charles i. letbetter

Current Issues  /  Fashion  /  News & Comment
What is #tiedtogether
February 9, 2017
charles i. letbetter - #tiedtogether

A new movement is underway in the fashion industry

 

charles i. letbetter - #tiedtogether

The Short Version

Digital fashion magazine Business of Fashion (BOF) introduced the #tiedtogether campaign this week, just in time for the ready-to-wear fashion season. Its aim is to provide a focus point for unity and inclusiveness by asking people to wear white bandanas.

A Little More Detail

There’s not a whole lot more to write on the matter. BoF’s own #tiedtogether page is rather brief and void of too many details. The movement is in response to the significant silence on the part of the fashion industry as a whole regarding recent world events, such as the US travel ban and the impact of more nation-centric trade deals. Fashion brands must have a global presence to be successful, but things such as travel limitations and high import fees/tariffs can not only strain the business side of fashion but create animosities between people from different countries.

Few fashion brands have bothered to say much about political situations for fear the backlash might hurt business. While there was some dustup last month regarding which designers might dress the new First Lady of the United States, most companies have chosen to not take a stand. The most notable exception is Levi’s, the denim jean maker, which signed on to an amicus brief for the US 9th Circuit Court of Appeals opposing the travel ban.

BoF’s movement is admirable, to be sure. With the world seeming to fray at the edges, it would seem that we could do with a little more unity and inclusiveness. The question is whether people are actually interested in either. The distance between political ideologies is extreme and in many camps, unity is seen as a compromise that favors the evil of the other side and inclusiveness is pretty much the same as fraternizing with the enemy. The strength of the #Resist movement is an example of the challenges to finding or creating a global sense of unity around most any topic.

Fashion is not immune from politics and the question designers and labels face now is how much of their personal attitudes and feelings to allow into their work. Under previous circumstances, the conventional wisdom has been to keep the two separate. However, there are some notable exceptions to that rule, the most obvious probably being Dame Vivienne Westwood and her strong stand for environmental causes. Much of the rest of fashion, however, prefers to remain quiet.

#tiedtogether did get an important endorsement last night as all the models walking in the Tommy Hilfiger show on Venice Beach were wearing white bandanas imprinted with #tiedtogether on their wrists. Even the designer had one tied to his belt loop as he made the finale walk. If BoF can convince other designers to incorporate the concept into their shows in a similar fashion, the idea might have a chance of catching on, at least as an accessory idea.

Still, we’ve seen this type of movement before. Just because people wear a bandana, or a plastic bracelet with a certain inscription, or a given set of beads, doesn’t mean that they actually subscribe to the philosophy behind the symbol. Wearing every white bandana in the world has little effect if the people wearing them do not genuinely believe in unity and inclusiveness across the deep chasm of political divide. The white bandana risks becoming just another fashion trend with no real substance behind it.

What’s missing in this movement is an example, someone or something that demonstrates what unity and inclusiveness mean in the fashion world. If we’re talking racial inclusiveness, which has been a problem for fashion shows, then seeing more diversity on the runway would be a good start. If we’re talking about gender inclusiveness, then the trend toward mixed men’s and women’s show is a start, but seeing more transgender models on the runway would be a significant step forward. Size diversity has been a significant issue, but only a handful of designers have done anything on that front. There are options and those options have always been there. The industry has been frequently criticized for not embracing those options before now. Are we to expect that a white bandana can be the thing that makes a difference?

BoF is certainly trying hard to get as many designers, editors, models, and bloggers on board as possible. Just getting industry insiders to understand and sign on to the concept is a herculean effort. While we applaud BoF for taking the initiative in starting this campaign, however, we remain skeptical of any real change. We’ve seen other campaigns for inclusivism before and watched as major designers totally ignored them. We will be watching carefully to see if a white bandana can actually make a difference.

Continue Reading

Fashion  /  Fashion Review
Ready For Fashion
February 8, 2017
charles i. letbetter - fashion season

What we’re expecting from upcoming fashion weeks

 

charles i. letbetter - fashion season

The Short Version

Disruption continues this season as some designers abandon New York and challenges to the traditional fashion shows increase. Our fashion week coverage for Pattern magazine begins tonight with the Tommy Hilfiger show on Venice Beach in California. We’re expecting a lot of changes in methodology but don’t know if those changes carry over to the styles themselves.

What’s Going On

New York Fashion Week officially starts tomorrow, Thursday, with Nicholas K at 10:00 AM. So, naturally, the first show we’re covering is tonight on Venice Beach. That makes sense, doesn’t it?

Yeah, I’m having some problem with the logistics myself. Doing NYFW in LA is definitely a continuation of the disruption that started last September. Tommy Hilfiger is taking the lead on Venice Beach, with yet another extravaganza likely to be even larger than the carnival on the boardwalk last season. He’s not the only one who is abandoning NY in search of a younger, possibly more hip audience. Rachel Comey and Rebecca Minkoff are also doing LA. We’re rather used to designers occasionally hopping to Paris or London for a season, but moving to LA is something new. This has a lot of people asking if New York is still the center of American fashion. For now, it is, but be sure that many questions will be asked about what might happen in the future.

There are some serious absences on the schedule this season. DKNY is out. Open Ceremony is out. Rodarte is moving to the couture schedule and no one is quite sure exactly what Tom Ford is doing—some kind of film. Oh, and did I mention the strange mashup between Oscar de la Renta and

Oh, and did I mention the strange mashup between Oscar de la Renta and Monse? This one is going to interesting to watch. Remember, Oscar de la Renta has a new creative team, Fernando Garcia and Laura Kim. Despite Carolina Herrera’s efforts to block Kim from working for the storied house, they are presenting their collection on time. Here’s the catch: Garcia and Lim also have a separate line, Monse, which they started a few years ago. Monse has a similar aesthetic to de la Renta, but doesn’t have the audience or market share. So, the creative team is combining the two shows. Confusing? Almost inevitably.

Then, there’s Raf Simons at Calvin Klein. All I can tell you is that they’ve moved up on the schedule to Friday morning. We’ve been trying to get in touch with their PR team but, as of this writing, haven’t had any luck doing so.

What’s happening in New York is spreading to the other cities: London, Milan, and Paris. There are new creative teams we’ve not seen before in addition to the usual spate of designers hopping houses. In fact, we’re expecting some interesting good-bye parties at Chloé and Givenchy with Claire Waight Keller and Ricardo Tisci both having announced they’re leaving but no word as to where they’re going.

Because there are so many questions and not a lot of answers, we’re changing the way we’re covering the shows. I’ll be doing fewer reviews than previous seasons—no 24-hour writing marathons. We will be trying to go into more detail on the collections we do cover. We’ve been actively trying to make contact with the labels so that we can provide a deeper level of information.  We’ll also have more pictures and try to talk more about the clothes and accessories.

So, here we go with another season. As always, our reviews are exclusively on Pattern. We hope you’ll join us.

Continue Reading

Current Issues  /  Long Read  /  News & Comment
Declaration of Resistance, Annotated
February 7, 2017
charles i. letbetter - declaration of resistance, annotated

Preserving wise words before they magically disappear

charles i. letbetter - Declaration of Resistance, annotated

A Little Background

I do not know Beau Willimon. I’ve never met the young man and, quite honestly, until last week didn’t know a thing about him. Yet, most of what you will find here, all the good parts, are his words, not mine.

If you know of Mr. Willimon, it is likely in connection with this little show he produced for Netflix called House of Cards. Given all the awards its won and the general acclaim for the series, one might assume that Mr. Willimon understands how Washington politics work.

What you might not know is that Mr. Willimon has hands-on experience in the political world, having worked on campaigns for Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, Hillary Clinton’s 2000 Senate campaign, and was press aide for Howard Dean’s 2004 presidential campaign. He’s done a bunch of other political stuff as well to give him a fairly substantial background in politics. Top that with his House of Cards experience and I think it’s reasonably safe to say his understanding of the political world is a bit more advanced than the average guy sitting at the bar.

So, when he decided last Friday, 3 February, to present the Internet with his Declaration of Resistance via Twitter, it carried a little more weight than the average entertainment industry celeb. However, Willimon is also a playwright and as such there are some subtleties and inferences built into his tweetstorm that may not be immediately obvious. Some of them may not need to be obvious for his meaning to be clear, but our opinion is that assurance is better than adding to the heaping mounds of confusion spread across the Internet. He bases his words largely upon the contents of the Declaration of Independence. Therefore, we’ve decided to annotate his entries both as a means of explaining what might not be immediately evident and confirm what might be inferred.

This also gives us a chance to more reliably preserve and index Willimon’s entries. If there is a downside to posting these things on Twitter, it is that they are quickly pushed down the list and more difficult to find with each passing day. Willimon uses Twitter a fair amount so even one day after they were posted we still had to do a great deal of scrolling to find them. This will, hopefully, provide a more consistent point of reference for more long-term use.

What Beau Said

These are the original tweets since from @BeauWillimon. Our additions are in red italics between tweets. Note: we do not control how Mr. Willimon’s tweets appear on this page.

If the opening sounds at least slightly familiar, that’s a good thing: it comes close to the opening paragraph of the Declaration of Independence, which I will refer to from here on out as “the Declaration.” He only modifies a portion of the first sentence, but the remainder is implied through the rest of the document. For those who slept through Civics class, please allow me to remind you of that first paragraph.

When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

Now, see the connection between what the framers of the Declaration were saying and Mr. Willimon’s words? Consider the phrase “dissolve the political bands” extremely important from here on out.

Another Declaration reference. The second paragraph of that document begins:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

The use of the word “men” in this context should be interpreted as representative of all humanity. While women had few legal rights at the time of the Declaration’s writing, the framers were not intentionally leaving them out. Rather, they were attempting to make the statement as inclusive as possible. Willimon nicely modernizes the sentence with the phrase “To safeguard equality for all.”

Breaking things down into smaller chunks, we hit a point of the preamble that some consider inflammatory. Those who would call themselves “patriots” have long used this portion of the Declaration to justify acts of violence against the government and/or its representatives. The Declaration reads:

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed

Arguably, in challenging the authority of the 45th president, Willimon claims that the person residing in the White House does not have sufficient consent of the government. His point is based on the fact that while some 63 million people did vote for the president, over 75 million voted directly against him and over 200 million others are not represented by either vote. Therefore, one might well argue that the president is far from having the consent of the governed and that his election is illegitimate.

Willimon is being very careful with his words here. Using the phrase, “to make such demands upon their Congress” is a softer action than what is stated in the Declaration. I don’t blame him. To copy the words of the Declaration might be considered by some as an attempt to overthrow the government. Take a look at the original language:

That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government

We have to understand the challenges that the founding fathers experienced in living under the auspices of Great Britain, which was in full-tilt empire-building mode at that particular moment. The intent was very clear: do the will of the people or the people will kick you out on your ass and do something different. Never would they have guessed that either the government or the nation would become as large and complicated as it is today. We can’t just march on Washington and institute a new government, no matter how attractive that might sound to some. Appealing to Congress to act on our behalf is a lot safer and doesn’t get one arrested as quickly.

Impeachment. There’s a word that politicians have been tripping over themselves to avoid. With the president’s administration only two weeks old, there are few members of Congress who have the intestinal fortitude to even think about drafting articles of impeachment at this point. While they might admit that the president is building such a case, few have dared to actually utter the word aloud in public. To engage in impeachment is to bring much of government to a grinding hault while the matter is addressed. This is not a matter to be entered into lightly or without sufficient preparation.

Willimon references the 25th amendment. Let me refresh your memory on that one.

The 25th amendment was ratified in 1967 and clarifies exactly what happens in the event that the president is no longer capable of fulfilling his oath of office. There are four sections to the amendment, the first two not applying to our current situation unless the president should happen to simply fall dead or become a victim of some violent action against his life. Section three has been used any time the president undergoes any type of treatment where he is under anesthesia, temporarily rendering him incapacitated. Section four is the kicker. It reads:

Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice-President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President.

Let’s be clear that this action would most likely occur only after articles of impeachment against the president had been passed by both bodies of Congress, or should the vice-president be able to convince enough members of the Cabinet to implore Congress with sufficient reasons for removing the president from power. Either path is extremely difficult given the partisan politics currently dominating the legislative bodies. This is a serious course of action with a distinct set of consequences.

Here is Willimon’s charge against the president: that the has “conducted injuries and usurpations, pursuing the establishment of an absolute Tyranny …” Reference again back to the preamble, pretty much picking up where he left off. The Declaration specifically states:

But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

Let me emphasize again that the framers were referring to the “abuses and usurpations” of Britain’s King George III. For our use here, Despotism and Tyranny are sufficiently close in meaning as to be interchangeable. In short, Willimon is saying that the current president is no better than mad King George III and should be deposed for exactly the same reasons.

