In Conversation with a Republi’cant: Episode 4

Who the Hell Gets Polled Anyway?

Up. Down. Swing Around. Poll Dancing Explained.

Obama’s in trouble. Registered voters are now switching to McCain. Will he be back up by Friday?

Or will he drop again?

If you’re like me and you follow the daily tracking pulls such as the Gallup and the Rassmussen poll, you’re likely to get confused. How is it that people change their minds so often? I know that despite my candidate’s missteps I don’t change my mind…unless of course it’s revealed that he slept with his videographer or something.

As I’ve been working my way through The History of Western Philosophy (by Bertrand Russell) I figure this is a situation where we need to call on the wisdom of Socrates (complete BS of course, as Socrates and Plato weren’t necessarily fond of democracy and therefore would probably not enjoy polling in the first place).

5 Ways to Get Polled

The question “Who is Polled?” is a matter of deduction. A few things must be established and I’m going to attempt to answer them in completely biased fashion.

1. You must answer the phone despite the fact that you do not recognize the number on caller-ID. Or you do not have caller ID. Or you’re very lonely and would just like to have someone to talk pass a few minutes with.

2. You have to have found justification to have both a land line and a cellphone…which means your either use dial-up or DSL, or you’d swore you’d never use a cellphone because the government can listen in, or you’re concerned you might have to call 911 when you have the dreaded no bars.

3. You have to be unemployed, retired, or a stay a home parent. You could be all three, but that means number 4 would negate you’re chance at being polled.

4. You have to have nothing to do. Seriously, who wants to answer a series of question? And if you do want to answer a series of questions, it’s likely your interested in skewing the results to make a point.

5. Lastly, you’ll need to watch C-SPAN, FOX News, American Idol, be swayed by advertising but swear that you’re not, be scare of terrorists but more scared of the economy, remember one liners, have a disdain for nuanced diplomacy….

I hope I’ve answered all your questions about who get’s polled and why, and if you think you have something to add…please help me out.

Thanks. ISM

Congratulations Clinton! You’re officially the candidate for…

the racists that still exist in this country.

What disturbs me is that there is obvious racist sentiments leading to Clinton’s victory in West Virginia. There were reports in exit polling that two-thirds of the voters in West Virginia would not vote for Obama because he is black. This should disturb Clinton more than anyone. Why should she celebrate in their votes? And it should disturb her supporters. It taints anyone that supports her.

Clinton has no chance of winning the nomination. It’s over. It’s long been over, but the Democratic party has been patient with her. And yet she continues on, based on the hope that super delegates will cozy to her broad base appeal argument.

My argument against the broad based appeal and the idea that Obama can’t win white, working class American’s is basic. I don’t want to be in a party that has racists. Period. I thought that was the other party (in fact the last two presidential elections West Virginia did in fact go to Repubicans). So if the Democratic party wants to make the argument that in order to win the election, it must appeal to this group, then sorry - I’m not party to that.

In fact if Hillary truly is not a racist then I’d expect her to come out and reject, repudiate and denounce the votes of the two-thirds of West Virginia. But of course we wont’ hear anything like that, instead we’ll have to endure another three weeks of torture as this nomination process slowly bleeds campaign money that could be going to the fight against McCain.

Wow…it makes you proud to be an American for the first time… right Michelle?

What Do Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh and Hillary Clinton Have in Common?

That’s what I’m wondering.

While other news organizations seem to have moved on from the issue of Obama’s pastor and his comments, Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh seems obsessed with bringing Obama down. My question, in watching this is what’s their point? Why not tackle both democrats with equal tenacity. And who really benefits? No true democrat listens to their commentary. Independents see them for the hate-mongers they are.

The only one benefiting from the constant cycle of Reverend Wright and Obama bashing is Hillary Clinton. And she’s smartly remained mum on the topic, enjoying the slight boost it’s given her. She’s also probably the only democrat on this earth said FOX NEWS was more fair than MSNBC. This has been the greatest gift to her campaign short of Rush and Sean forming their on PAC for her cause.  She’s not had to run near as much advertising in the coming primary states due to the great negative campaign being pushed by Fox, and other right-wing media outlets.

And what’s the motive? It’s not Rush-Sean-Fox’s love of Hillary. It’s the fact that they want to tear apart the Democratic Party. They want the huge numbers that have been energized by the candidates during this primary season to stay home.

It comes down to a simple event that needs to take place.

Hillary needs to drop out.

She can’t win, but she can systematically tear apart the party by remaining in the race and dragging this out. She’s also continuing to funnel donations that would be going to other Democratic campaigns, into both Obama and Clinton campaign coffers.

P.S. With regards to the cartoon, I want to remind any right-wingers out there that might take offense, it’s you who’ve insinuated that his supporters think he’s some sort of messiah, that they think Obama can walk on water. So I say, if you can take him that far, then you should be able to take the analogy to the end.

