01 May 2007
How un-PC!
This why I love Wonkette:
Pithy throw-away comments like that help make reading about the latest crisis or government screw-up a little more tolerable.
"DNA tests would actually show most Mexicans have Spanish blood, which is why they are always dancing the flamenco and fighting the Basques."
-- in response to some blather on NY Times blog comments
Pithy throw-away comments like that help make reading about the latest crisis or government screw-up a little more tolerable.
Labels: blogging, politics, wonkette
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
24 February 2007
Isn't it a bit early for all of this?
I used to consider myself a political junkie. Then I started reading all these political blogs and watching alot of 24 hour news channels. I discovered I'm nothing compared to many, even those that just do the blogging thing "for fun".
Since this realization about a year or two ago, I've weaned myself of some of my political intake. So I missed the Obama-Clinton kerfluffle until the summaries appeared yesterday and today. I still don't get exactly what went down, or, rather, why it's such a big deal. I mean, aren't we just under two years out from the election? That's the same feeling echoed here in this article from CNN:
We ARE a long way from that. We've got, what?, 18 months more of this?
That was also my reaction yesterday when I heard that Vilsack dropped out yesterday. And I remember thinking the same thing in 1999 when Elizabeth Dole dropped out way before any primaries. I was kind of excited to see Mrs. Dole in the race, especially since I hadn't heard anything all that compelling about the guy everyone was calling the front-runner. Maybe this has been happening for a while in our country, but these long drawn out primary and pre-primary races seem both silly and a killer to interesting candidates.
I'm one of those cynical disillusioned Americans, but I like politics. And I especially like interesting and unique candidates. Obama's kind of interesting, but I'm going to grow weary of him. McCain was interesting in '00 because he seemed to come out of nowhere to challenge the designated heir apparent. Now if guys like Vilsack (who at least has the coolest logo so far!) can't stick with it or don't enter at all, what's there left for me? Nader?
Since this realization about a year or two ago, I've weaned myself of some of my political intake. So I missed the Obama-Clinton kerfluffle until the summaries appeared yesterday and today. I still don't get exactly what went down, or, rather, why it's such a big deal. I mean, aren't we just under two years out from the election? That's the same feeling echoed here in this article from CNN:
"If Sen. Clinton and Sen. Obama were engaged in a day-in, day-out bashing of each other, I think it probably would help somebody like John Edwards, who could stand above the fray and act presidential," [political analyst Stu] Rothenberg said. "But we're a long way from that."
We ARE a long way from that. We've got, what?, 18 months more of this?
That was also my reaction yesterday when I heard that Vilsack dropped out yesterday. And I remember thinking the same thing in 1999 when Elizabeth Dole dropped out way before any primaries. I was kind of excited to see Mrs. Dole in the race, especially since I hadn't heard anything all that compelling about the guy everyone was calling the front-runner. Maybe this has been happening for a while in our country, but these long drawn out primary and pre-primary races seem both silly and a killer to interesting candidates.
I'm one of those cynical disillusioned Americans, but I like politics. And I especially like interesting and unique candidates. Obama's kind of interesting, but I'm going to grow weary of him. McCain was interesting in '00 because he seemed to come out of nowhere to challenge the designated heir apparent. Now if guys like Vilsack (who at least has the coolest logo so far!) can't stick with it or don't enter at all, what's there left for me? Nader?
Labels: 2008, politics, primaries
08 January 2007
Multiculturalism, or assimilation?
Althouse led me to a political test today (though her post is from Friday), that in itself wasn't that sepctacular, but it had at least one question that prompted extra thought:
I find that I've bought into the "melting pot" ideal. But I see it this way: There is an American culture that is made up of the blending of our inherited transplanted cultures and is continually influenced by the influx of immigrants and our relations in the world at large. I was at a great example of this this weekend: Romine's High Pockets in Milwaukee - a pool hall, sports bar, and arcade with a restaurant attached. The name of the restaurant: Senor Loco's. And while the menu offered many delicious looking mexican specialities, we ordered Pizza. And it was really good.
Where else in the world can you get all that in one place?
Milwaukee itself boasts a great respect for the cultures of it's people, as long as they like to party. On the Summerfest grounds or nearby, the spring, summer and fall are all filled with cultural events from Irish Fest, to Italian fest, to Bastille Days, to Oktoberfest. There's Asian and Latino festivals, too. So we can all share in the great food, drink, and entertainment of the people that make up our communities.