This is a direct quote from the preamble. In the Constitution, it is followed by the charges of the colonies made against Britain’s king. This was not so much for the benefit of King George, but a justification for those who might choose with which side the might ally themselves. 

In our particular case here, however, very specific charges are necessary not only so that one might recruit allies to the cause, but to justify taking any action in the first place. One does not simply call the president a tyrant without providing evidence of such. So, Willimon proceeds to make his case.

As I am writing this, we are waiting for the 9th circuit court of appeals to make a full decision regarding the president’s ban on immigrants and refugees. The president’s executive order created a ban against people from seven predominantly Muslim countries from entering this US. While verbally asserting that this was not a ban against a specific religious group, it had the effect of such, likely making it a violation of the Constitution’s first amendment prohibiting any action against any religion. One can also reasonably argue that the ban failed to allow for due process. The end result has been chaos. 

When a New York judge issued a temporary restraining order against deportations arising from the ordered travel ban, the president refused to acknowledge the action and instructed federal agencies to continue. This can be interpreted as a violation of the presidential oath, but actual charges against the president on this account could easily be challenged by Congress.

For the sake of history, and anyone who might not have been paying attention, one should be aware that the president dismissed acting Attorney General Sally Yates for failing to defend the president’s travel ban. By definition, it is the job of the Attorney General and the US Department of Justice to defend the laws and interest of the federal government. However, Ms. Yates voiced concern that the order was possibly not legal and therefore should not be defended.

Willimon’s claim regarding the autonomy of the Department of Justice is shaky, however. The position of Attorney General, specifically, has been highly politicized since John F. Kennedy nominated his brother, Robert, to the post in 1961. There are no laws that specifically require or enforce the autonomy, though it is, in practice, an ethical goal.

Here, Willimon is referring to actions taken on 26 January 2017. At first, it appeared as though the senior officials at the State Department had walked out of their own accord. Only later did it become known that they had, in fact, been dismissed by the president. This created a vacuum of knowledge and experience within the federal government regarding international relations. While the move is within the president’s prerogative, it came at a time when the action arguably left all US embassies and overseas personnel without a direct contact or person of authority at the State Department, creating an inherent security issue.

The reference here is regarding the placement of the president’s chief strategist (and campaign manager) Steve Bannon to the principals committee of the National Security Council. This committee ultimately makes direct recommendations to the president regarding matters of national security. Mr. Bannon’s previous statements present ideologies and philosophies consistent with those of a white supremacist, though Bannon denies the charge.

At a prayer breakfast on 2 February 2017, the president told a group of religious leaders that he would “get rid of and totally destroy the Johnson Amendment.” The Johnson Amendment was enacted in the 1950s to maintain the wall between church and state by prohibiting religious organizations from participating directly in political activities. The president enjoyed considerable support from Christian extremists during his presidential campaign. This move is seen as a way of undergirding that support. However, repealing the Johnson Amendment would require, at the very least, a two-thirds majority vote of both houses of Congress, something that is not generally considered likely to happen.

Conflicts of interest have been a persistent issue against the president from the day he took office. Already, multiple lawsuits have been filed in federal court seeking to force the president to either divest himself of his business holdings or place them in a genuine blind trust. To date, the president has refused to do either. Instead, he handed off control of his business concerns to his two oldest sons while maintaining full ownership. 

The effective law here is what is generally considered the emoluments clause of the Constitution. The clause in Article I, Section 9, of the Constitution says that, “no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or Foreign State.” Given that the president’s considerable business holdings are often utilized by other heads of state, many claim that to retain any interest at all in the properties or holdings would be in violation of the law.

We should note that the current lawsuits represent the first serious challenge to the Emoluments Clause in modern history.

Willimon’s statement here is based primarily on anecdotal evidence. While that evidence appears likely to be valid, it lacks the weight of authority to have any genuine effect beyond the matter of public opinion. The argument speaks more to the character of the president and the possible presence of mental illness, specifically narcissistic personality disorder (DSM-5 301.81 (F60.81)).  The presence of such a mental illness could provide justification for the invocation of the 25th amendment.

Repealing the Affordable Care Act was one of the president’s primary campaign promises and one of the first executive orders signed once he was in office. If the repeal were to be immediate, ti would indeed leave many without healthcare. However, any change in the law requires action on the part of Congress where the momentum to make any change has waned under differences of opinion and public backlash. At the time of this writing, there is no way to determine whether the president’s order will have any long-term effect or not.

In two separate Executive Orders, the president pushed for reinstatement of the KeystoneXL pipeline and the Dakota Access Pipeline. The Keystone pipeline had been effectively halted by the previous administration while the Dakota Access project had been stalled due to high-profile protests. Both pipelines present significant environmental concerns, endanger nearby water supplies, and usurp the rights of indigenous North American tribes. While the president’s actions on the matter are not technically illegal, one can argue they are in violation of the public trust by putting drinking water at risk.

Back in January, the president signed an Executive Order instructing federal agencies to identify funds that might be withheld from sanctuary cities. This presents problems on two fronts. Denying the funds would require an act of Congress and it’s difficult to imagine a member of Congress who would vote against their home state. Such an act would almost certainly come back to haunt them in 2018. Second, the very suggestion of the idea may exceed the limit of the president’s authority.  The cities in question are already fighting back. Removing funding from these cities could dramatically hurt a lot of people, but the president seems to not care.

You’ve heard the phrase “alternative facts” by now, right? That would be a prime example of what Willimon addresses here. The number of misstatements and outright lies are too numerous to list. One would think that the White House would be embarrassed being caught in so many lies. Instead, they double down and assert their own version of reality. There are a lot of things the White House can get away with, but lying to the American public is not one of them. This issue alone is an impeachable offense. 

Again, there are multiple examples backing up Beau’s statement. The press is a protected entity under the first amendment. Any attempt to suppress or silence the press would violate the Constitution. The challenge is that the White House is using demeaning and distraction tactics in an attempt to undermine the credibility of the press. The latest salvo came on 5 February as the president claimed that any “negative” polls are a form of “fake news.” Shortly thereafter, White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer attacked the satire of an NBC television show. While the tactics skirt the border of legality, any outright attempt to quieten the press would be an impeachable offense.

Much of the evidence behind this statement comes from the mountain of information in the president’s path. While he actively denies that he dislikes anyone when he is challenged, his actions and his history both point to an attitude of contempt for anyone not rich and white. This includes comments regarding inappropriate groping of women and demeaning people because of their ethnicity, including a federal judge. While this is not directly an impeachable offense, it does speak to his suitability for the office and could potentially be used in a 25th amendment argument for removal from office.

Willimon is using nice words again here to convey what is a rather nasty characteristic of the president. Put more accurately, the president seems to have absolutely no concept of the system of checks and balances put in place by the country’s founders. The founders understood all too well the corruptive power of the office of President and put in place multiple safeguards to protect against the totalitarianism of a despot. This is where we get to test those safeguards placed in both the judiciary and legislative branches.

Once again, a direct quote from the Declaration. Of course, in its original context, the “Prince” was King George. The parallels between the behavior of the mad king and the 45th president are striking. Just as there were assertions made regarding the king’s mental state and his suitability for governing, so too have such concerns been raised in regards to the president. Both would seem to suffer from narcicisstic personality disorder, among other things. Of course, proving that assertion without clinical examination is impossible. Yet, given the accusations made above, it doesn’t seem improbable for Congress to demand such an examination.

The most important thing Beau says here is the phrase “mechanisms afforded to by the Constitution.” During times like these, there will always be those who find in their cause a reason for violence. We saw those forced in action both at the inauguration day protest and more recently at the protest in Berkley. Chaos and anarchy is their goal. They do not represent thoughtful-minded people but are vigilantes bent on vengeance and a warped sense of justice. Any resistance to this president must first employ every available legal method available to it. 

This is the precedent set forth in the Declaration. Look at it. The phrases “We have warned …,” “We have reminded …,” and “We have appealed …,” reference the attempts on the part of the colonists to resolve their grievances in an appropriate and legal manner. King George III and his parliament made the fateful decision to not only ignore the colonists, but to increase the unfair treatment directed toward them. Only when separation was the only choice remaining did the representatives pen the Declaration.

So, too, now it is necessary that we utilize every legal option available to its fullest extent as we resist the illegal dealings of this tyrant in the White House. We must implore Congress to act on our behalf as they have been elected to do and we must show patience in giving them an opportunity to act within the letter of the law. We fail just as surely if we allow ourselves to be taken by our own anarchy as we would if we did nothing.

This is an interesting though not inappropriate variation of the final line of the Declaration. The founders included the phrase, “with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence,” and also referred to their “Sacred” Honor. Too many have misinterpreted those inclusions, along with other deific references in the Declaration, as pointing toward a specific religious foundation in our country’s founding.

Those misinterpretations are grossly unfounded. Among the signers of that document were men of many various and contrasting belief systems., most notably Mr. Jefferson and Mr. Franklin, both of whom were deists. None of their belief systems, including those of the four active preachers on the list, would have remotely compared to anything seen in contemporary religion. They would not have held any book or writing as inerrant nor infallible and bristled at the thought of their religious beliefs dictating the functions of government.

The only common belief among them was that some power external to them must be guiding their direction. It was that unnamed power they refer to as divine and sacred.

Given the extremes of religious beliefs and behaviors in contemporary America, it is appropriate that those references be removed so as to not infer an association that does not exist. We are not bound by religious duty or obligation. Ours is a duty to one another as humans. Our morality is based on the greater good of humanity, not the confines and strictures of a specific dogma.We do better because we know better.

Equally important in this statement, and something the founding fathers knew well, is that unity within the cause and the mutual support of those who resist is critical. This president has already proven that he can create chaos and destruction faster than anyone we’ve ever encountered.  Dissent and resistance against the broad array of offenses is going to be tiring and will not stop. His intention is to wear us down in hopes we will just give up and let him have his way. 

We cannot afford to give up. We cannot afford to give in to weariness. To stop is to yield to tyranny, authoritarianism, and totalitarianism. We cannot let the banner be carried by a few while the rest sit in silence on the sidelines. The resistance must come from every state, from every city, in number incalculable. We must support and encourage each other, helping those most adversely affected by yet another madman attempting to ascent to a throne of his own construction. We must pledge to each other. Together.

Conclusions

I do not know Beau Willimon. I do not know his motivations, his plans, nor his favorite flavor of ice cream. As an artistic person who has achieved some success with his writings, I assume he has an underlying passion that pushes him into action. When he latches on to a concept or an idea, he follows it through with some level of excitement, I would guess. Based on what I’ve seen in his twitter feed the past few days, that seems to be evident. I would also guess that his carefully selected friends consider him a nice guy. Just guessing.

What I do know is that this statement of his is bold. He puts out into the public conversation a well-constructed argument and solid statement of intent. While he leaves the topics of methodology and implementation open for conversation, he has at least provided a framework around which those conversations can occur.

I don’t expect him to stand up and lead this fight. He might, but I don’t think it’s right to obligate him in that way. After all, it wasn’t Thomas Jefferson leading troops across the Potomac in the middle of that cold winter. Some stir the fires, others lead the charge.

Still, Mr. Willimon’s voice alone is not enough. The resistance needs voices in such volume as to create a shout that cannot be ignored. We need those willing and able to march as much as those willing to consistently hold members of Congress accountable for their actions. We need you.

Thank you, Beau Willimon, for igniting this conversation.

Now, let us carry it forward.

Continue Reading

Current Issues  /  News & Comment
Thin Skinned
February 7, 2017
charles i. letbetter - thin skinned

The White House can’t seem to handle criticism

 

charles i. letbetter - thin skinned

The Short Version

Multiple incidents into this still-young administration demonstrate its inability to accept criticism without lashing back at its source, especially when that source is the news media. Yesterday alone, the president called any negative polls “fake news.” White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer lashed out at NBC’s Saturday Night Live depiction of him. The president also referred to a critical piece in Sunday’s New York Times regarding his personal habits as “total fiction.” Those statements follow a similar pattern the administration has used repeatedly of throwing a hissy fit every time they are criticized.

The Larger Picture

Every president has their critics, especially in the press. One can easily argue that it is the job of the press to keep the president and all other politicians honest by reporting their actions and words to the public. Criticism of president George W. Bush, for example, was unending during his second administration. Every gaffe, every misstatement, was reported and often made into headlines even when there was little supportive content. Even president Barak Obama, who enjoyed a much friendlier press, was swiftly challenged when his policies seemed flawed, especially regarding foreign wars and the ongoing detainment of prisoners at Guantanamo Bay.

