Goodnight and Good Sales
Was this book written for children?
Origen: Obviously not. Anytime a child sees this book I'm like, "Look over there!" This book is definitely not for children.
Do you think parts of the book are too mean-spirited?
Origen: This book would be about five times as long if we included every criticism that could be leveled at the Bush administration. We actually pared it back to just those things that have been destroyed or damaged so severely that it was questionable whether [they] would endure in the form that they had been in before Bush came into office. So the book actually is fairly restrained in that way, we think.
What about your depictions of the Twin Towers and cocaine in the book? Isn't that insensitive and unfair? [In "Goodnight Bush," lines of cocaine are depicted on the nightstand, replacing the brush and comb in "Goodnight Moon." Bush has been dogged by rumors of cocaine use when he was young, but those charges have never been proven, and he denies ever having used the drug].
Origen: On the sensitivity issue, our images of the Twin Towers and other issues are very spare and they have this naked simplicity.
Golan: There's nothing sensationalistic.
The book is about listing, in simple terms, your perceived failures of the Bush administration. But most Americans don't blame the administration for the 9/11 attacks on the Twin Towers.
Golan: I think it is interesting how the administration has turned one of the greatest national security failings into a heroic moment. And [9/11] absolutely was a failure of the administration to protect the country. At the same time, if you look at the image, we're not making some sort of simple statement. The representation is meant to be very spare and very poignant.
So I'm assuming there hasn't been an official comment from the White House?
Origen: We're just waiting for that one.
Golan: We're waiting for the official Bush administration endorsement. But for us, one of the ultimate expressions of the book would be to see it on C-Span with some senator who reads it into the congressional record to the cameras as a work of poetry during a filibuster.
Will you guys be commemorating the end of the Bush presidency in any other way?
Origen: We are talking about having a "Goodnight Bush"-eve celebration with some live music and miniature golf …
Golan: … called "stay the course" miniature golf.
Do you guys have future books planned?
Origen: We do. We're working on stuff. We could just say that.
Perhaps you guys could rewrite Margaret Wise Brown's entire anthology?
Origen: Umm … Yeah, I think maybe "Runaway Bunny" next?
© 2008
Loading Menu
Member Comments
Posted By: Skypoint @ 08/11/2008 1:35:12 PM
Comment: Ghost, you make a valid point on whether some of the detainees come in non violent and turn that way. I do not know. The number, if any is probably small, as like our own prisons here in the US, we're not out there actually looking for innocent people to incarcerate. (Hence, the release of around 500 detainees).
My take on this is I see terrorists as the cold blooded killers that they are. They remind me of the terminators of the film with the same name. They can't be reasoned with, and the only thing they truly understand is overwhelming force. Separating them from non violents is at best risky.
I would have to go back and look, but I assume it was an official at Gitmo NYT was interviewing. Obviously, The Times thought them a credible source, lest they would not take the time for the interview. Either way, I will take the word of one of our guys before the detainees.
Once again, we will have to differ on Gitmo. I see it as a necessary component to the war on terror to lower risk, and with the release of at least some of the non violent detainees, I think we're being as fair as we can. I do appreciate your thoughts though, and your points are well taken.
Posted By: ghostmasseur @ 08/11/2008 11:03:24 AM
Comment: Skypoint,
Sorry, but just because the CIA and the Admin says that they pose a threat does not mean that that is correct. I do not trust either source.
Another question is whether some of the ones that now truly hate the US came in that way or are now that way due to the treatment they received. My problem with Guantanamo is the way it was done and how it all but voids any legitimacy for the US to comment on human rights, as well as the fact that it now puts our own troops at risk for torturous treatment.
And who was quoted in the NYT interview? One of the people at Guantanamo? A CIA spokesperson, and military spokesperson? An Admin spokesperson? Unfortunately, none of them are very reliable sources anymore (well there are some reliable sources in the military, but not all of them are.)
As for the wiretaps, IF they were done legally, and with court approval and supervision I would have no problem with them. It is this BS attitude that getting said approval and oversight is not needed that I find wrong.
Posted By: Skypoint @ 08/11/2008 8:34:55 AM
Comment: Ghost, you are correct in that there are some at Guantanamo who did not engage in any action. However, they are there because they pose a serious threat. From a NY Times interview: "a large number of the 610 detainees had not been cooperative with interrogators. At least 50 were ''ardent jihadists and have no qualms about telling you that if they got out, they would go and kill more Americans.''
A tough situation... not a simple process to weed out the non-violent detainees. However, over the past 5 years, somewhere around 500 detainees have been released, and about 3 percent have been positively identified as having engaged in violence again. With that relative low number, Gitmo is releasing most of the non-serious threats. In the end, Guantanamo isn't perfect, not by a long shot. But IMO, if keeping it (as well as wiretaps) means even remotely preventing another 9/11, I'm all for it.