21 March 2007
The US Attorney "Scandal"
A couple of quick comments:
1) As I understand it, the position of US Attorney is a political appointment, and one that serves at the grace of the powers-that-be.
2) A tradition has grown up around the position that these federal prosecutors should not be fired (or "asked to resign") as the powers-that-be shift between parties. That tradition serves to insulate the prosecutors from the whims of administrations, and provides some stability to these offices and the cases they are working.
3) The scandal has allowed to flourish due in no small part to the mixed messages the administration has been ending regarding these forced resignations.
What can we learn from this?
One thing to take away from this is that tradition is an important consideration during deliberation of political action. Regardless of the right of the administration to appoint new attorneys, they should have considered that doing so without a non-political reason would bring the ire of their opponents, those who were fired, and the media looking for a scandal.
Another lesson to be learned is that we live in an era of cynicism and accountability. The press and the public feel they deserve a certain amount of openness and honesty from their government, even if they don't expect to really get it. Perhaps if the administration had openly given the reason for these personnel changes from the start, they wouldn't have provided more fuel for the scandal fire.
In the end, from a legal standpoint as far as I can see (though I'm no expert), no "wrong" was done. But we Americans hate to see dirty politics flaunted (it needs to stay hidden), and regardless of it's legality, it still seems wrong.
David Iglaeias, one of the eight US Attorneys that were fired, has a NYT Op-Ed today titled "Why I Was Fired", which really shines the light on the dirt in this scandal.
1) As I understand it, the position of US Attorney is a political appointment, and one that serves at the grace of the powers-that-be.
2) A tradition has grown up around the position that these federal prosecutors should not be fired (or "asked to resign") as the powers-that-be shift between parties. That tradition serves to insulate the prosecutors from the whims of administrations, and provides some stability to these offices and the cases they are working.
3) The scandal has allowed to flourish due in no small part to the mixed messages the administration has been ending regarding these forced resignations.
What can we learn from this?
One thing to take away from this is that tradition is an important consideration during deliberation of political action. Regardless of the right of the administration to appoint new attorneys, they should have considered that doing so without a non-political reason would bring the ire of their opponents, those who were fired, and the media looking for a scandal.
Another lesson to be learned is that we live in an era of cynicism and accountability. The press and the public feel they deserve a certain amount of openness and honesty from their government, even if they don't expect to really get it. Perhaps if the administration had openly given the reason for these personnel changes from the start, they wouldn't have provided more fuel for the scandal fire.
In the end, from a legal standpoint as far as I can see (though I'm no expert), no "wrong" was done. But we Americans hate to see dirty politics flaunted (it needs to stay hidden), and regardless of it's legality, it still seems wrong.
David Iglaeias, one of the eight US Attorneys that were fired, has a NYT Op-Ed today titled "Why I Was Fired", which really shines the light on the dirt in this scandal.
"I will never forget John Ashcroft, then the attorney general, telling me during the summer of 2001 that politics should play no role during my tenure. I took that message to heart. Little did I know that I could be fired for not being political."
Labels: politics, scandal, US Attorney
20 March 2007
Realistic Photoshopping of News Magazine Covers
This week's TIME comes with the cover story titled, "How the Right Went Wrong", and features a profile photo of Reagan, along with a single tear dripping down his cheek.
I immediately thought two things: (1) "That's cheesy!" and (2) "That's got to be fake!" Looking for the credits inside, we find out, sure enough, that the cover has two credits - one for the photo and one for the tear.
Now, I'm no right winger and I hold no great respect for Reagan - his legacy, like most presidents, is a mixture of greatness and crap. But this just didn't seem right. Obviously the cover was meant to evoke great feelings - mostly to portray the current Republican leadership as marring the GOP that Reagan built. But to me it just seemed like... schlock. Cheap. Lame.
I though that my reaction had to do with an expectation that the photo be real and not edited. But upon further reflection, that's not a justifiable expectation. The covers are often artful and often non-photographic. It's not like it's LIFE, or Photographer's Monthly. The cover will of course be designed to reflect the character of the magazine as well as to attract newsstand customers.