Each previous administration has had a habit of addressing those criticisms with a carefully crafted statement outlining the reasons for their actions and the steps they would take going forward. Rarely has any exchange between the White House and the press become adversarial outside the Nixon administration. However, the administration of the 45th president has, from its earliest moments, shown itself to be easily offended and more than willing to lash out at the press and anyone else who criticized or challenged the White House.

Right off the bat, the president’s staff, and later the president himself, made false and misleading statements regarding the size of the inauguration crowd. Despite obvious evidence to the contrary, the White House continues even now to defend its position of having the largest inauguration ever. The president was angry that anyone would even question his assertion. The next thing we know, the White House is labeling the press as “the opposition party.”

With each executive order signed, there has been criticism of the president’s action and with each criticism has come a defense that is short on facts and long on insults. Consider the president’s reaction last Friday (3 February) when a Seattle judge halted the travel ban that had been imposed a week earlier. The president immediately took to Twitter, insulting the judge and calling his decision “ridiculous.”

Then, yesterday (6 February), the president made the claim that the media under-reported terrorist attacks around the world. However, when pressed to provide evidence to back up his claim, the White House released a hastily compiled list that not only contained several well-publicized events but several misspellings as well. The president also responded to a Sunday New York Times article that claims he was not fully informed on some decisions by calling the article “a complete fiction.” The president also referred to polls that cast his actions in a negative light as “fake news.” Then, White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer lashed out over a Saturday Night Live skit, calling actress Melissa McCarthy’s satirical impression of him “mean.”

Worth pointing out is the fact that such seemingly immature and childish behavior on the part of the president and his staff is characteristic of narcissistic personality disorder. DSM 5 diagnosis 301.81 includes among the symptoms of that disorder, “Resentment of others or a conviction that others are resentful of him or her.” The president’s actions regarding criticism and his relationship with the press are evidence of that symptom, along with others listed. That resentment displays in impetuous acts of defiance such as we’ve repeatedly seen from the president.

The president’s problem has not gone unnoticed.  The Associated Press released an article this morning detailing the unusual level of criticism and protest the president has received, and his response to them.  CBS news anchor Scott Pelly said the president is “divorced from reality.” CNN’s Jake Tapper, who has been a frequent critic of the president, also pointed out the problems with the president’s response to criticism. Even Britain’s speaker of Parliament lambasted the president yesterday and refused to allow him to address Parliament as other presidents have done.

With this administration still being so very young, one can hope that they will eventually learn the advantages of a more measured and disciplined response. We can hope, even if the current attitude is more like that of a four-year-old child tussling with its sibling.

 

Continue Reading

Advertising  /  Current Issues
Making A Statement
February 6, 2017
charles i. letbetter - making a statement

Some Super Bowl ads mean more than others

 

charles i. letbetter - making a statement

The Short Version

We all know that Super Bowl ads are special. They’d better be. At $5 million a pop for a 30-second ad, those commercials have to deliver a significant return on investment or they company won’t be back next year. A lot of advertisers find that value not by directly emphasizing their product, but by making a statement. This year, eight such ads ran during the big game. They came from It’s A 10 haircare products, AirBnB, Donate Life, FurKids, Audi, 84 Lumber, Budweiser, and Land O’Lakes.

Why Message Ads Work

Super Bowl advertising is so important that some brands have separate creative teams just for that one spot. The production takes thousands of hours over several months. They are tested on focus groups, modified, and then tested again. Everything has to be as close to perfect as possible. Even then, there are no guarantees. Not every ad works.

One of the biggest challenges to creating a Super Bowl ad is making it stand out. Viewers are not always paying attention. By half-time, interest is starting to wane and a fair portion of viewers are intoxicated. If the game’s not close, the second half can be a dead zone (obviously not the case with this year’s game). Getting viewers to stop and pay attention is challenging. A message ad works by interrupting the flow and getting viewers to think for a few seconds.

A significant difference this year, however, was the sensitivity viewers had to ads with a message.  Regional ad spots, which don’t factor in national comparisons, tended to be more political than others and every region had them. That put viewers on edge so that their reactions tended to be more extreme whether viewers were for or against the message.

However, any controversy associated with an ad only helps brand recognition. That is why brands are willing to step into that dangerous territory of making a statement. Sometimes stirring the pot is a good thing. Several companies have had success with such ads, so there’s a reasonable precedent for doing something that is not product-centric.

The Video, Please

Going through this year’s ads, we found eight that stand out because of the message they share. Some are funny. Some are serious. All manage to make a point.

It’s A 10

When the ad says we’re in for “four years of awful hair,” we know to whom they’re referring. The ad then goes on to celebrate people whose hair style are … unique.

 

AirBnB

The company that uses people’s homes as hotel rooms has raised a lot of ire in places where regular hotels worry about losing business and neighbors worry about “undesirables” coming to visit. AirBNB takes on the controversy of the president’s travel ban head on, though, with an ad directed toward a specific audience.

https://youtu.be/5qUTYHnLz2g

 

Donate Life

I have to admit, when I first saw this ad I really didn’t understand where they were going until the last 15 seconds. This one might have been more effective in a 30-second format. Still, the whole concept that even an asshole can do something good offers everyone a chance for some level of redemption.

https://youtu.be/JPNNi7KKmQs

 

FurKids

People have a soft spot for animals, especially kittens. Yet, animals shelters across the nation are still overwhelmed with the number of cats and kittens available for adoption. FurKids is a chain of animal shelters and, as such, have some who think they charge too much and question how their animals are treated. I can’t speak to those allegations. However, as an ad that makes a point about the need to adopt these animals, they’re spot on. Again, though, it could have been just as effective in a shorter version.

https://youtu.be/pfJJKUNrY7o

 

Audi

Wage equality is a significant issue and Audi waded into that topic head-on with an ad titled “Daughter.” While the ad features a father talking about how to explain wage inequality to his daughter, the ad is targeting the politically active group of feminist involved in the issue. The ad is extremely well done and drives its point home with clarity.

https://youtu.be/G6u10YPk_34

 

84 Lumber

You wouldn’t necessarily think that a lumber company would be into political controversy unless it was maybe about deforestation or some other environmental cause. 84 Lumber took on the entire immigration debate, though, with a poignant and moving ad that has anti-immigrant groups all kinds of upset. Note: this ad is a revision of the first run that actually showed a wall. The NFL nixed that one as being too political. Go figure. So, what we’re showing you here is the full short film, including the part with the wall.

 

Budweiser

The self-proclaimed “King of Beers” has produced some memorable Super Bowl ads over the years, especially those involving their trademarked Clydesdales. They didn’t go that direction this year, though. Instead, they went with the presumptive story of the beer’s founder, a German immigrant who suffered the stigma of being an immigrant at another time in our nation’s history when immigrants weren’t cool. The ad was produced and already in the can long before the current immigration issue even came up, but its poignancy can’t be missed. So much so that when the full ad was released last week, the hashtag #BoycottBudweiser came up. There is no indication that the hashtag had any effect on sales, but the commercial certainly has.

 

Land O’Lakes

Again, a dairy company doesn’t seem like it would be the likely source for a commercial as serious as “The Farmer.” We tend to expect something softer—with cows. However, Land O’Lakes is actually a farmer-owned co-op, so the ability of smaller, independent farmers to survive in an atmosphere where corporations seem about to consume the entire industry is a bit of a big deal. They don’t even mention a specific product, just the brand. Chances are, though, you’ll remember this ad the next time you’re wandering down the dairy aisle at your local grocery. Here’s the full version of the ad. The poem, by the way, is by Amelia E. Barr.

 

As for the rest …

Sure, there were plenty of ads that were loud and entertaining. A number of lists are ranking the Wix ad with Jason Statham and Gal Gadot as the best of the lot, and it certainly is an exciting 79 seconds. There were a couple of nostalgia pieces as well, with Bud Light bringing back the ghost of Spuds McKenzie and Xerox updating it’s “Miracle” spot with Brother Dominic from 40 years ago. There were plenty of entertaining ads to be had.

Still, these are the eight that carry the most weight and are likely to make the most difference. Who cares what size Big Mac® you get? Sometimes, how we respond to humanity matters more.

Continue Reading

Current Issues  /  Long Read  /  Social Commentary
Death Of Liberty
February 5, 2017

In the defiance of checks and balances, we lose every freedom we once claimed

charles i. letbetter - death of liberty

A drastic situation

What we take for granted is easily taken away.

We have long assumed that the freedoms for which men and women have fought and died, once secured, would remain our forever. We would fight any invading force. We would stand in the face of tyranny, rise up together as a mighty throng, and turn back the forces of oppression, bigotry, and injustice. We would not let anyone invade out shores, occupy our hallowed halls, or threaten the precious democracy we hold dear.

And we’ve done that. There have been no invaders. No one has sent their troops to our shores. No one snuck into our country in the dead of night. No bullets were fired. No bombs exploded. They didn’t need to.

Instead, we elected tyranny for ourselves. In thinking that we needed to fight against the status quo we opened the door to an unholy regime of panderers, white supremacists, elitists, and power mongers whose ideals and philosophies are worse than any external foe we could ever face. By choosing a billionaire whose inherited fortunes are buoyed through deception and unethical practices, we did not choose one who would “drain the swamp,” but rather a swamp rat who delights in the mud and the muck and the filth.

In two very short but eventful weeks, we have moved from being a flawed democracy to one that it on the brink of utter collapse and, interestingly enough, there remain millions of people standing by and cheering. They somehow think that by giving up all pretense of freedom that they, themselves, will obtain more power. The foolhardy believe that in the destruction of liberty for all that they will somehow retain liberty for the few. There is no such hope, however, for when liberty is erased for some, it is destroyed for all. There is no such thing as a partial implementation of liberty.

Our country is in grave peril. The lives of many might actually be at stake. We not only need to remove the cancer infecting us, but as with any oncology surgery, we must remove the supporting tissue around it as well. We currently exist in a precarious state of hospice where our very next breath could be our last.

Everyone Sees It But Us

Edel Rodriguez, a Cuban immigrant who came to the US in 1980 to escape the tyranny of his home country, created an interesting cover for the German magazine, Der Spiegel. The image depicts a faceless image of the 45th US president holding a knife in one hand and the bloodied decapitated head of Lady Liberty in the other. Toward the bottom of the image are the words, “America First.”

The cover is alarming and, for many, disconcerting. Alexander Graf Lambsdorff, vice president of the European Parliament, described the cover as “tasteless.”

charles i. letbetter - the death of liberty

Cover of Der Speigel for 4 February 2017

The artist told the Washington Post: “It’s a beheading of democracy, a heading of a sacred symbol.”

Like it or not, this is how most people see the United States now. The president has been widely mocked, often with no small amount of hilarity. Leaders of other countries, including our closest allies, have rebuked his actions.

Yet, it is the Der Spiegel cover that may resonate the most. Germans, and Cubans, understand from experience what it is like to voluntarily put their freedoms into the hands of a tyrant. Both countries have had the sad experience of having done so. Both countries understand what it is like to suffer from their actions. Now, they see the United States heading down the exact same path. They are yelling and screaming at us in an attempt to warn us away from the inevitable outcome of our intentionally ignorant actions.

We are not listening.

Instead, the president and his team of autocrats push all the harder toward absolute authoritarian control and bluster loudly at any attempt to reign them in. Just yesterday, in response to a federal judge blocking the illegal travel ban created by presidential order, the president took to the lowest form of communication possible, Twitter, in an attempt to vilify the judge:

 

 

While the tactic the president is using is not a new one, his attitude shows tremendous disdain and a lack of respect for the balance of powers, the checks and balances that make a democracy possible. Remove those checks and balances, remove the judiciary that enforces the letter of the law, and we do not have a democracy. Our liberty is dead. Our freedoms are gone. In their place, we have a totalitarian regime where personal rights and freedoms are non-existent.

A Litany of Wounds

Without considering anything that occurred prior to the president’s January 20 inauguration, the new administration has attacked Lady Liberty repeatedly with actions, orders, and embarrassments that each act like another stab wound to our freedoms. We don’t even have to add the aforementioned immigration ban to the list to be concerned. Here are a few misdeeds, in no particular order.

