Archive for the 'Politics' Category

Persepolis

May 5, 2008

If there’s a new media or genre or means of expression to be celebrated out there, I’m always late to the party. (I figure I should have created this blog at least four years ago.) So it’s not surprising that I haven’t had much exposure to the emergence of the graphic novel, sort of an extended comic book for grown-ups. I somehow associated it with Japanese anime and other media that haven’t appealed to me and that don’t seem to have the legitimacy of traditional media.

Wrong again. The filmed version of Persepolis really changed my mind. Marjane ‘Marji’ Statrapi’s coming-of-age story set against the fall of the Shah and the rise of the Islamic Revolution in Tehran is beautiful and simple and funny and utterly terrifying. I had the same reaction to it that I’ve had to well-executed puppet theatre or other representational theatre — the non-realistic portrayal somehow makes the themes and issues much clearer and more poignant. “Life couldn’t possibly be worse than it was under the Shah,” the characters believe, and then the mullahs move in and the war with Iraq begins. Even when her parents send her away to escape the horrors of the regime, Marji is still defined by Iran, by what her family has suffered and lost.

She’s a few years older than my oldest son, and while he was spending his childhood and adolescence looking for the next ballgame-party-adventure with his friends, she spent most of hers afraid, for herself and for everyone she loved, several of whom were executed by the various regimes. Sent to Vienna by her frightened parents, she falls in with a bored, alienated crowd of Holden Caulfieldesque students, and eventually lashes out at them for their indifference to what was happening in the world.

I wonder if any generation in the West is ever really aware of what is going on around them? I remember being absolutely astonished by Apocalypse Now, with its violent, nihilistic portrait of Viet Nam. “Was that really what was going on?” I wondered. And I read a book a few years ago called Hungry Ghosts that argued that, while my friends and I were playing hopscotch and discovering boys and going to our first junior high school dances, tens of millions of Chinese peasants were starving to death trying to fulfill Mao’s public relations stunt of exporting grain to other “poorer” nations. (A hungry ghost is the bottom rung of hell in Chinese mythology, doomed to wander, starving, through eternity.) As many as 50 million or more Chinese people may have died, which I suppose could put Stalin and Hitler in second and third place as the 20th century’s bloodiest regimes.

Obamania

March 3, 2008

images-3.jpegCharlotte Allen in the Washington Post is embarrassed by the reaction of much of the fairer sex to the Obama campaign:

Here’s Agence France-Presse reporting on a rally for Sen. Barack Obama at the University of Maryland on Feb. 11: “He did not flinch when women screamed as he was in mid-sentence, and even broke off once to answer a female’s cry of ‘I love you, Obama!’ with a reassuring ‘I love you back.’ “

Women screamed? What was this, the Beatles tour of 1964? And when they weren’t screaming, the fair-sex Obama fans who dominated the rally of 16,000 were saying things like: “Every time I hear him speak, I become more hopeful.” Huh?

“Women ‘Falling for Obama,’ ” the story’s headline read. Elsewhere around the country, women were falling for the presidential candidate literally. Connecticut radio talk show host Jim Vicevich has counted five separate instances in which women fainted at Obama rallies since last September. And I thought that fainting was supposed to be a relic of the sexist past, when patriarchs forced their wives and daughters to lace themselves into corsets that cut off their oxygen.

“What is it about us women?” Allen asks. “Why do we always fall for the hysterical, the superficial and the gooily sentimental?” Why, indeed? (For even more fun, check the comments to her article from all the indignant feminists.)

I think, in this presidential year, our view of the candidates has less to do with sentimental goo and more to do with the cult of personality. Read the rest of this entry »

Chaucer and PC

February 14, 2008

images-12.jpegThis is hilarious — but it’s probably for English majors only. Via.

Mitt—and the Mormons—the morning after

February 8, 2008

images-2.jpegNow that the initial news over Mitt Romney throwing in the towel has been absorbed by the media far and wide, a lot of news copy and bloggage is picking over the relationship between his candidacy and his faith. Libby Copeland of the Washington Post in “Did Mormons Get a Bounce from Mitt?” thinks Romney may have been a little too perfect for the American public:

Romney seemed so Mormon, so squeaky clean, so Pollyanna-ish, even. (Remember when he went to Michigan and said he could bring those lost jobs back?) Romney’s seeming normalcy isn’t the norm anymore. Maybe we understand better those who’ve strayed or failed and recovered — or, for that matter, those who aren’t fabulously successful and can’t put tens of millions into their own campaigns. Maybe we relate to the family lives of other candidates, candidates who have been divorced, who have blended families, whose children don’t all campaign with them (and may not even like them). Sure, they’re messier, but messy is authentic.

Peggy Fletcher Stack of the Salt Lake Tribune today concentrated on the “weirdness factor” that dogged Mitt and the Mormons during the last several months:

…Romney’s failed campaign revealed what many Americans really think about Mormons. It forced Latter-day Saints to acknowledge that they don’t just belong to another American denomination.

“We have to live with the fact that a lot of people think our beliefs are strange,” said LDS historian Richard Bushman, the professor emeritus at Columbia University who helped explain Mormonism to a skeptical public. “Mormons have never had so much exposure as we have in the last year, so much genuine curiosity on the part of high-level media. I don’t think we’ll ever be the same.”

