some speculative writer I am.
benpeek
Jul. 9th, 2005 01:36 pm (UTC)
might be. i don't remember there being a tree there, however, but i was in a bus at the time. still, you'd think the tree would be a bit more solid, like the rest of the building.
blindsidepubs
Jul. 9th, 2005 01:38 pm (UTC)
Possibly, but I believe I've taken photographs before where an object in the foreground becomes semi-transparent because, due to its proximity to the lens, it seems to be moving at a faster rate and so is not allowed to expose onto the film as long as the object further away, in this case the building.

But I'm really just pulling that out of my ass...
benpeek
Jul. 9th, 2005 01:41 pm (UTC)
how do you even sit down and write about things that can't be explained?
blindsidepubs
Jul. 9th, 2005 01:42 pm (UTC)
Um. I'm American, remember?
benpeek
Jul. 9th, 2005 01:43 pm (UTC)
right, right. sorry. i forgot. you channel the things told to you about your dead presidents ;)
blindsidepubs
Jul. 9th, 2005 01:46 pm (UTC)
You give me too much credit. Channeling and all that nonsense. No, we're just a society of bullshitters.
benpeek
Jul. 9th, 2005 01:49 pm (UTC)
that doesn't mean you can't lie pretty.
blindsidepubs
Jul. 9th, 2005 01:51 pm (UTC)
Please, please, that's derogatory. Lying and bullshitting are two different things. I don't lie and am rather strict on others who see it fit to lie to me. I may, on occasion, try to explain something heretofore unexplained using what logic I can muster although it's really just ... well, bullshitting.
benpeek
Jul. 9th, 2005 01:57 pm (UTC)
that's interesting. i don't see there being much a difference between the two terms, but maybe it's just how i look at it. bullshit, lies, same deal to me. trying to explain something with logic, well, that's just an idea to me. could be right, could be wrong, but it's an idea with a theory behind it, so until someone comes along with something more credible...
blindsidepubs
Jul. 9th, 2005 02:01 pm (UTC)
Then I suppose whether or not I'm a hypocrite hinges on whether or not my attempt to explain why a tree in the foreground could appear not as corporeal as the building behind it is an idea or whether it's bullshit. I thought it made sense and I still believe it could be true but possibly not. I may experiment with my camera, moving it as I snap a picture and also sweeping my hand or some other solid object within two, three feet of the lens at a quicker rate than the wall behind it and see what comes of it.
benpeek
Jul. 9th, 2005 02:07 pm (UTC)
well, it sounded reasonable to me and i figure you're probably right. s'not worth putting experiments on though, since it's just a little bit of oddness. a bit of oddness is fine for the mind to turn over every now and then, i figure.

even if it is most likely a tree, like you said.
chrisbarnes
Jul. 9th, 2005 02:45 pm (UTC)
I agree. The Brits are doing an excellent line in stiff upper lipness.

I saw one response on a blog along the lines: "I mock the jihadis. Call that a terror attack? More people died of wasp stings today than by those bombs. More people were run over. Come on, the IRA landed a mortar bomb next to Number 10 and they didn't even have laptops or mobile phones."

And there's that great quote from an old chap at the time of the IRA bombings: "I've been bombed by a better class of bastard than this and survived." Memories of the Blitz run deep.

benpeek
Jul. 10th, 2005 12:03 am (UTC)
i don't think it's so much stiff upper lipness as it is simply mocking the attacks.
mevennen
Jul. 9th, 2005 06:42 pm (UTC)
Well, we've had plenty of time to get used to this shit. I grew up with pub bombings.

But in fact, a lot of people demonstrate the same thing. The Americans I saw interviewed after 9/11 weren't freaking out or cowering. And they have weather which makes the average terrorist attack pale into insignificance, but you don't hear them banging on about it much.
benpeek
Jul. 10th, 2005 12:09 am (UTC)
that is true about the american weather, isn't it. it's easy to forget about hurricanes and earthquakes over here.
( 18 Soaking Up Bandwidth — Soak Up Bandwidth )