  • The now-Republican-dominated FCC blocked nine companies from providing affordable Internet service to the poor. The project, known as Lifeline, provided subsidies for both telephone and broadband access for low-income families. Think Internet access isn’t important to the poor? Try applying for a job, even a minimum wage job, in person. Companies don’t do that much anymore. They tell you to go to the company’s website. Yet, for the poor, that act is practically impossible because they can’t afford the ever-increasing cost of home Internet access.
  • The US Department of Agriculture removed all animal welfare information from its website, instituting a requirement that any request for such information must be made through a Freedom of Information Act request. This includes inspection reports and other information regarding the treatment of animals at the thousands of laboratories, research facilities, breeding centers, zoos, and other facilities over which the USDA has authority. How does that impact you? Let’s say you want to buy a new pure-bred puppy and want to make sure the breeder is reputable and uses approved breeding method. Get in line. You’ll have to submit a Freedom of Information Act request first. The pup is likely to be a full-grown dog with puppies of its own by the time you get the information. In short, the government is now withholding information you need to make an informed purchase. Seems small, but the overall ramifications of any government agency withholding information are significant.
  • The president signed orders re-starting both the KeystoneXL and Dakota Access pipelines even as two new spills demonstrate how faulty and dangerous the pipeline structure is. The orders demonstrate the administration’s willingness to put corporate profits above proven health and safety concerns. Each spill brings with it the possibility of fuel and other contaminants flowing into the soil and water supply. Environmental groups and native American tribes have protested both pipelines over fears of contaminated water, but the president and his advisors refuse to listen. Having clean drinking water is a rather fundamental right, but the president is willing to take that right away if it means making a profit.
  • Cabinet choices such as Betsy DeVoss, Jeff Sessions, and Scott Pruitt, all still needing confirmation from the full Senate, represent further intentions to dismantle the freedoms of Americans. DeVoss, nominated for Secretary of the Department of Education, is a strong advocate of charter schools and school vouchers, both of which strip funding from public schools to pay for those run by private, for-profit companies while taking away oversight from the community. Jess Sessions, nominated to be the next Attorney General, has a long history of racial bias especially in regard to voting rights and favors the repeal of the 1965 Voting Rights Act. Oklahoma’s Attorney General, Scott Pruitt, nominated to head the Environmental Protection Agency, favors removing regulations on dumping chemicals into waterways and dismantling clean air regulations. All support policies that put big business above the rights and freedoms of individuals.

Reasonable use of time and space prevent me from continuing the list. Over half of the executive orders signed in the past two weeks infringe in some way on the individual freedoms of some or all Americans.

Accessories to murder

To the point we stand by and allow this systematic rape of Liberty while we do not take every conceivable action to stop it, we become accessories to the murder of our freedoms. Some go their willingly. The silence of members of Congress on both sides of the aisle make them complicit in the activities of the president and his administration. The cheering of those who voted the administration into power dooms them for eternity.

But what about those who oppose what is happening to our freedoms? How do we fare in this endless nightmare?

Compare your actions to the person who is sitting in the room as another injects themselves with a lethal dose of heroin. What do you do? Do you call 911? Do you attempt to wrangle the needle from your friend? Or do you just sit there uncomfortably and watch?

My fear is that far too many are willing to sit there and watch. They make no noise that matters. They might say in far too calm a voice, “Hey, don’t do that,” but no one hears them. No one pays any attention because there are no actions behind the words.

If Liberty is going to be saved, if our freedoms are going to be preserved, we have to, at the very least, make sure our voice is heard. Repeatedly. Calling your members of Congress, as we have advocated so frequently the past two weeks, is like making that 911 call. While there’s no guarantee that call will be sufficient to stop the death that seems inevitable, at last you will have made some attempt at preventing the disaster.

More importantly, though, Liberty needs people who are willing to physically take part in the fight, to make deliberate moves to wrestle away the syringe that threatens our very existence. Marches and protests are a start, but we may need to go even further, filing lawsuits and engaging in whatever means of resistance necessary in order to stop the actions of a regime that cares only about their own power and profit.

We have the power. It doesn’t matter that 63 million people voted for this travesty. More than 75 million specifically voted against this president and his administration. The majority of Americans did not ask for this. Yet, the will of that majority is being blatantly and intentionally ignored with malice.

Americans find themselves on the precipice of a decision whether to act against this government more strongly than has ever been necessary or to sit by and let Liberty slip into death. One could get very messy and may ultimately involve uncertain days of turmoil. The other destroys us all and crushes the very foundation upon which the United States of America was founded.

Only you can decide what you’re going to do. You need to make that decision now.

Continue Reading

Editorial  /  Photography  /  PotD
Beauty In The Cold: A New Gallery
February 5, 2017
charles i. letbetter - beauty in the cold

Loren Hawk defies the snow

 

charles i. letbetter - beauty in the cold

Weather or not

The weather seems to be working against us. Each time we’ve planned on shooting outdoors, it has thrown some manner of difficulty at us, challenging and changing our plans at the very last minute. This shoot was no different.

There wasn’t snow in the forecast when we scheduled Loren Hawk’s return in front of the camera. Cold, yes, but no snow. Yet, we woke up not only to a lawn covered in white, but occasional squalls that momentarily sparked fear for what might happen next. Fortunately, the squalls were short, accumulation was small, and we were able to continue with only minor changes.

You’ve likely already seen part of this shoot. Loren brought along a friend, Melinda, and Melinda brought along her friend, Bella. We convinced both of them to participate and published those pictures on Tuesday. You can see the gallery here.

Our primary attention, however, was on Loren. It’s been a year and a half since we covered her in paint. This time, we decided it might be more fun to capture her softer, more thoughtful side.  After all, Loren is a wonderfully intelligent young woman, something that too many people miss when looking at her pictures. We wanted to catch images that are closer to the every-day person, not just the model.

But then, it snowed.

If Loren was terribly concerned about the weather, it didn’t show. Well, not much. She didn’t really enjoy giving up her warm coat to stand in the middle of the sidewalk on Mass. Ave. She didn’t shy away from it, either, though. She handed her coat to Melinda and off we went.

The snow provided just enough context for the season. The squalls hit while we were driving downtown but managed to stop by the time we were ready to shoot. You’ll see the white blur of a few snowflakes in some of the shots, but for the most part we had little interference.

Kat had fun playing with Loren’s hair and used a very careful approach with her makeup so as to keep it lighter and more natural. We’ve gone darker on other shoots and wanted to stay away from anything that might appear too moody.

Having Loren here was fun. We certainly don’t want to wait another year and a half before she returns. Enjoy the pictures.

 

This slideshow requires JavaScript.

Continue Reading

Current Issues  /  Fashion  /  News & Comment
Dress Like A Woman
February 4, 2017
charles i. letbetter - dress like a woman

More misogyny from the White House

 

charles i. letbetter - dress like a woman

The Short Version

#DressLikeAWoman started trending overnight as word of an unofficial White House dress code that is more strict for women than men began to circulate. Women have been posting pictures of themselves in various styles to emphasize that there is no wrong way for a woman to dress.

Wait, Haven’t We Been Here Before?

Yes, yes we have. We’ve covered the topic of what is appropriate for women to wear no fewer than three times in just the past year:

  1. Ciara & The Double Standard was posted almost exactly a year ago after a number of closed-minded people made too big a deal over the evening gown Ciara wore while singing the national anthem at the Super Bowl.
  2. Modesty Doesn’t Become You got a lot of attention nine months ago when Kat ultimately left a job because someone didn’t like the way she dresses.
  3. Appropriate Fashion Is Whatever You Want was our post last September in response to France attempting to dictate what women wear on the beach.

So yeah, we’ve covered this general topic before. The fact that we have reason to discuss it again is rather disturbing.

What’s The Big Deal This Time?

This time around, the issue is an apparent double-standard in the unofficial White House dress code. We have to say “unofficial” because, officially, the White House doesn’t actually have a dress code. However, as presidents inevitably come and go, each one sets a different tone for how people dress.

For example, Jimmy Carter wore blue jeans in the oval office, something that really upset a lot of people at the time. So much so, that when Ronald Reagan became president he immediately reversed the trend and even required male reporters to wear ties inside the White House. President Clinton was, again, more relaxed, and, again, President Bush made things a bit more formal. Most recently, President Obama was known to not wear a jacket in the Oval Office and aides often came to meetings wearing t-shirts and jeans. So, it’s not the least bit surprising that as we return to largely Republican leadership fashion preferences run a more formal direction.

What got everyone up in arms, though, was an article from former Politico writer Mike Allen in his new newsletter Axios. Citing an anonymous source (which we consider questionable at all times), Mr. Allen wrote:

Trump likes the women who work for him “to dress like women,” says a source who worked on Trump’s campaign. “Even if you’re in jeans, you need to look neat and orderly.” We hear that women who worked in Trump’s campaign field office—folks who spend more time knocking on doors than attending glitzy events—felt pressure to wear dresses to impress Trump.”

That was all it took for women everywhere, especially those who already dislike the president and his policies, to take offense and start asking, “How is a woman supposed to dress?” then answering the question themselves with pictures.

While the article has no actual authoritative quote from the president or anyone on his staff, such a dress code requirement from this White House isn’t unbelievable. After all, this is the same man who, while on the campaign trail, rated women on a scale of 1 to 10 and insulting women who criticized him in any way. His misogynistic tendencies are already well known and well documented.

By questioning the White House dress code, however, we are at the same time questioning all dress codes where more emphasis is placed on how women dress over men’s styling. This isn’t an uncommon occurrence among businesses, especially those in more traditional industries such as banking and finance. The president is far from being the only one with antiquated ideas of how a woman should dress.

Does that give the White House a pass, though? Absolutely not. If anything, the White House should be the one setting an example of inclusion and self-definition.

Oh, wait, this White House doesn’t understand those words, does it?

In the end, this is an issue the entire business community needs to address, not just the White House. That we cannot depend on the White House to show any leadership on the matter is just sad.

Really sad.

Answering The Question

Thousands of women have already posted their pictures on twitter with the hashtag, #DressLikeAWoman. Here are some of our favoriates so far:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Whatever a woman chooses to wear is dressing like a woman. Any questions?

Continue Reading

Current Issues  /  News & Comment
H&M Closing Stores
February 4, 2017
charles i. letbetter - H&M closing stores

Online shopping is where profits are found

 

charles i. letbetter - H&M closing stores

The Short Version

Forbes magazine is reporting that fast-fashion retailer H&M is going to start closing under-performing stores and is abandoning its goal of opening 10-15% new stores each year. The chain is moving to put more emphasis on online shopping as it continues to chase a younger demographic that doesn’t shop in stores.

A Bit More Detail

No, your favorite H&M store isn’t going to close tomorrow. Probably. Maybe. Unless it’s one that has been defined as “under-performing.” For now, those are the only stores on the chopping block. The majority of stores in the US and Europe will keep right on putting out the fashion as fast as those factories in Bangladesh and Turkey can churn them out.

For now.

However, H&M’s CEO Karl-Johan Persson has changed his mind about the company’s growth strategy, away from physical stores in Europe and the US and more toward online sales. The reasons are numerous. In posting a six percent increase in sales last year, net income actually dropped almost eleven percent, largely because of increased markdowns necessary to stay competitive. Persson also said that events such as terror attacks and Brexit are creating problems in certain areas of the world.

The move toward a more online strategy isn’t universal, however. Persson says that emerging markets such as India, Mexico, South Africa, and Turkey are growing and will see more stores open. In fact, 430 stores will open this year, including new entry into Kazakhstan, Colombia, The Republic of Georgia, and Taiwan.

As H&M grows its online presence, it looks directly at competing with Amazon, Zalandro, and Alibaba, hoping to capitalize off its online/brick-and-mortar combination. The company still expects a 10-15% annual sales increase despite the shift in focus. They are also expanding their online presence, adding Malaysia, Mexico, Hong Kong, Singapore, Taiwan, and Turkey to the list of cyber markets.

The move by H&M is important in light of the continued struggles that have plagued mall-based retailers over the past several years. Rumors that Hudson’s Bay, who already owns Saks, is making a takeover move on troubled department store Macy’s was greeted with considerable optimism. Traditional fashion retailers are struggling and brick-and-mortar stores are a large cost factor that yields little, if any, profit.

Fast-fashion retailers, such as H&M and Forever21, have been seen as the exception to the decline of retail fashion stores. Where others have failed, fast-fashion outlets have been booming, for the most part. H&M’s change in strategy seems to signal the popping of that bubble.

Again, H&M emphasizes that only under-performing stores are going to close. However, there was no detail defining “under-performing” and whether that might expand should on-line sales beat sales goals. We only know that once a store is targeted for closure, that the door-shuttering will happen quickly. Don’t expect a lot of huge clearance sales.

We also don’t know how this might effect H&M’s partnerships with fashion brands such as Kenzo and its relationships with designers, things that have made the store popular in the past.

