home

Sunday Afternoon Open Thread

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Blog Related
Posted on Sun Oct 18, 2009 at 04:45:26 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

I'm working on my Afghanistan assignment.

This is an Open Thread.

< Political Bargaining: When Should Outsde Groups Draw Lines In the Sand? | O Wealthy Brother Where Art Thou? >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Sunday Afternoon Open Thread | 28 comments (28 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    I wonder what Justice Thomas (5.00 / 2) (#7)
    by Maryb2004 on Sun Oct 18, 2009 at 06:19:36 PM EST
    thinks about Afghanistan.  

    I knew that one was coming (5.00 / 2) (#8)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Oct 18, 2009 at 06:23:40 PM EST


    Parent
    Today's rope a dope... (5.00 / 3) (#13)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Sun Oct 18, 2009 at 07:11:53 PM EST
    Latest legal developments for Obama's plagiarizing poster boy: Obama 'Hope' Poster Artist Shepard Fairey Lied In Court, Lied To Bloggers, Covered Up Evidence:

    Shepard Fairey got sued by the Associated Press for not meeting Fair Use standards when using their photo of Barack Obama as the inspiration for his infamous "Hope" poster. And now he's fessing up, [he also previously lied in court about it]. In a recent court deposition, Fairey admitted that he "realized" early on that it was Garcia's AP photo that he had, in fact, used, and then deleted a bunch of $hit on his computer to wipe clean evidence that he knew any better. Time to confess!

    In an attempt to conceal my mistake I submitted false images and deleted other images. I sincerely apologize for my lapse in judgment and I take full responsibility for my actions which were mine alone. I am taking every step to correct the information and I regret I did not come forward sooner. I am very sorry to have hurt and disappointed colleagues, friends, and family who have supported me in this difficult case and trying time in my life. I am also sorry because my actions may distract from what should be the real focus of my case - the right to fair use so that all artists can create freely. Regardless of which of the two images was used, the fair use issue should be the same.

    Fairey's also lawsuit happy toward other artists who ape or parody his stuff, so it's hard to feel too bad for Fairey...Also,he lied to Bucky Turco at ANIMAL New York in an email, but Bucky doesn't get his own apology from Fairey. Short end of the stick, these bloggers get. That's HOPE for you.

    For some reason, when I heard the news, this Everlast tune came to mind: VIDEO: What it's Like. Take home message: "God forbid you ever had to wake up and hear the news, then you really might know what it's like to lose...You know where it ends, yo, it usually depends on where you start".

    No sympathy. (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by Fabian on Sun Oct 18, 2009 at 07:31:22 PM EST
    Guy knew it when he did it.  When the money started rolling in, he probably realized he made a very big mistake.  There was the money...  He hadn't been caught yet...  Maybe he'd never be outed...?

    Parent
    it's my understanding that some, (none / 0) (#17)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Sun Oct 18, 2009 at 07:37:59 PM EST
    if not all, the HOPE Poster profits went to the Obama campaign.

    I wonder, do candidates have to give back money received from sources who got the money via illegal means?

    Parent

    Fairey says BO camp approved the photo (none / 0) (#20)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Sun Oct 18, 2009 at 08:49:30 PM EST
    And profits from sale of the Hope Posters were contributed to the Obama campaign. From the horse's mouth at wired.com: Street Artist Churns Out `Hope' for Obama:
    Fairey says he was contacted by the Obama campaign to create an officially sanctioned poster - with a campaign-approved photo [the Garcia AP photo] and slogan. The new artwork featured the now-famous "Hope" slogan. Fairey, estimated the profits from his Obama-themed merchandise topped out around $400,000. He says he donated the entire amount to the campaign.
    "I have not kept one dime from the Obama [posters]. I'm at a surplus; I've given the max amount to the campaign. Now we're just buying billboards and postering."

    The foregoing Wired interview took place on 9/21/08; safe to say, the profit margin increased considerably between that date and November 4th.

    Parent

    So, should the campaign now (none / 0) (#21)
    by Inspector Gadget on Sun Oct 18, 2009 at 08:54:43 PM EST
    give the money back?

    :)

    Parent

    Yeah, and how can the White House walk back (5.00 / 2) (#22)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Sun Oct 18, 2009 at 09:11:40 PM EST
    the campaign's initial approval/selection of the AP photo. I'm also curious as to whether the Obama camp brought the photo to Fairey, or whether he brought it to them.