I think my reaction simply had to do with the lameness of the image itself. I knew it was photoshopped and I knew what the reaction was that it supposed to provoke. My reaction, though, was to be repulsed by it. To me, it speaks unfavorably to the character of the magazine - does TIME really think that I am simple enough to be swayed to pathos or sympathy by this cheap image?
This same issue, TIME reveals a new look inside. They've changed the typefaces and layout. The look reminds me somewhat of the last issue of the Economist I read (it's been years, though), and possibly a little of US News and World Report. Yet the content seems more popularized than those magazines. So the new look combined with the schlocky cover - I'm not so sure I value TIME very highly anymore.
Well, any publicity is good publicity, right? And TIME just rung out a few paragraphs of emotional publicity from me with that cover. Maybe any reaction was what they were after, not just the pathos. I'm a little disappointed that I'd contribute to that, but more disappointed in the magazine. Is any publicity really worth a devaluation of your business' character?
I immediately thought two things: (1) "That's cheesy!" and (2) "That's got to be fake!" Looking for the credits inside, we find out, sure enough, that the cover has two credits - one for the photo and one for the tear.
Now, I'm no right winger and I hold no great respect for Reagan - his legacy, like most presidents, is a mixture of greatness and crap. But this just didn't seem right. Obviously the cover was meant to evoke great feelings - mostly to portray the current Republican leadership as marring the GOP that Reagan built. But to me it just seemed like... schlock. Cheap. Lame.
I though that my reaction had to do with an expectation that the photo be real and not edited. But upon further reflection, that's not a justifiable expectation. The covers are often artful and often non-photographic. It's not like it's LIFE, or Photographer's Monthly. The cover will of course be designed to reflect the character of the magazine as well as to attract newsstand customers.
I think my reaction simply had to do with the lameness of the image itself. I knew it was photoshopped and I knew what the reaction was that it supposed to provoke. My reaction, though, was to be repulsed by it. To me, it speaks unfavorably to the character of the magazine - does TIME really think that I am simple enough to be swayed to pathos or sympathy by this cheap image?
This same issue, TIME reveals a new look inside. They've changed the typefaces and layout. The look reminds me somewhat of the last issue of the Economist I read (it's been years, though), and possibly a little of US News and World Report. Yet the content seems more popularized than those magazines. So the new look combined with the schlocky cover - I'm not so sure I value TIME very highly anymore.
Well, any publicity is good publicity, right? And TIME just rung out a few paragraphs of emotional publicity from me with that cover. Maybe any reaction was what they were after, not just the pathos. I'm a little disappointed that I'd contribute to that, but more disappointed in the magazine. Is any publicity really worth a devaluation of your business' character?
Labels: magazine, photoshop, politics, TIME
Spicy Spam Kabobs?
You know what's great about gmail? Not only do you get ads relevant to some of the subjects in your inbox, but you get ads for Spam recipes in your Spam folder! "Spicy Spam Kabobs - Serve with hot cooked rice" reads the one line ad at the top of my junk mail box. Way to cover your bases, Google!
Labels: email, funny, gmail, google
07 March 2007
The cost of a key
We have a minivan and a Saturn sedan. My wife drives the Saturn to work - it gets great gas milage, and we've got Blizzak all weather tires on it for the snow. It's a great little car.
When we take our son places, we use the minivan. I usually drive. But on Tuesdays, the wife has her day off and takes the little one to the library and sometimes on other errands and trips, driving the van, of course.
We only received one set of keys with the van. This wasn't a problem until a couple of months ago, when she left the keys in her coat pocket, and the next day, she left for work. I was packing our son up, getting ready to take him to day care, and couldn't find the keys. A phone call later confirmed my fear - the keys were still in her pocket, and there was no way she could get back home before the afternoon.