What we do know is that this could be a serious blow to real estate and mall developers in the long-term. Any hope for a resurgence based on fast-fashion growth would appear to be crushed. As Amazon and other companies look at faster and cheaper delivery methods, the days of physical in-store shopping look to be shorter than previously anticipated.

At the same time, this move makes the opportunities for smaller boutiques that much stronger. Located in more urban areas in places where storefront rents are not quite so expensive, boutiques counter the online trend with a more intimate shopping experience. As bigger brands drop physical stores to move online, boutique owners are likely to see an increase in traffic, especially from shoppers over 40 who still like to touch and try on clothes before buying.

Either way one looks at the situation, however, the consumer almost certainly comes out the winner.

Continue Reading

News & Comment
Remember The Bowling Green Massacre
February 3, 2017
charles i. letbetter - remember the bowling green massacre

 Don’t worry, it didn’t actually happen

 charles i. letbetter - remember the bowling green massacre

The Short Version

White House counselor Kellyanne Conway was defending the president’s travel ban to MSNBC’s Chris Matthews Thursday evening when she referenced the Bowling Green Massacre as having been caused by two Iraqi refugees. The biggest problem with her statement?  There never has been a Bowling Green Massacre and the Internet was swift to respond.

Let’s Go To The Video

We wouldn’t want our ridicule to be taken out of context

https://youtu.be/aBC5Qv2HR7E

Run That By Me Again?

Bowling Green Massacre. As in Bowling Green, Kentucky, the sleepy little home of Fruit of the Loom underwear, the National Corvette Museum, and Bowling Green University. The year she cites is 2011.  She uses the word “massacre.”

If that’s leaving you scratching your head, it’s because no such thing ever happened. Even the folks in Bowling Green agree, nothing happened there in 2011. Nothing ever happens in Bowling Green. Conway, the mother of “alternative facts,” made the whole thing up.

Completely false.

No one is surprised, though. Apparently, this kind of misinformation is going to be a standard for this administration.

Where She Got Confused

What might have gotten mixed up in Ms. Conway’s addled brain is the fact that, in 2011, two Iraqi citizens who happened to be living in Bowling Green were arrested for attempting to send weapons and money to al-Qaeda for the purpose of killing US soldiers. That is confirmable and was widely reported at the time. The two were eventually sentenced.  MohanadShareef Hammadi was sentenced to life in federal prison and Waad Ramadan Alwan was sentenced to 31-40 years.

Ms. Conway’s information is still wrong, though. The Obama administration did not stop or ban Iraqi resettlement.  What actually happened, and this is confirmable in multiple federal records from the State Department and other agencies, is that thObama administration imposed more extensive background checks on Iraqi refugees resulting in a slowdown in visa approvals. That was it. No ban.

There was a drop in refugee arrivals from Iraq in 2011. The numbers look like this:

  • 2010: 18,251
  • 2011: 6,339
  • 2012: 16,369

The rate of visa approval in 2011 was dramatically slowed under the new rules, creating a bottleneck of sorts in the system. However, there was NO BAN under the Obama administration during that time.

The Internet Responds

If there’s one thing the Internet is great at doing, it’s catching other people’s mistakes and holding them accountable. Twitter users were quick to step up to the plate and #BowlingGreenMassacre has been trending ever since. Here are some of our favorites:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Now, with all that nonsense behind us, let’s be clear that such an obvious attempt at gaslighting by a senior White House official is absolutely unforgivable. Ms. Conway didn’t just “misspeak.” The press didn’t “misinterpret her words.” No, she lied. She made up shit that never happened and tried to pass it off as fact.

And while we’re at it, can we call MSNBC’s Chris Matthews on the carpet for letting get away with that ridiculous comment? C’mon, Chris, you knew damn good and well there was no Bowling Green Massacre, yet you just let it blow right past you as you went to the next question. Ya’ need to grow a pair if you’re going to interview anyone from this administration.

And that’s where we end this story. No one should be interviewing Ms. Conway and her “alternative facts” in the first place. She needs to be sidelined by the media and totally ignored. This story stands as a perfect example of why.

We don’t need four years of this nonsense.

Continue Reading

News & Comment  /  PotD
Hello? Anyone Home?
February 3, 2017
charles i. letbetter - hello? is anyone home?

Members of Congress struggle to answer the phone

 

charles i. letbetter - hello? is anyone home

The short version

As interest in the president’s cabinet appointments and Republican legislation goals has peaked, members of Congress are having difficulty keeping up with the volume of phone calls to both their Washington, D.C. and home district offices. Frequent posting of phone numbers on social media is credited with fueling the overwhelming influx of calls.

A little more detail

Freshman Congressmembers have it rough when they first get to Washington. Not only do they have to find and hire competent staff, their offices are initially located in the basement of the Capitol building in cramped quarters with people reaching over one another in their efforts to get anything done. There is a lot of information and policies and procedures to consume and absolutely no time for errors or mistakes, which means there is an abundance of errors and mistakes.

This year, however, an additional problem has been added: the phones won’t stop ringing. Literally. They don’t stop. Calls begin early in the morning, well before staffers arrive, and continue throughout the day until well after staffers are gone. The results are exhausted interns and staff aides who spend their days trying to move through the calls and record their issues as quickly as possible. Meals are taken at their desk and heaven help them if they need to do something marginally time-consuming, such as use the restroom.

The calls aren’t just limited to junior members, of course. Even Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., is having problems keeping up, and his office is huge by comparison. He told WHAS AM radio host Terry Meiners: “I appreciate many Kentuckians sharing their comments and for their patience with the jammed phone lines,” McConnell

“I appreciate many Kentuckians sharing their comments and for their patience with the jammed phone lines. I might suggest to people who’ve had that experience, the best way to contact me is online.”

Indeed, all members of Congress have online contact forms that are undoubtedly easier on the Congressperson’s staff than having to actually answer a phone. However, social media has large numbers of people convinced that a phone call carries more weight and gets more attention than do email. There is no statistical data to actually support that assertion, mind you,  but the claim that the advice comes from a former congressional aide is enough to sway the actions of those who are freshly aware of their role in government.

Members of Congress are indeed noticing, and it’s making them a bit nervous. They all know that being labeled as unresponsive to their home constituents can kill their chances at re-election, which House members face every two years. Some members, such as Steve Daines, a rookie Republican Senator from Montana, are even picking up the phones themselves in an effort to let constituents know that their messages are being received.

Keith Barton, a professor of education at Indiana University, told the Associated Press: “I’m certainly seeing a lot of my teacher friends on Facebook who are politicized in ways that they never have been before. People who would have had liberal opinions, who might have liked something, but who now are writing and calling and emailing — things that they never would have done before. It’s been very striking just how politicized these middle-of-the-road kind of people are.”

All this activity has members of Congress slowing down and thinking a little more carefully on some of their previously stated plans, such as overturning the Affordable Care Act. Increasingly, conversations on Capitol Hill are turning more to talks of “repairing” the law rather than attempting to completely abolishing it.

Increased political activity on the part of constituents has also made party unity difficult and has slowed much of the momentum Congress seemed to have back in January. More bills are being taken back and re-written in an effort to ease constituent anxiety.

This continued and unrelenting effort speaks well for those who want to resist the 45th president’s administration. While congressional aides and interns are doing their best to answer every call possible, please note that the shorter the call, the better. Phone calls are not conducive to long conversations as aides are pressed to move on to the next call as quickly as possible. To the extent possible, phone calls should be limited to the following information:

  1. Your name
  2. Your phone number
  3. Your zip code (to confirm you are a constituent of that Congressperson)
  4. Whether you need a response
  5. Your issue, stated as briefly as possible.

We strongly suggest writing out what one is going to say so that the person on the other end is able to record your information and move on. If you are sent to voicemail, leaving a message there is just as effective.

Members of Congress are feeling the pressure from their constituents. Keep up the good work.

 

Continue Reading

pop culture  /  Social Commentary
James Baldwin
February 2, 2017
charles i. letbetter - james baldwin

Why you need to see “I Am Not Your Negro.”

 

charles i. letbetter - james baldwin

The short version

Raoul Peck’s stirring documentary about the late James Baldwin, I Am Not Your Negro, opens nationwide in theaters tomorrow. Every person in the United States needs to go see this movie. We need to understand. We need to know. This may very well be the most important film you see all year.

A little background

James Baldwin was a profound and sometimes incendiary writer, poet, and speaker. His words struck a nerve not only within the black community of the 1960s, but among white people who were afraid of the civil rights movement. Baldwin’s words were strong and resonant because they were accurate and true, whether anyone wanted to believe him or not.

Baldwin’s story comes to life in ways never before seen in Raoul Peck’s documentary, I Am Not Your Negro. Peck was given access to the FBI’s extensive file on Baldwin and using that information, along with miles of film footage that hasn’t been seen since the 60s, he brings Baldwin back to life juxtaposed against the Black Lives Matter movement and the groundswell of white nationalism currently taking place across the US.

Here’s the trailer for the movie:

 

In light of the unforgivable gaffes the president made in yesterday’s statement on Black History Month (where he praised the work Frederick Douglass is doing) and his stated intention to declassify white supremacy groups as violent extremists, we need this movie now. I worry that far too many white people are going to dismiss it as “a black thing.” This is not “a black thing.” This is an us thing. You and me. Regardless of our skin color. This is about who we are and who we have always been as a nation.

Because I’m reasonably sure 98% of those reading this have never seen a James Baldwin poem, I’m giving you one now. It’s long. Read the whole thing. Consider what he’s saying. The words may have been written before some of you were born, but they are still just as applicable now as they were 50 years ago.

Staggerlee wonders

I always wonder
what they think the niggers are doing
while they, the pink and alabaster pragmatists,
are containing
Russia
and defining and re-defining and re-aligning
China,
nobly restraining themselves, meanwhile,
from blowing up that earth
which they have already
blasphemed into dung:
the gentle, wide-eyed, cheerful
ladies, and their men,
nostalgic for the noble cause of Vietnam,
nostalgic for noble causes,
aching, nobly, to wade through the blood of savages—
ah—!
Uncas shall never leave the reservation,
except to purchase whisky at the State Liquor Store.
The Panama Canal shall remain forever locked:
there is a way around every treaty.
We will turn the tides of the restless
Caribbean,
the sun will rise, and set
on our hotel balconies as we see fit.
The natives will have nothing to complain about,
indeed, they will begin to be grateful,
will be better off than ever before.
They will learn to defer gratification
and save up for things, like we do.

Oh, yes. They will.
We have only to make an offer
they cannot refuse.

This flag has been planted on the moon:
it will be interesting to see
what steps the moon will take to be revenged
for this quite breathtaking presumption.
This people
masturbate in winding sheets.
They have hacked their children to pieces.
They have never honoured a single treaty
made with anyone, anywhere.
The walls of their cities
are as foul as their children.
No wonder their children come at them with knives.
Mad Charlie man’s son was one of their children,
had got his shit together
by the time he left kindergarten,
and, as for Patty, heiress of all the ages,
she had the greatest vacation
of any heiress, anywhere:

Golly-gee, whillikens, Mom, real guns!
and they come with a real big, black funky stud, too:
oh, Ma! he’s making eyes at me!

Oh, noble Duke Wayne,
be careful in them happy hunting grounds.
They say the only good Indian
is a dead Indian,
by what I say is,
you can’t be too careful, you hear?
Oh, towering Ronnie Reagan,
wise and resigned lover of redwoods,
deeply beloved, winning man-child of the yearning Republic
from diaper to football field to Warner Brothers sound-stages,
be thou our grinning, gently phallic, Big Boy of all the ages!

Salt peanuts, salt peanuts,
for dear hearts and gentle people,
and cheerful, shining, simple Uncle Sam!

Nigger, read this and run!
Now, if you can’t read,
run anyhow!

From Manifest Destiny
(Cortez, and all his men
silent upon a peak in Darien)
to A Decent Interval,
and the chopper rises above Saigon,
abandoning the noble cause
and the people we have made ignoble
and whom we leave there, now, to die,
one moves, With All Deliberate Speed,
to the South China Sea, and beyond,
where millions of new niggers
await glad tidings!

No, said the Great Man’s Lady,
I’m against abortion,
I always feel that’s killing somebody.
Well, what about capital punishment?
I think the death penalty helps.

That’s right.
Up to our ass in niggers
on Death Row.

Oh, Susanna,
don’t you cry for me!

2

Well, I guess what the niggers
is supposed to be doing
is putting themselves in the path
of that old sweet chariot
and have it swing down and carry us home.

That would help, as they say,
and they got ways
of sort of nudging the chariot.
They still got influence
with Wind and Water,
though they in for some surprises
with Cloud and Fire.