Vogue Magazine, a Confession, and the Confused Artistry of Annie Leibovitz

I’m in the checkout line at Safeway with two beers and shaving cream and I notice the latest issue of Vogue.

Is this for real?

With all of the uproar over race, racism, and a media that keeps picking at the scab, how could such an insensitive cover make the stands?

I left the checkout with two beers, shaving cream and the April edition of Vogue, and a bit of fire for the keyboard with three points to make.

First point. If you’re a photographer, and your going to rely on Photoshop to pull off your ill-conceived gig, do it right.

I’m a graphic designer by trade and not a physicist, but I’m pretty convinced the cover image is a mediocre Photoshop job ( please comment if you feel otherwise.) One of the tell-tale signs of a manipulated image versus the real deal is gravity - the way bodies press against objects, or folds and light shadows bend and fall. In this photo, Gisele is weightless. While I know 99% of us couldn’t even dream of doing what Lebron does on the court, try to do what he’s doing in this photo. Even LeBron couldn’t pull this off.

First, find someone about half your weight and who is comfortable running suspended in your left arm. (It also helps if they don’t have a right arm.)

Now grab a basketball and assume a pose that goes somewhat like this. You’re in a wide stance and dribbling the basketball. Your left foot, (the same side as you’ll be holding whomever you convinced to play Gisele), hovers a few inches off the ground. Your Gisele should now assume the running pose in your left arm. Keep dribbling the basketball with your right. Now as Gisele fakes running, casually keep her restrained.

Keep this pose while I ready my camera.

Now comes the tough part. Roar at the camera. Don’t say cheese. That’s too wimpy. Make this a deep roar from the depths of your being, all the while looking straight at the camera and dribbling the basketball.

Oh, and Gisele, while you’re running, levitating and being restrained, give us a goofy smile and look somewhere way up in the rafters just over my left shoulder.

I hope you get my point. This cover is a concoction, and one of the worst kind, because it takes it’s influence from a movie, King Kong (1933), with a long history of controversy over it’s racist innuendo, and places it smack dab between my beer and shaving cream. Lesson here: If you’re going to concoct, know how to mix your ingredients.

This brings me to point two, a confession on creative arrogance.

Artists deal in manipulation of images. We see, process, and then regurgitate in whatever medium we prefer with the hope that others see what we see. From the moment we’re born, images are coming in, embedding themselves in our subconscious. And herein lies the problem. No two people have ever been exposed to the exact set of images, or reality.

In college, after I changed my major from Marketing and decided to dive head first into the process of becoming an Artist, I created art under the concept of shock first, question later. The unconscious intrigued me. Juxtaposition without reason, became reason itself. This was 1995 and I’d created a painting that stirred people, angered people. This is a painting for which I’m not proud. But at the time I wouldn’t take any criticism. I said, it’s how the images appeared, I created, I’m stepping back now and I disassociate myself from it. How was I to know what those to symbols meant anything other than my original intention? It’s all ART, right? Wrong. Lesson two: Don’t assume you have no responsibility to self-censorship.

And so I’m going to finish this long soapbox post with my final point.

Annie Leibovitz is a portrait photographer of great fame. At one time we’ve all seen her work. Because of her fame, and the expanse and recognition of her work, I’m going to make some assumptions. First, that she’s smart with a world view and has a great creative perception. That she knows her history of symbols and imagery.

As the photographer for this Vogue cover, Annie knows very much that she’s doing a play on the King Kong movie posters of the 30s (a time when the question of whether racism was ingrained in American life is a mute point). And yet she chose this as the construct for her LeBron and Gisele shot.

Magazine covers don’t spontaneously materialize. They start with a creative concept and a story. They are a collaboration between creative direction, editor, photographer and subject. Leibovitz was given a subject. A black man, a celebrity, and great athlete, and a blond woman, a super model. When the idea was conceived to shoot a photograph in the likes of the King Kong film poster, I’m going to guess this made some on the creative team a bit uneasy, but they went along with it. They were dealing with creative genius, and of course, it’s all in fun. And so the process that would produce this cover started. Leibovitz, thinking she was doing something daring, in the same mold as her photograph of Whoopi Goldberg in a bathtub of milk (another photo that could be questioned for its creative intentions), or her Demi Moore pregnant cover for Vanity Fair.

Unfortunately, the imagery and predisposition to make this photograph was already in Leibovitz’s unconscious way before this shot took place. It probably started in childhood with images from the 40s and 50s and has been reinforced all through her life. And her creative arrogance, and the fact she’s likely a politically liberal person with an open mind, means her mind is closed to her own prejudices, that she’s unaware of the myth she continues through her art. The myth that black men are primal brutes, that the blond damsel is their prize. There are a million ways to arrange and photograph two attractive celebrities.

