Friday, June 15, 2012

Dubya Bush head on spike

Since one of the interests of this blog is capital punishment...

 According to this, it seems that the makers of Game of Thrones have apologised for showing a head on a spike that was similar to that of George Bush (AKA Dubya).
Looking at the picture, I'm not so sure about that.  Maybe it's wishful thinking on somebody's part.
Personally, I think brutal punishments as deterrence are much better than an armed populace for keeping people on the straight and narrow.  Sticking people in prison isn't as much of a punishment as a head on a pole, or putting someone on a gibbet.

I trust Laci won't object to me adding this image of parallel photos for comparison above, so people can draw their own conclusions.

1 comment:

  1. I object to anyone simulating violence to a President (or anyone else) particularly as a way to express opposition to the person so victimized.

    It is far too close, too similar, to advocating actual violence to someone.

    That was clearly NOT the case here, where a bunch of prop heads were rented and put into the shot. As a competent artist and cartoonist, I've learned to look at faces differently than most people seem to do. I see a whole lot of differences between the two, and really only one or two points of some similarity. The reality is that this prop head, not seen in profile probably doesn't look at all like Dubya, and therefore no one expected it would look like him from a funny camera angle. Clearly the producers of the Game of Thrones did not do this by intent, as simulated violence to express an oppositional view.

    I think they should have left it as any similarity is in the eye of the beholder, there was no representation of Bush intended. Without any intent to do wrong, or having actually done something wrong, there seems no basis for either anyone to be offended and no need for an apology.

    If someone was being sly, fooling around with a prop duplicate of Dubya from Madame Tussaud's wax museum, where the head was an actual protraiture image that would be different -- and THAT would definitely require an apology.

    This...this is just media appeasement, and it concerns me that it is both insincere since no offense had been intended in the first place, and the actual similarity is slight, and that it sets a bad precedent.