My days are not their days.
My ways are not their ways.
I would not think of them,
one way or the other,
did not they so grotesquely
block the view
between me and my brother.

And, so, I always wonder:
can blindness be desired?
Then, what must the blinded eyes have seen
to wish to see no more!

For, I have seen,
in the eyes regarding me,
or regarding my brother,
have seen, deep in the farthest valley
of the eye, have seen
a flame leap up, then flicker and go out,
have seen a veil come down,
leaving myself, and the other,
alone in that cave
which every soul remembers, and
out of which, desperately afraid,
I turn, turn, stagger, stumble out,
into the healing air,
fall flat on the healing ground,
singing praises, counselling
my heart, my soul, to praise.

What is it that this people
cannot forget?

Surely, they cannot be deluded
as to imagine that their crimes
are original?

There is nothing in the least original
about the fiery tongs to the eyeballs,
the sex torn from the socket,
the infant ripped from the womb,
the brains dashed out against rock,
nothing original about Judas,
or Peter, or you or me: nothing:
we are liars and cowards all,
or nearly all, or nearly all the time:
for we also ride the lightning,
answer the thunder, penetrate whirlwinds,
curl up on the floor of the sun,
and pick our teeth with thunderbolts.

Then, perhaps they imagine
that their crimes are not crimes?

Perhaps.
Perhaps that is why they cannot repent,
why there is no possibility of repentance.
Manifest Destiny is a hymn to madness,
feeding on itself, ending
(when it ends) in madness:
the action is blindness and pain,
pain bringing a torpor so deep
that every act is willed,
is desperately forced,
is willed to be a blow:
the hand becomes a fist,
the prick becomes a club,
the womb a dangerous swamp,
the hope, and fear, of love
is acid in the marrow of the bone.
No, their fire is not quenched,
nor can be: the oil feeding the flames
being the unadmitted terror of the wrath of God.

Yes. But let us put it in another,
less theological way:
though theology has absolutely nothing to do
with what I am trying to say.
But the moment God is mentioned
theology is summoned
to buttress or demolish belief:
an exercise which renders belief irrelevant
and adds to the despair of Fifth Avenue
on any afternoon,
the people moving, homeless, through the city,
praying to find sanctuary before the sky
and the towers come tumbling down,
before the earth opens, as it does in Superman.
They know that no one will appear
to turn back time,
they know it, just as they know
that the earth has opened before
and will open again, just as they know
that their empire is falling, is doomed,
nothing can hold it up, nothing.
We are not talking about belief.

3

I wonder how they think
the niggers made, make it,
how come the niggers are still here.
But, then, again, I don’t think they dare
to think of that: no:
I’m fairly certain they don’t think of that at all.

Lord,
I with the alabaster lady of the house,
with Beulah.
Beulah about sixty, built in four-square,
biceps like Mohammed Ali,
she at the stove, fixing biscuits,
scrambling eggs and bacon, fixing coffee,
pouring juice, and the lady of the house,
she say, she don’t know how
she’d get along without Beulah
and Beulah just silently grunts,
I reckon you don’t,
and keeps on keeping on
and the lady of the house say
She’s just like one of the family,
and Beulah turns, gives me a look,
sucks her teeth and rolls her eyes
in the direction of the lady’s back, and
keeps on keeping on.

While they are containing
Russia
and entering onto the quicksand of
China
and patronizing
Africa,
and calculating
the Caribbean plunder, and
the South China Sea booty,
the niggers are aware that no one has discussed
anything at all with the niggers.

Well. Niggers don’t own nothing,
got no flag, even our names
are hand-me-downs
and you don’t change that
by calling yourself X:
sometimes that just makes it worse,
like obliterating the path that leads back
to whence you came, and
to where you can begin.
And, anyway, none of this changes the reality,
which is, for example, that I do not want my son
to die in Guantanamo,
or anywhere else, for that matter,
serving the Stars and Stripes.
(I’ve seen some stars.
I got some stripes.)

Neither (incidentally)
has anyone discussed the Bomb with the niggers:
the incoherent feeling is, the less
the nigger knows about the Bomb, the better:
the lady of the house
smiles nervously in your direction
as though she had just been overheard
discussing family, or sexual secrets,
and changes the subject to Education,
or Full Employment, or the Welfare rolls,
the smile saying, Don’t be dismayed.
We know how you feel. You can trust us.

Yeah. I would like to believe you.
But we are not talking about belief.

4

The sons of greed, the heirs of plunder,
are approaching the end of their journey:
it is amazing that they approach without wonder,
as though they have, themselves, become
that scorched and blasphemed earth,
the stricken buffalo, the slaughtered tribes,
the endless, virgin, bloodsoaked plain,
the famine, the silence, the children’s eyes,
murder masquerading as salvation, seducing
every democratic eye,
the mouths of truth and anguish choked with cotton,
rape delirious with the fragrance of magnolia,
the hacking of the fruit of their loins to pieces,
hey! the tar-baby sons and nephews, the high-yaller
nieces,
and Tom’s black prick hacked off
to rustle in crinoline,
to hang, heaviest of heirlooms,
between the pink and alabaster breasts
of the Great Man’s Lady,
or worked into the sash at the waist
of the high-yaller Creole bitch, or niece,
a chunk of shining brown-black satin,
staring, staring, like the single eye of God:

creation yearns to re-create a time
when we were able to recognize a crime.

Alas,
my stricken kinsmen,
the party is over:
there have never been any white people,
anywhere: the trick was accomplished with mirrors—
look: where is your image now?
where your inheritance,
on what rock stands this pride?

Oh,
I counsel you,
leave History alone.
She is exhausted,
sitting, staring into her dressing-room mirror,
and wondering what rabbit, now,
to pull out of what hat,
and seriously considering retirement,
even though she knows her public
dare not let her go.

She must change.
Yes. History must change.
A slow, syncopated
relentless music begins
suggesting her re-entry,
transformed, virginal as she was,
in the Beginning, untouched,
as the Word was spoken,
before the rape which debased her
to be the whore of multitudes, or,
as one might say, before she became the Star,
whose name, above our title,
carries the Show, making History the patsy,
responsible for every flubbed line,
every missed cue, responsible for the life
and death, of all bright illusions
and dark delusions,
Lord, History is weary
of her unspeakable liaison with Time,
for Time and History
have never seen eye to eye:
Time laughs at History
and time and time and time again
Time traps History in a lie.

But we always, somehow, managed
to roar History back onstage
to take another bow,
to justify, to sanctify
the journey until now.

Time warned us to ask for our money back,
and disagreed with History
as concerns colours white and black.
Not only do we come from further back,
but the light of the Sun
marries all colours as one.

Kinsmen,
I have seen you betray your Saviour
(it is you who call Him Saviour)
so many times, and
I have spoken to Him about you,
behind your back.
Quite a lot has been going on
behind your back, and,
if your phone has not yet been disconnected,
it will soon begin to ring:
informing you, for example, that a whole generation,
in Africa, is about to die,
and a new generation is about to rise,
and will not need your bribes,
or your persuasions, any more:
not your morality. No plundered gold—
Ah! Kinsmen, if I could make you see
the crime is not what you have done to me!
It is you who are blind,
you, bowed down with chains,
you, whose children mock you, and seek another
master,
you, who cannot look man or woman or child in the
eye,
whose sleep is blank with terror,
for whom love died long ago,
somewhere between the airport and the safe-deposit
box,
the buying and selling of rising or falling stocks,
you, who miss Zanzibar and Madagascar and Kilimanjaro
and lions and tigers and elephants and zebras
and flying fish and crocodiles and alligators and
leopards
and crashing waterfalls and endless rivers,
flowers fresher than Eden, silence sweeter than the
grace of God,
passion at every turning, throbbing in the bush,
thicker, oh, than honey in the hive,
dripping
dripping
opening, welcoming, aching from toe to bottom
to spine,
sweet heaven on the line
to last forever, yes,
but, now,
rejoicing ends, man, a price remains to pay,
your innocence costs too much
and we can’t carry you on our books
or our backs, any longer: baby,
find another Eden, another apple tree,
somewhere, if you can,
and find some other natives, somewhere else,
to listen to you bellow
till you come, just like a man,
but we don’t need you,
are sick of being a fantasy to feed you,
and of being the principal accomplice to your
crime:
for, it is your crime, now, the cross to which you
cling,
your Alpha and Omega for everything.

Well (others have told you)
your clown’s grown weary, the puppet master
is bored speechless with this monotonous disaster,
and is long gone, does not belong to you,
any more than my woman, or my child,
ever belonged to you.

During this long travail
our ancestors spoke to us, and we listened,
and we tried to make you hear life in our song
but now it matters not at all to me
whether you know what I am talking about—or not:
I know why we are not blinded
by your brightness, are able to see you,
who cannot see us. I know
why we are still here.

Godspeed.
The niggers are calculating,
from day to day, life everlasting,
and wish you well:
but decline to imitate the Son of the Morning,
and rule in Hell.

by James Baldwin

Continue Reading

Current Issues  /  Fashion  /  News & Comment  /  PotD
Retail Resistance
February 2, 2017
charles i. letbetter - retail resistance

Stores desperately try to prevent huge price increases

 

charles i. letbetter - retail resistance

The Short Version

Your favorite retail store has your back as every major retail trade group opposes the so-called Border Adjusted Tax proposed by House Speaker Paul Ryan. Retailers say the tax would result in price increases of 20% or more and could make many products completely unavailable to American consumers.

Avoiding Sticker Shock

Almost everything you buy, even if it comes with a “Made in America” label, has some parts of pieces imported from outside the United States. This division of manufacturing and labor has become standard operating procedure for almost every American-owned company. That practice is under attack, however, as the Republican members of Congress and the 45th president vow to use taxes as a means of encouraging domestic production.

Retailers, however, say the plan is severely flawed and would not only result in higher prices for consumers but would likely cost several thousand jobs across the country—the exact opposite effect from what Republicans claim the tax will do.

Complicating the whole matter is the fact that Republican leadership in Congress and the 45th president are not on the same page. While the Republican proposal would increase import taxes 10-15%. the president has been pushing an import tax as high as 35%. The president has also criticized the Republican plan as being too complicated.

The National Retail Federation, along with the American International Automobile Dealers Association, and the National Grocers Association have joined forces with smaller trade groups and independent retailers such as the LVMH luxury group to form Americans for Affordable Products. The purpose of the new group is to present a unified front in educating the public of the potentially negative results of the import tax as well as lobbying Congress on behalf of the retailers. They’re not waiting until a final bill is proposed. They want to stop any increased taxes before they ever get started.

Who all is involved? Everyone. Nike. Target. Wal-Mart. Best Buy. LVMH-owned brands Donna Karan, Fendi, Givenchy, and Kenzo. Dollar General. Pretty much every store you ever shop, regardless of whether you shop bargain basements or the luxury mall, is against the import tax being raised.

Why? Because even things as simple as pencils and toilet paper have production pieces that are imported. Any rise in the import tax not only results in higher prices for consumers but in many cases would result in layoffs of American employees. The end result would almost certainly be an economic tailspin resulting in a recession larger than that of 2008.

While almost everyone is in favor of increased domestic production of products, the consensus among those who actually produce and sell those products is that increased import taxes is not the way to achieve that goal.

Continue Reading

Current Issues  /  News & Comment
Inmate Resistance
February 2, 2017
charles i. letbetter - inmate resistance

Fear at core of Delaware prison rebellion

 

charles i. letbetter - inmate resistance

The Short Version

Inmates at the James T. Vaughn Correctional Center in Smyrna, Delaware triggered a statewide lockdown after they took four hostages and closed down a cell block in the state’s largest prison. Their reason for doing so? Deteriorating care and fear of changes under the presidential administration. Two hostages have been released as the standoff continues.

Update

6:13 PM EST (AP) State officials used a backhoe to smash through a barricade inmates had constructed from footlockers, ending the 20-hour-plus standoff. A male guard was found dead. A female counselor was released unharmed.

Inmates had used “homemade weapons” to overpower the staff and secure the hostages. The deceased hostage had been shoved into a closet initially and from there radioed other guards to warn them of a booby trap, potentially saving more lives. State officials have not yet revealed when or how the guard died.The other guards taken were severely beaten, but inmates protected the female counselor from harm during the ordeal.

Geoffrey Klopp, union president, blamed severe staff shortages for the guard’s death, saying that the situation would have been preventable had the facility been fully staffed.

Delaware’s Governor, John Carney, repeated his statement that those responsible would be dealt with appropriately.