Leibovitz gave us this.

For those interested here’s a list of other commentary on the subject of this Vogue cover:

1. ESPN Sports, Jemel Hill, March 21, 2008

Show’n Them What’s Really Wrong with America

Wow, I feel as though I’ve been drawing an entire series on racism in America lately. Didn’t quite expect that, but I guess it’s good to suck it up and address what needs addressing.

I’m going to confess - actually the Irish in spacemonk probably gives it away - but I’ll confess anyway. I’m pretty white. With a typical mutt heritage of various European immigrants (Irish, Swedish, German, and whatever else there is out there). And I was also educated in a largely white school in Alaska. But I’m also of Gen X, a liberal democrat, and so I like to think of myself as pretty open minded.

Then I took a Black Studies class on the history of African Americans in film, I was surprised to learn how ignorant I’d been of the ingrained racism in movies, even to this day (If you wish to read a great book on this subject, check out, Donald Bogle’s “Toms, Coons, Mulattoes, Mammies, & Bucks” .) And if this is rampant in the movie industry - a pretty progressive bunch - then I feel safe to guess it’s gonna be even worse in society in general. If you don’t believe me, do a search for blacks as CEOs of Fortune 500 companies. Then do a search for females as CEOs for Fortune 500 companies. You might be surprised to learn it’s four blacks, twelve women.

So this gets me to thinking that as long as we avoid teaching our children the real nature of racism, that it isn’t just what makes the news, but it’s an inherent pattern of stereotyping, of fears, passed on by parents to their children, then we’ll never get beyond this issue. It will continue to be pushed aside, left for later generations, hoping that it goes away. Just last year, while in the grocery store parking lot near where I live, a pickup truck with teens was cutting across, with two huge Confederate flags flying off the back end. I was surprised. Who’d be that insensitive? This wasn’t the South, this was Oregon.

America, we haven’t made it as far as we like to tell ourselves.

Someday a black man or a black woman will again try to run for president, and will get quite far, and then it (the issue we refuse to talk about) will rear it’s ugliness into the lives of another generation, and because they’ve never been taught where the anger and resentment originates, we’ll deal with it in a similar fashion as we are today. Scared. Hateful. And with suspicion.

It will seem like we’ve gone nowhere.

Barack Obama Faces Racism We Are All Afraid to Face

The speech Barack Obama delivered today matters. It matters for history, for this election, and for race relations in this country. And most importantly, in light of questions of experience, leadership and direction for America, the speech demonstrates hat Obama’s candidacy is different.Here is a presidential candidate that takes on an issue instead of hoping it goes away. To directly tackle the issue of racism, and the remarks made by his pastor, Jeremiah Wright, and to defend his choice not to disown the minister when it would have been easy to disown him — this speaks volumes.

Think of 2002.Think of the fervor leading up to the Iraq War.

In 2002 the best political suicide could have been to be against the perceived fight against Iraq’s plot against the US, where American’s had been scared into thinking that Iraq and Saddam Hussein had been involved in 9/11 and the specter of a mushroom cloud coincided with the latest stories on yellow cake uranium.And no ths isn’t the kind of cake you put candles in.

Think 2002, then watch the speech again.

This is the same man who gave a speech against the war in Iraq. And this is likely the same man who’d deliver a speech against going into Iran, or North Korea, unprovoked.Some would want discount the 2002 speech and claim that he wasn’t in the Senate at the time so his position doesn’t really count. True he could not vote. However it’s not a large leap of faith to see that he wouldn’t have backed away from a no vote on the Iraq war, that he wouldn’t have been persuaded into going along with Bush and Cheney, just as he isn’t going along with the safe route in dealing with the issue of race.

A speech on race in the 2008 election as a Black man looking to become the first African American president of the United States, during a time where racism is rearing it’s ugly head - that’s not a safe speech to give.

Yet Obama delivered it.Now of course a political cartoon blog - and most times I try to be funny, or at least shocking, and to fill the posts with images instead of words.And so I apologize. This isn’t an issue that makes itself into funny lines and satire.

But I’m also hopeful that come November I’ll be able to pack up my pencils and paper, and put my energies to better use, once we elect Barack as the next President

And if we don’t, if we find the choice is between a Clinton or McClinton - take out futures on wood, lead and paper, because this cartoonist will be busy…very busy.

Best.

P.S. I must say, embedding a YouTube video into a Wordpress Blog has got to be the absolute biggest nightmare outside of certain politicians being elected. Incase anyone else has this problem, after turning off all visual code editors, remember, every single space has to be removed from anything surrounding your YouTube code or it’ll break apart in FireFox. AKKK!

Next Page »