    Either way, did the question of plagiarism and copyright infringement not even remotely occur to ANY of them?

    Students in my introductory photo/design class would know better if they were doing a poster campaign for the local dog-catcher.

    Parent

    This was a campaign that was so (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by Inspector Gadget on Sun Oct 18, 2009 at 09:18:21 PM EST
    immune from rules, it will answer to no one about anything it did.

    Parent
    If they're ever called to account in any way, (none / 0) (#24)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Sun Oct 18, 2009 at 10:03:03 PM EST
    for anything, it will happen if and when the high rollers who put them there want them out. As it is, the current White House is governing so well on behalf of the GOP - they may very well be allowed to remain for two terms.

    Parent
    Either way (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by nycstray on Mon Oct 19, 2009 at 01:09:43 AM EST
    there's just something so f*cked up about it. As an artist, if the client gives you art/material they want you to use (for a national campaign no less!), it should be approved already. There were enough people involved on Obama's end, that even if he for some strange reason didn't know better, they would have. And if the artist supplied the ref, what an a**. Didn't the campaign have any "official" photos that they were using already that could have been run through Photoshop?

    This whole thing is kinda funny since branding was all he had going in . . .

    Parent

    Unnecessary lie (none / 0) (#15)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Oct 18, 2009 at 07:32:41 PM EST
    He wins this case otherwise.

    Parent
    Say what BTD? (5.00 / 2) (#19)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Sun Oct 18, 2009 at 08:16:20 PM EST
    Fairey "wins the case", except for the perjury?

    Evidently, Fairey believed lying about the AP source photo was an altogether necessary lie. I don't know much about other types of fair use cases, but when it comes to contemporary artists, the courts are often none too kind.

    There's the relatively recent well-publicized precedent of Jeff Koons, who got creamed in the courts for, among other things, using this photograph to make a sculpture. Everybody in the 'art world' knows about this case; and I'd argue that Koons changed the original 2-D black and white photograph rather significantly when he used it as the basis for a life-size, 3-D full color art work.

    On the other hand, it appears Fairey used a simple Photoshop posterization technique to change a 2-D color photo into a 2-D color poster print. It's cheap and easy to do, as we've seen from all the subsequent riffs on the Fairey Hope Poster.

    Parent

    Suggestion: (none / 0) (#1)
    by oculus on Sun Oct 18, 2009 at 05:08:06 PM EST
    link

    hey thanks (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by Capt Howdy on Sun Oct 18, 2009 at 05:45:58 PM EST
    to you I made my camera work.  new drivers.

    link

    link

    link

    in high res you can see his bumps and scrapes including his broken tongue.   to my everlasting shame that one is my fault.

    Parent

    Just read it (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Oct 18, 2009 at 05:50:38 PM EST
    I find it naive in his between the lines suggestion that without imprisoning muslim extremists as enemy combatants and without airstrikes that kill innocent civilians....that we wouldn't have any problems with the Taliban.  The Taliban is about power.  They have never had any moral standards when it comes to obtaining and maintaining power.  I'm about to read the book 'Sole Survivor'.  It is written by the one Navy SEAL out of four who survived one day when herders came in contact with them in Afghanistan.  They knew the herders were innocents, but they also knew that the herders would immediately report their presence to the local Taliban.  They discussed what to do and there wasn't anything to do that wasn't a war crime outside of running to the pick up point and attempting to contact their pick up that they needed to be extracted earlier than anticipated.  It didn't work out well.  Only one SEAL survived.  I don't give a flying sh*t if the Taliban harps about anything.  They will use anything in their vicinity to "galvanize" a following.  They will use anything and everything, this is a war.  I care about the innocents that are hurt and their family members who survive an airstrike and now have no desire to live outside of joining the Taliban and killing as many Americans as they can.  The Taliban leaders are the same as our leaders though, they will use whatever they can get their hands on to reach their goals and objectives.

    Parent
    Sorry, just looked at my book (none / 0) (#12)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Oct 18, 2009 at 06:37:52 PM EST
    and is 'Lone Survivor'.

    Parent
    re Greenwald: the portion which interested (none / 0) (#25)
    by oculus on Mon Oct 19, 2009 at 12:29:29 AM EST
    me most was the "Update."  Who are we fighting?