9:05 AM EST: (AP) Officials announced in a statement Thursday morning that they had secured the building at the James T. Vaughn Correctional Center where the disturbance occurred. The prison is in Smyrna, about 15 miles north of the state capital of Dover. Officials say after authorities breached the building, one Department of Correction worker was found unresponsive and later pronounced dead.

Delaware Gov. John Carney said that the persons responsible will be held accountable and steps will be taken to ensure this doesn’t happen again.

8:54 AM EST: (AP) Delaware prison officials say one hostage is dead and a second is alert and talking after authorities entered a building at the state’s largest prison where inmates had taken staff members hostage.

What We Know So Far

This is still an active situation as of Thursday morning, so be aware that some of this information may change as the day goes on.

The call went out around 10:30 Wednesday morning from cell block C: “Officer in need of assistance.” Officers ran to help. They were immediately taken hostage. The standoff began.

James T. Vaughn Correctional Center in Smyrna, Delaware is that state’s largest prison. Cell block C houses over 100 inmates. According to Dover attorney Stephen Hampton, a civil rights attorney who has represented inmates from the prison, complaints about conditions including medical care and record keeping have increased over the past year. Additionally, pre-trial inmates held at the facility are routinely denied access to the library and other facilities to avoid mingling with regular inmates.

Inmates called The News Journal in Wilmington to explain themselves. Some of their concerns were not surprising: education for inmates, effective rehabilitation, and information regarding how money is allocated to the prison. Then came the surprise. Included in the reasons for their actions was, “[The president]. Everything that he did. All the things that he’s doing now. We know that the institution is going to change for the worse.”

Obviously, that last point makes negotiating a little difficult and may be the primary reason the standoff continued through the night.

Two of the hostages were released. One was taken to a nearby hospital with non-life threatening injuries. 27 inmates who apparently were not normally housed in the cell block and not part of the protest were also released.

Robert Coupe, the secretary of the Delaware Department of Safety and Homeland Security, said they had been in radio contact with the inmates and were continuing to try and peacefully resolve the matter as quickly as possible. He declined to comment on statements made to the newspaper, saying that those points of interest could be addressed once the current situation has ended.

Nationwide, those resisting the 45th president and his administration have taken to various forms of protest. However, the concerns raised by the inmates at the Smyrna prison are the first to be publicly voiced within that community. The president’s rhetoric has been taking a tough stand against crime and criminals, but prisons and their conditions are not topics that have yet been addressed by the administration.

Again, we must emphasize that this situation is still active and likely will change throughout the course of the day. As it does, we will provide updates at the top of the page.

Continue Reading

Art  /  PotD
Fake Nudes
February 1, 2017
http://www.charlesiletbetter.com/then-this-happened/

Because, you know, we’d never publish real naked people. Never. Period.

 

 

charles i. letbetter - fake nudes

Trying to stay current

A couple of different Facebook conversations yesterday led to this mini gallery. One came from a photographer who mentioned that his models were not nude, but that they are “alternatively clothed.”

My response was that they must have been wearing the Emperor’s label. If you don’t get it, you must not have been paying attention in second grade.

Then, in regard to my own post about reading articles before liking them, one person commented that she only looks at the pictures.

I can see that. A lot of people prefer the pictures over the stories that go with them. So, I told her I would consider doing a mini gallery of fake nudes. This is that gallery.

They’re not really nude, of course. No, not at all. Not even close. At least, not by White House definitions. This is the way the world works now. We just turn everything upside down and backward and call it whatever the hell we want.

Honestly, I don’t care what you call them. Just enjoy.

http://www.charlesiletbetter.com/then-this-happened/

This person is not nude

http://www.charlesiletbetter.com/then-this-happened/

Don’t even think of calling this one a nude

http://www.charlesiletbetter.com/then-this-happened/

She has a piercing, so she’s not naked

http://www.charlesiletbetter.com/then-this-happened/

Isn’t the necklace beautiful? See, not nude at all!

http://www.charlesiletbetter.com/then-this-happened/

She’s clothed in sunlight and shadow

http://www.charlesiletbetter.com/then-this-happened/

This is not nude. Period.

http://www.charlesiletbetter.com/then-this-happened/

Look, if she was really nude would she just be sitting there?

http://www.charlesiletbetter.com/then-this-happened/

This is a figure study and figure studies are never nude

Fake Nudes

Navel piercing = not nude

Continue Reading

Just For Fun  /  Photography  /  PotD
Bella Comes To Play
January 31, 2017
charles i. letbetter - Bella comes to visit

Are you sure you can handle this much cuteness?

 

charles i. letbetter - Bella comes to visit

Bella’s checking her email

We don’t shoot a lot of pets. You know the rule: never work with children and animals. That’s generally a pretty good rule to follow.

However, Bella’s mommy, Melinda, brought her along to a shoot we were doing with Loren Hawk. Bella, a long-haired chihuahua, was so wonderfully well behaved and so adorably precious that we had no other choice than to include her in some of the pictures.

And who doesn’t need pictures of an adorable little puppy on a miserable Tuesday such as this?

Thanks to Kat for giving Melinda a touch of makeup and hair manipulation. Melinda didn’t come prepared to participate. Surprise!

Enjoy this break from all the worries of the world. Follow Bella’s example and just chill.

charles i. letbetter - Bella comes to visit

Trying to stay warm while the silly humans play in the snow

charles i. letbetter - Bella comes to visit

Ooh, is that snack for ME?

charles i. letbetter - Bella comes to visit

Mommy loves Bella soooo much!

charles i. letbetter - Bella comes to visit

Bella was alert but very well behaved

charles i. letbetter - Bella comes to visit

Bella! International pup of mystery and intrigue

charles i. letbetter - Bella comes to visit

Wait, you want me to kiss you ON CAMERA?

charles i. letbetter - Bella comes to visit

As pretty as Loren and Melinda are, Bella was still easily distracted by the cats roaming the room

charles i. letbetter - Bella comes to visit

Hanging around outside, staying close to mom

charles i. letbetter - Bella comes to visit

Everyone loves Bella!

charles i. letbetter - Bella comes to visit

Bella’s checking her email

 

Continue Reading

Current Issues  /  News & Comment
Avoiding Old Age Problems
January 31, 2017
charles i. letbetter - getting older

We all want to stay active and alert

 

charles i. letbetter - getting older

The Short Version

As adults grow older, they face the risk of reduced mental acuity and even dementia. However, researched published Monday in the JAMA Neurology journal indicates that simple activities help avoid some of the worst aspects of mental deterioration without the use of expensive gadgets or treatment.

A Little More Detail

While I won’t speak for anyone else, my greatest fear of growing old stems from the possibility of losing my mental awareness to some form of dementia. My grandfather had Alzheimer’s and I remember far too well how devastating that was for everyone. I don’t want to put myself or my family in that situation. I don’t know anyone who wants their final days to be spent in such confusion.

Unfortunately, to date, many of the programs designed to ward off the mental health issues that accompany aging have been on the expensive side, some involving experimental appliances that insurance wouldn’t cover and medicines with some not-so-nice side effects. We haven’t had a lot of choices outside the woo-community’s herbal solutions, which are no solutions at all.

However, a study published Monday n the JAMA Neurology journal gives us some hope. Doing just normal things, the low-level type of activities that many of us are already doing, help to stave off some of the more devastating effects of dementia even past the age of 70, when those problems tend to start presenting themselves more heavily.

What kind of activities are we talking about here? Five areas were specifically studied: computer use; making crafts; playing games including chess or bridge; going to movies or other types of socializing, and reading books. 2,000 adults aged 70 to 93 without any memory problems participated. They were tested for the condition in mental exams at the beginning and every 15 months for about four years.

All of the activities listed worked in providing some level of protection except reading. Why not reading? Apparently, page turning doesn’t provide enough physical activity and promotes isolation.  All the other studied areas provided 20-30 percent less likelihood of developing dementia.

What does that mean? Staying active, even if it seems minimal, is better than doing nothing at all. While they weren’t specifically studied, activities such as talking on the phone, going to church, or going shopping would likely have similar protections. The worst thing any of us can do is to stay in and let our brains melt. They need both physical and mental stimulation to survive.

We can’t keep ourselves from growing older, but we can slow down some of the effects.

Continue Reading

Current Issues  /  News & Comment
Resistance & Fallout
January 31, 2017
charles i. letbetter - resistance and fallout

The world begins to push back

 

charles i. letbetter - resistance and fallout

The Short Version

With the chaos and confusion caused by the ban on refugees, a number of people around the world are beginning to visibly and loudly push back against the ban and against the immigration policies of the 45th president’s administration. At the same time, the ban has also created a level of uncertainty caused global stock markets to decline.

A Little More Detail

By now, the chaos resulting from Friday’s presidential order banning the immigration of refugees as well as anyone traveling from seven predominantly Muslim countries is well known. We’ve all seen the pictures and the videos of protests that are ongoing at airports across the country. We’re angered by the firing of Sally Yates, the acting attorney general. But what is anyone doing about it?

A lot, actually. Let’s start with the Washington state attorney general, Bob Ferguson filing a lawsuit against the administration. “It’s my responsibility as attorney general to defend the rule of law, to uphold the Constitution on behalf of the people of this state. And that’s what we’re doing,” he said.

That lawsuit is likely to be enjoined by other state’s Attorneys General. This is a familiar move that was used frequently by Republican-dominated states during the Obama administration. It tends to be effective.

New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman is providing cities in his state with the legislation templates they need in order to declare their cities as Sanctuary Cities in direct defiance of the President and the ban.

On Sunday, 17 Democratic attorneys general signed a letter vowing to “use all of the tools of our offices to fight this unconstitutional order.” One might think that all those would come from states where the president lost the electoral vote. That thinking would be wrong. The attorneys general from Iowa and Pennsylvania, which voted for the president, and Maine, where the vote was split, were among those signing the letter.

That level of resistance is important because states attorneys general tend to know the law at a rather detailed level that most of the rest of us don’t have. They can get down to the nitty-gritty of a matter and speak to legal documents in a legal way that actually has some impact.

They’re not the only ones pushing back hard, though. If the president thought he would have the support of the corporate community, he is wrong. CEOs who normally are quiet have been speaking up in defiance and condemning the ban. The following companies are among those who are actively taking steps to support their employees and speaking up in opposition:

  • Coca-Cola
  • Goldman Sachs
  • Apple
  • Microsoft
  • Google
  • Ford
  • GM
  • Lyft
  • Amazon
  • eBay
  • Etsy
  • General Electric
  • Merk & Co.
  • Ikea
  • Starbucks

In some ways, the industrial sector’s push back may be stronger than that of the attorneys general because they can leverage their entire company’s workforce and capital should they decide to do so. While the means of resistance have, so far, been largely financial, such as Lyft donating to the American Civil Liberties Union or Starbucks hiring 10,000 refugees, should the ban continue to impact corporations in a negative manner, their response is likely to become stronger as well.

The ban isn’t doing good things for global markets, either. Not only did US markets close down yesterday in response to the ban, markets in India and Asia are both down this morning.

Oh, and did I mention that the ban received harsh condemnation from Britain’s members of Parliament yesterday, with several members taking to the floor to denounce the policy. Several are even going so far as proposing a state visit to the UK by the US president be canceled.

This is in addition to legal actions by the ACLU and Southern Poverty Law Center that were initiated yesterday.

Resistance against the ban is strong and the fallout looks to be severe. However, the administration is holding on to its out-of-touch views and illegal policies. This may well just be the beginning of a long battle.

Continue Reading

PotD
Terror in Quebec City
January 30, 2017
charles i. letbetter - terror in quebec city

Anger at Muslims flows across the border

 

charles i. letbetter - terror in quebec city

The Short Version

Two men are in custody after a shooting at a Quebec City mosque that left at least six dead and eight injured. Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau was quick to denounce the murders and declare them an act of terrorism. The shooting occurred as many in the US were protesting a travel ban on Muslims from seven countries.

A Bit More Detail

Quebec City officials are not releasing a much detail after a shooting at the Quebec Islamic Cultural Centre that left at least six people dead and eight others injured. Approximately 50 worshippers had gathered for evening prayers when the two men began shooting, apparently at random. The dead range in age from 35 to 70.

No motive has been given for the attack as of this morning, but Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau didn’t hesitate to call it an act of terror. Trudeau said in a statement:

“We condemn this terrorist attack on Muslims in a center of worship and refuge. It is heart-wrenching to see such senseless violence. Diversity is our strength, and religious tolerance is a value that we, as Canadians, hold dear.

“Muslim-Canadians are an important part of our national fabric, and these senseless acts have no place in our communities, cities, and country.”