Yet, I'd hope that all these people would celebrate our American heritage and culture, too. Our nation may be young in the grand scheme of things, but 200 plus years isn't too shabby. Nor is our standing in the world today. And it says something that every year hundreds of thousands or more try to come here to live and want to become citizens.
I'm interested in my own heritage (Scandinavian, Lithuanian, German, and others), but it doesn't define me as much as my nationality and regional identity. It means more to me to be a Wisconsinite than of Lithuanian or Swedish descent. And, in dealing with those of other nationalities, I'm still happy to be known as an American (hey - we all have skeleton's in our national closets...). So the assimilation process has worked for me - 3 generations is all it took, though I doubt my parents felt much different than I about their identity.
This article about the diversyfication of Australia's surfing life-saving clubs is interesting, too. From what I understand, Australia has a history of anti-immigration tendancies in the white majority. And last year, there were instances of racial clashes between ethnically Middle Easterners and whites on the beaches. Now, the traditionally conservative surfing clubs are reaching out to recruit other ethnicities to foster "breaking down social barriers".
To deal with the Muslim women's attire requirements, they've developed what has been termed a "burquini". I understand the argument that religions that enforce strict cultural attire (especially the fundamentalist Islamic kind) is actually just a patriarchal oppression of women. But if these suits allow oppressed women to venture out into the world and do things like surf and save lives and become aculturated, then I think they are a good thing.
Good luck to the new Austrailian life guards! And kudos to the surfing clubs reaching out to mend cultural schisms. Long live the melting pots, and long live our heritage - separate and united.
"8. Do you see the ideal America as an ethnic "melting pot" in which religious, cultural and ethnic distinctions are blurred, or as a nation in which ethnically diverse groups ought to coexist while retaining their cultural identity?"
I find that I've bought into the "melting pot" ideal. But I see it this way: There is an American culture that is made up of the blending of our inherited transplanted cultures and is continually influenced by the influx of immigrants and our relations in the world at large. I was at a great example of this this weekend: Romine's High Pockets in Milwaukee - a pool hall, sports bar, and arcade with a restaurant attached. The name of the restaurant: Senor Loco's. And while the menu offered many delicious looking mexican specialities, we ordered Pizza. And it was really good.
Where else in the world can you get all that in one place?
Milwaukee itself boasts a great respect for the cultures of it's people, as long as they like to party. On the Summerfest grounds or nearby, the spring, summer and fall are all filled with cultural events from Irish Fest, to Italian fest, to Bastille Days, to Oktoberfest. There's Asian and Latino festivals, too. So we can all share in the great food, drink, and entertainment of the people that make up our communities.
Yet, I'd hope that all these people would celebrate our American heritage and culture, too. Our nation may be young in the grand scheme of things, but 200 plus years isn't too shabby. Nor is our standing in the world today. And it says something that every year hundreds of thousands or more try to come here to live and want to become citizens.
I'm interested in my own heritage (Scandinavian, Lithuanian, German, and others), but it doesn't define me as much as my nationality and regional identity. It means more to me to be a Wisconsinite than of Lithuanian or Swedish descent. And, in dealing with those of other nationalities, I'm still happy to be known as an American (hey - we all have skeleton's in our national closets...). So the assimilation process has worked for me - 3 generations is all it took, though I doubt my parents felt much different than I about their identity.
This article about the diversyfication of Australia's surfing life-saving clubs is interesting, too. From what I understand, Australia has a history of anti-immigration tendancies in the white majority. And last year, there were instances of racial clashes between ethnically Middle Easterners and whites on the beaches. Now, the traditionally conservative surfing clubs are reaching out to recruit other ethnicities to foster "breaking down social barriers".
To deal with the Muslim women's attire requirements, they've developed what has been termed a "burquini". I understand the argument that religions that enforce strict cultural attire (especially the fundamentalist Islamic kind) is actually just a patriarchal oppression of women. But if these suits allow oppressed women to venture out into the world and do things like surf and save lives and become aculturated, then I think they are a good thing.
Good luck to the new Austrailian life guards! And kudos to the surfing clubs reaching out to mend cultural schisms. Long live the melting pots, and long live our heritage - separate and united.
Labels: american culture, politics