    Parent
    I'll go check it (none / 0) (#27)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Oct 19, 2009 at 07:10:13 AM EST
    I don't think I read the update.

    Parent
    It is true that (none / 0) (#28)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Oct 19, 2009 at 08:31:37 AM EST
    often Afghan problems are lumped into one group called the Taliban.  Even I tend to think of it that way because that is who my spouse is taking on.  The leaked assessment from McChrystal breaks down the different factions in play for power without a working government.  The update at Greenwalds though and the 90% figures.....I think religion is used in the region to control people whenever it works.  Just because a certain group doesn't appear to be using Islamic Extremism as a driving force does not mean as soon as it works for them that they won't be using it.  War lords have backed way off on killing the locals in the name of Allah, why is that?  Only because if they don't it is pretty easy to understand who the general population is going to end up supporting, and that would be the Petraeus/McChrystal COIN doctrine.  So you have Afghan local leaders acting like human beings again or they will lose power.  How is that a bad thing?  And some of them are even coming to the table to talk instead of fight.

    Parent
    I am tryong to write a fresh perspective (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Oct 18, 2009 at 06:11:00 PM EST
    that is not a "Reply Brief."

    I am going back to the Mujaheddin times and come forward since then.

    It's pretty lengthy and detailed and in need of major editing and I have not even gotten to the argument yet.

    This stuff is hard.it and run posting much easier.

    Parent

    Post it multipart, then (5.00 / 2) (#6)
    by andgarden on Sun Oct 18, 2009 at 06:12:38 PM EST
    or it may get lost in the ether. Even Greenwald can be taxing to read in one sitting.

    Parent
    I read some this morning (none / 0) (#2)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Oct 18, 2009 at 05:22:28 PM EST
    I like that the administration has connected more troops with the government of Afghanistan becoming something working...less corrupt.  I wonder if the administration though would care to take a look in the mirror or hardline anyone else out there destroying the possibilities for the people of the land?

    When you think (none / 0) (#9)
    by SOS on Sun Oct 18, 2009 at 06:26:26 PM EST
    Afghanistan investment opportunity's will open up?

    Wendy's franchises or something.

    You deserve a break (none / 0) (#10)
    by SOS on Sun Oct 18, 2009 at 06:33:21 PM EST
    today! So get out and get away

    Parent
    Afghanistan perspectives (none / 0) (#11)
    by KeysDan on Sun Oct 18, 2009 at 06:36:44 PM EST
    I found of some interest: Sunday Opinion, NYT: (a) Gordon Goldstein, author of Lessons in Disaster: McGeorge Bundy and the Path to War in Vietnam; and (b) Lewis Sorley, retired Army lieutenant colonel and author of A Better War: The Unexamined Victories and Final Tragedy of American's Last Years in Vietnam.

    Another reminder (none / 0) (#16)
    by Fabian on Sun Oct 18, 2009 at 07:37:15 PM EST
    of what I am soooooo not missing by watching der teevee.

    NPR is my main news source.  H1N1 information has been steadily trickling out from the CDC and NPR passes it on.  Just the facts, messrs et mesdames.

    Apparently, other "news" sources have been "reporting" on the vaccine.  This I'm gathering second hand from the blogging community.  And I'm glad, glad, GLAD that I don't have to witness it personally.  

    From the department of (none / 0) (#18)
    by KeysDan on Sun Oct 18, 2009 at 08:10:16 PM EST
    "I hope you have a short memory". Speaking to Candidate v President Obama: Frank Rich: "Those Obama supporters (love the distancing) who are disappointed keep looking for explanations. Is he too impressed by the elite he met at Cambridge, too eager to split the difference between left and right, too willing to compromise?... why does he keep deferring to others..or this month's acting president, Olympia Snowe"  Maureen Dowd: "Obama's legislative career offers cautionary tales about the toll of constant consensus building...in Springfield he compromised so much on a health care reform bill that, in the end, it merely led to a study. In  Washington, he compromised with Senate Republicans to require all nuclear plant owners to notify state and local authorities about radioactive leaks that it devolved into a bill offering guidance to regulators, and even that ultimately died."  

    Sunday Afternoon Open Thread | 28 comments (28 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment