I just watched this classic movie by Sir Stanley Kubrick… and I saw a connection between President Bush’s posture and actions regarding the arms treaty and nuclear build-up (aka, the defense shield…yeah right), his rejection of Putin’s (dumb decision) request to maintain the arms control treaty, the whole Presidential Office (if you want to call that faternity that) behavior in relation to sending American troops to wage war in Iraq (including claims that Hussein’s “weapons of mass destruction” were poised to attack the United States, and sending me half to my death several times), and the Bush administration’s interest in space and creating a technology that will include a staging area for space-age defense and attack. I couldn’t stop seeing all these connections and I was wondering what you guys thought about it. Was Kubrick a genius or what?
i wouldn’t be so quick to credit Kubrick on anything brilliant besides making an entertaining movie. many authors, directors, writers, etc, have written things that have made some VERY close parallels to current leaders (Bush) or other leaders that had yet to take office. first, i think this is because these stories are all about certain kinds of leaders, bad ones, because these are the ones that make interesting books and movies. and second, because bad leaders tend to be timeless. they make the same mistakes. they act similarly. they use the same logic over and over. its history repeating itself.
its not so sad that Dr Strangelove has similarities to Bush as it is sad that Bush is the type of leader that has been immortalized in film and on paper.
immortalized may not be the word i’d use… it technically is true but we tend to try to immortalize those we like or those that make good decisions and set examples we feel we should follow. it (to me) is a problem with an implied meaning.
I’ve heard some say Bush may be the ‘bear of the West’ that Nostradamus prophesied about. Not that I have any clue what that means.