The next day, I took the keys to a hardware store to get a copy. The reference book they had said it was a transponder key (a small microchip in the key has to be present for the ignition to start), but it didn't look like one to me or the key guy. The chips were clearly visible on other transponder keys I had seen before. So I got a copy made. It fit in the door and operated the locks, but it wouldn't start the ignition.
So I called the dealership. A year ago, I ordered a new remote for the locks as my other one was falling apart. That was nearly $50. The transponder key? $85. I told my wife we'd just have to remember to make sure she left the keys.
Well, we forgot again today. So it looks like I'm forking out the money for a key.
When we take our son places, we use the minivan. I usually drive. But on Tuesdays, the wife has her day off and takes the little one to the library and sometimes on other errands and trips, driving the van, of course.
We only received one set of keys with the van. This wasn't a problem until a couple of months ago, when she left the keys in her coat pocket, and the next day, she left for work. I was packing our son up, getting ready to take him to day care, and couldn't find the keys. A phone call later confirmed my fear - the keys were still in her pocket, and there was no way she could get back home before the afternoon.
The next day, I took the keys to a hardware store to get a copy. The reference book they had said it was a transponder key (a small microchip in the key has to be present for the ignition to start), but it didn't look like one to me or the key guy. The chips were clearly visible on other transponder keys I had seen before. So I got a copy made. It fit in the door and operated the locks, but it wouldn't start the ignition.
So I called the dealership. A year ago, I ordered a new remote for the locks as my other one was falling apart. That was nearly $50. The transponder key? $85. I told my wife we'd just have to remember to make sure she left the keys.
Well, we forgot again today. So it looks like I'm forking out the money for a key.
Labels: flexible scheduling, lame, money
Ugh! Not again!
Remember Bob? The talking baby first from some internet company (Wikipedia says it was "Freeinternet")? And then, because TV execs are so desperate to catch onto any fad, his own TV show? (If you don't remember, then be happy you don't have the same penchant for remembering all this useless crap like I do.)
Well, that worked so well that now there's going to be a caveman sitcom based on the Geico commercials.
Does anyone really want to watch this theme played out over 30 minutes... repeatedly... every week? I hope not.
Some have said we're in a new golden age of TV. Shows like 24, Lost, and Heroes are telling compelling stories with excellent acting. Channels like HBO are putting out more critically acclaimed programming like the Soprano's and Curb Your Enthusiasm. But then again, shows like Dancing with the Stars and Deal or No Deal are popular, too. So maybe you do want to watch cavemen deal with discrimination in a modern world.
Just can't imagine this show living beyond a few episodes, or, at the longest, an entire first season. I almost feel sorry for the people who will be venturing their livelihood on this.
But Baby Bob made out, OK I guess, since he starred in Quizno's commercials in 2005 and 2006 (and maybe still?). I suppose the cavemen will still have Geico to fall back on. And imagine their return to commercials - a Super Bowl spot where the caveman laments how he couldn't make it in Hollywood due to discrimination! That'll sure sell some car insurance!
Well, that worked so well that now there's going to be a caveman sitcom based on the Geico commercials.
Does anyone really want to watch this theme played out over 30 minutes... repeatedly... every week? I hope not.
Some have said we're in a new golden age of TV. Shows like 24, Lost, and Heroes are telling compelling stories with excellent acting. Channels like HBO are putting out more critically acclaimed programming like the Soprano's and Curb Your Enthusiasm. But then again, shows like Dancing with the Stars and Deal or No Deal are popular, too. So maybe you do want to watch cavemen deal with discrimination in a modern world.
Just can't imagine this show living beyond a few episodes, or, at the longest, an entire first season. I almost feel sorry for the people who will be venturing their livelihood on this.
But Baby Bob made out, OK I guess, since he starred in Quizno's commercials in 2005 and 2006 (and maybe still?). I suppose the cavemen will still have Geico to fall back on. And imagine their return to commercials - a Super Bowl spot where the caveman laments how he couldn't make it in Hollywood due to discrimination! That'll sure sell some car insurance!
Labels: commercials, lame, sitcoms, talking babies, tv