If it has been tough for many Latter-day Saints to see themselves as others do, it has been equally hard to face the country’s continued bigotry, said others.

And it may not bode well for the future, says Stack. “The anti-Mormon whispering campaigns in the Bible Belt may also have permanently derailed the growing political alliance between Mormons and evangelicals,” she predicts. Read the rest of this entry »

Shaking hands with history

February 1, 2008

I once heard Oprah Winfrey tell the story of seeing the Supremes for the first time on the Ed Sullivan Show on CBS. This was in the Sixties when about the only black people on television seemed to be athletes, dancers and Diahann Carroll on the carefully scripted “Julia.” As soon as they spotted Diana Ross, Oprah and her friends and family all immediately called each other and said — well, I’m not going to say what they said, because it sounds racist coming from anyone but her. Suffice it to say it was a big deal then to see black people on national television.

Things have changed, and isn’t it wonderful? (Two words: Denzel Washington.) Black people are a major part of every level of the entertainment industry, and have made great strides everywhere else. Okay, I’m not naive. I know things aren’t perfect, and that there are still acres of acrimony and discrimination, but things are better. (Two words: Condoleeza Rice. Or Colin Powell. Or Barack Obama.) I remember as a child seeing pictures of segregated water fountains and benches in the South, and I realize much of this change has happened during my lifetime. I was utterly thrilled several years ago when I got to shake hands with Rosa Parks. I felt like I was touching history.

Mormons are a lot like Oprah was. Mormons on television! Donny and Marie! Gladys Knight! Ken Jennings! The Mormon Tabernacle Choir! Larry King’s wife, Shawn! Harry Reid! Carmen Rasmussen! Glenn Beck! Larry King and Mike Wallace interviewing President Gordon B. Hinckley! We were accepted, we were loved, we were admired. We were finally breaking into the mainstream.

Or so we thought. Two words: Mitt Romney. As the Deseret News posted, an op-ed piece by Barry Cleveland in the Carni (Ill.) Times that was picked by a variety of blogs pretty well sums it up: Read the rest of this entry »

And the winner is —

January 30, 2008

images-2.jpegimages-1.jpegimages-3.jpeg

During my seven-year run as a magazine editor, I fell in love with the look and lore of typefaces: the graceful serifed fonts, with their subtle visual curls and cues, contrasted against the blocky honesty of sans-serifed fonts. I loved writing text and then swapping among fonts, just to see what the typeface would add to the content. While I had a brief infatuation with the calligraphic fonts and some of the ultra-moderns, I always kept coming back to the old standards: Helvetica, Courier, Palatino, Bodoni. They were safe, unobtrusive, trustworthy.

The Boston Globe is picking candidates based on the typography of their logos. “If we were to predict the results based on typography and design,” say the editors, “we would pick McCain and Obama.”

Obama’s type is contemporary, fresh, very polished and professional. The serifs are sharp and pointed; clean pen strokes evoke a well-pressed Armani suit… This typography is young and cool. Clearly not the old standards of years past.

And poor Hillary?

The Hillary type palette is far from fresh and colorful; it is begging for legitimacy instead of demanding respect. It projects recycled establishment. The type has a tired feeling, as if the ink has been soaking into the page too long.

(Why, I wondered, with the other candidates making such good use of their last names in their logos, would Hillary use only her first name — Oh, wait a minute. Yeah, right.)

While the Globe editors had mixed feelings on Romney’s look (good use of caps, but a weak symbol), they ended with a flourish on McCain:

McCain uses type that is a perfect compromise between a sans and a serif, what type geeks call a “flared sans.” Not quite sans and not quite serif, sort of in between, moderate, not too far in either direction… The military star centered and shadowed is a not-so-subtle touch. And McCain just says “President,” as if to say he’s already been elected. Everything about this logo says you can buy a car from this man.

I disagree. McCain’s logo bores the crap out of me. It’s old and stodgy and more black than blue, and it’s probably the reason why he won Florida — you could easily see it at 500 yards, with or without your bifocals. Based on the typeface, I’d probably go for Obama.

Pig wrestlin’ on the campaign trail

January 24, 2008

The Salt Lake Tribune, in its never-ending quest to bring justice and reason to the Intermountain West, picked up a New York Times story today that claims Mitt Romney is, well, not very well-liked by his Republican opponents:

“Never get into a wrestling match with a pig,” Senator John McCain said in New Hampshire this month after reporters asked him about Mr. Romney. “You both get dirty, and the pig likes it.”   

The Romney camp, not surprisingly, is nonplussed:

A spokesman for the Romney campaign, Kevin Madden, said, “I think it’s largely driven by the fact that everybody’s taught to tackle the guy on the field with the ball.”   

The pundits are having so much fun with the ongoing shouting match between Clinton and Obama that they probably want to bait the Republicans into a similar fight. Both McCain and Huckabee seem willing, especially considering, at the moment, Romney and McCain are running cheek by jowl in two primaries.

Here’s hoping they all keep their ties and jackets on and stay focused on the real issues—like, oh, I don’t know, maybe the ECONOMY?

(And for an interesting take on Hillary by one of her constituents, check this.)