If such violence in Canada comes as a surprise to you, you’re not alone. Canada is generally open and accepting of immigrants and people of any faith. Just earlier this weekend, Trudeau said that Canada would accept those turned away by the US travel ban that caused considerable confusion and outrage over the weekend.

However, the French-speaking province of Quebec tends to be a bit more cantankerous on a number of issues, including immigration. Francois Deschamps, an organizer of a refugee support group in Quebec City, said he was saddened but not surprised by the attack. He says right-wing groups there are well organized, constantly posting leaflets and stickers across the city.

Still, the Associated Press says that Quebec City Mayor Regis Labeaume “appeared visibly shaken.” Labeaume said: “No person should have to pay with their life, for their race, their color, their sexual orientation or their religious beliefs.”

There will be solidarity rallies held across Quebec this evening and increased security at mosques across Canada as well as New York City.

Continue Reading

Fashion  /  Photography
Sunday Gallery: Moments Of Beauty
January 29, 2017
charles i. letbetter - moments of beauty

We need to find the beauty in an ugly world

 

charles i. letbetter - moments of beauty

[dropcap]I found it difficult to curate a gallery for this week. My heart just wasn’t in it. Our eyes have been glued to news reports and wire feeds as thousands of people have been stranded, detained, and/or deported at our nation’s airports. They are victims, innocent victims of the president’s illegal immigration order the excludes people from seven countries from entering the US. Never mind that these people have legal work visas and green cards. Never mind that they have family members here who are relying upon them, waiting for them. Never mind they have employers who need them. The president’s order was a giant “fuck you” to all of them without regard, and a “fuck you” to the entire country.[/dropcap]

With all that going on, trying to find pictures along any kind of theme for this morning was impossible. I gave serious consideration to skipping this week’s gallery altogether. But no, when in moments of crisis, we need things that are beautiful. We need to see the beauty in our fellow human beings.

I’m sorry I don’t have pictures of anyone from the countries directly banned by the president. People in that situation rarely make it in front of anyone’s camera. They prefer to live quiet, unassuming lives with their families. They don’t take any chances.

So, for this week, we chose what I call “second glance” images, those pictures I probably didn’t choose on my first pass through a set, but have come to like for some reason or another. I hope they will bring a moment of beauty into your day, perhaps your life. Enjoy.

 

[tg_masonry_gallery gallery_id=”9846″ layout=”contain” columns=”3″]

Continue Reading

Current Issues  /  Long Read  /  Photography
Extreme Vetting
January 28, 2017
charles i. letbetter - Extreme Vetting

What if photographers vetted models like the president proposes vetting immigrants?

 

charles i. letbetter - Extreme Vetting

Is this really necessary

The United States already has one of the most stringent and difficult vetting processes for people who are wanting to immigrate to our country. In some cases, depending on where one is from, it can take over three years for the vetting process to be completed. When the president signed orders yesterday that completely halts the flow of immigration he also ordered “extreme” vetting for those who still have a chance of getting in.

We disagree with the president and his policies on immigration. We not only find them unnecessary, we find them, in many cases, inhumane and possibly cruel. The new policies turn away refugees desperately in need of an escape from unfathomably cruel and hostile treatment in their own country. While there are millions of refugees worldwide, only a handful ask to come to the US. Even under existing law, a significant number are still turned away.

As Americans, we already have blood on our hands dating back to World War II. We repeatedly turned away and refused requests for asylum from jews who were under persecution from the Nazi regime. We even turned away Anne Frank’s family and well all know how horribly that turned out.

While we understand the need to keep our country safe and protect terrorists from gaining access and doing harm, we are largely certain that goal can be achieved while still addressing the humane need to provide a safe haven for refugees and other immigrants. Already, very few actual terrorists make it through our challenging system. It is far more likely that someone who is already here becomes radicalized after witnessing and/or experiencing the process through which we subject would-be immigrants. The president’s new policies are almost certainly going to result in a significant loss of life as refugees, once again, are turned away. Once again, their blood is on our hands.

So absurd it’s funny

To highlight the absurdity of extreme vetting, we wondered what it might be like if photographers subjected their models to the same level of intense questioning given to would-be immigrants. Certainly, there would be a lot fewer pictures being taken, and quite possibly the problem of people canceling for stupid reasons or just not showing up at all might be eliminated. We gave the matter considerable thought (we even slept on it) and imagine that the initial intake interview might look something like the following conversation. P is the photographer. M is the would-be model. Just for fun, let’s assume the photographer in this scenario is large, bald, sporting an unkempt goatee, and smelling of salami.

The model is ushered into a bare, dimly lit room that contains nothing more than a single gray metal table and two matching chairs. On the side of the table facing the door sits the photographer holding a manilla folder containing the girl’s model application. On one side of the table sits a half-full cup of coffee that has already left a couple of brown rings on the table. On the other side sits an unopened bottle of water.

Glancing up from the folder, the photographer begins:

P: Have a seat, Miss … ?

M: Hornswaggle. Periwinkle Hornswaggle.

P: (Scoffing) That’s quite a mouthful of a name you have there, Miss Hornswaggle. You don’t actually expect to make it as a model with a horrible name like that, do you?

M: Well, I don’t know, I hadn’t given it much tho…

P: You’ll have to change it, but we can talk about that later. You have a lot of other steps to complete before you’ll get to that little detail. A lot of steps. You may not make it. In fact, I have to say, the majority of young women I see in here don’t make it. They give up. They go home. They end up having babies and doing drugs. Are you sure you’re up to being a model?

M: I … I guess so …

P: You GUESS so? You mean you aren’t sure?

M: I mean, yes. Yes, sir. I’m definitely up to being a model. I’ve dreamed of this my entire …

P:  Yeah, yeah, I’ve heard that before. Everyone has a dream. Only about one percent of those dreams ever come true, though. This is going to be a very challenging process. I hope you came prepared.

M: Well, I think so. I mean, yes, I’ve brought everything that is required, as well as some additional documentation and letters of reference that I hope will help.

P: That’s good. You’ll need all the positive references you can get. We don’t just let anyone model for us, you know. We can’t run any risks. We only accept those who are really committed to our work and to making our photographs great. The greatest, actually. The best in the whole world. Period.

M: I’m ready to do everything I possibly can. You know, I even …

P: Now, the first matter, Miss Hornswaggle, is are you sure that you are human?

M: Human?

P: Yes, Human. We need to be quite sure that we aren’t allowing any aliens in front of our camera. Bad things happen when aliens get in front of cameras. A light flashes and their little slitted eyes don’t know how to respond and we get pictures that look just absolutely horrid, not to mention the whole tentacle problem.

M: Tentacle problem?

P: Tentacle problem. Aliens have them, you know. Tentacles. Long. Slimy. Reaching for things. Just ruins the equipment. Absolutely ruins it.

M: Well, yes, I’m human.

P: Can you prove that assertion, Miss Hornswaggle?

M: Prove? I’m not sure I understand what you mean. You’re looking at me. Can’t you tell that I’m human?

p: Visual appearance isn’t enough. Those aliens are tricky, you know. Always disguising themselves. I had one a few years ago that disguised herself as a floor lamp. She was bright as hell, too., Very bright. The brightest. Then we took her to the studio and she showed her true form. Scary. Very scary. And sad.

M: What kind of proof would you like?

p: We’ll need to do blood test unless you have a certificate from your doctor confirming that you are human.

M: Uhm,  well, I brought my medical records as you requested (she hands him an inch-thick file).

P: (leafing through the papers in the file) Okay, we’ll have to confirm all of these, of course, but they seem to be sufficient for now. Are you hiding anything?

M: Hiding anything?

P: Hiding anything. You know, like drugs, alcohol, weapons, bobby pins, alternate hair colors, wigs, alternate gender replacement pieces, toe rings, anything that might ruin a photograph.

M: How do bobby pins ruin a …

P: That’s not a detail we need to get into, young lady. Now, are you hiding anything or not?

M: No, I’m not hiding anything at all.

P: Are you sure?

M: Yes!

P: (leaning forward) Are you VERY sure? I can have someone do a body cavity search, you know.

M: Yes! I’m positive! I’m not hiding anything!

P: Fine then. If we find out later that you’re lying you’ll be tossed out of here on your butt. Do you understand?

M: (looking frightened) Y-y-y-yes, sir.

P: How many parents do you have?

M: Uhm, two?

P: You seem a little unsure about that.

M: No, I’m certain I only have two, my mom and my dad.

P: And they’re both still living?

M: Yes.

P: How’s their health? How old are they? Neither of them are about to die, are they?

M: (confused) Uh, no, they’re both fine and healthy. I mean, my dad still smokes some when he thinks mom’s not looking, but …

P: So, he has cancer.

M: No! At least, not that anyone knows.

P: He’s keeping his cancer a secret?

M: He doesn’t have cancer!

P: What about contagious disease? Does your dad have any contagious diseases?

M: No, neither of my parents are contagious.

P: Do you live with them?

M: Who? My parents?

P: No, a herd of elephants. Of course, your parents.

M: No, I have an apartment with my boyfriend.

P: Oh, you have an undeclared boyfriend? What manner of worthless bum is he?

M: He’s not undeclared. I put his information on the form they gave me outside. And he’s not a bum. He works construction with his dad.

P: Okay, so you’re mooching off his old man.

M: No! We both work and we pay our own bills. We’re not mooching off anyone.

P: (Scoffs) Right. Does this boyfriend of yours have his own car?

M: Yes, we each have our own car.

P: What piece of junk do you drive?

M: A three-year-old Ford Escort.

P: Three years old, huh? That’s just about the time things start breaking on a car. Do you make enough to cover the repairs?

M: (uncertain) I-I suppose. I keep my oil changed and my tires rotated. You know, all the routine maintenance.

P: Yes, but what happens if you go out and your battery is dead? Would you be stuck?

M: I have jumper cables.

P: Do you know how to use them without blowing something up?

M: Yes.

P: (snorts) Sure. That’d be a first. What about a cell phone. Do you have a cell phone that actually works?

M: Yes (pulls phone from purse). Right here.

P: Is your service all paid up and active?

M: Yes, always.

P: Do you always keep it fully charged?

M: I do my best. I carry a mobile charger with me just in case.

P: You don’t have any annoying ringtones on that thing, do you?

M: I guess that depends on what you mean by annoying. I have some that are music, but …

P: They’ll have to go. I can’t tolerate anything but the normal ringtones. And I’d better not catch you sending text messages, either. I hate those things. They’re nothing but distractions. If you’re going to be a model you’ll have to be totally focused on the photoshoot at all times. No distractions of any kind. How many grandparents did you say you have?

M: You hadn’t asked, but I have three left.

P: (stands up and leans over the table) Don’t you be giving me any sass, young lady! I’ll toss you out of here so fast your hair will braid itself. Do you understand?

M: (backing away) Y-y-yes, sir. I’m sorry. I didn’t mean any disrespect.

P: You need to watch that mouth of yours. (huffs, then sits down and picks up the folder again) Now, how many grandparents do you have living?

M: Three. My grandpa on my mother’s side died before I was born.

P: Are they in good health? None of them are about to die, are they?

M: Well, my one grandma, my mom’s mom, is in a nursing home. She’s 96, so …

P: She could croak at any minute. Got it. What about the other two?

M: Yeah, uhm … (feeling emotional) They live in Florida. We don’t see them often. I guess they’re doing okay.

P: Florida? How lame. That’s just sad. Very sad. I suppose you’ll be going down there when one of them kicks the bucket.

M: (choking back tears) Well, yeah. Wouldn’t you?

P: Of course not! Why would I go to your grandparent’s funeral? I don’t even know them. They probably smell of lotion and ointment, anyway. I can’t stand people who smell of lotion and ointment. By the way, who normally cuts your hair?

M: (caught off guard by the sudden change of topic) Uhm, Allison at Topix Salon. Why does that matter?

P: Are you giving me sass again, young lady?

M: (shuddering) I’m sorry, no. I apologize.

P: What about tattoos? Do you have any tattoos?

M: Just one. I have my brother’s initials on my wrist. He was killed in a car accident last year. (She extends her arm to show him the tattoo)

P: Initials, huh? Are you sure that’s not part of some gang sign or terrorist code?

M: What? No! DNH. Donahue Notwithstanding Hornswaggle.

P: God, your family has stupid names. Okay, I’m ready for you to take your clothes off.

M: Excuse me? I didn’t think that was part of …

P: Look, I’ve got to know exactly what we’re dealing with, here. I don’t know what kind of mess you might be hiding under the clothes. We’ve had people try to sneak all kinds of propaganda into their shots. They think I don’t notice, but there’s nothing that gets past me. Stretch marks, c-section scars, boob jobs, hidden tattoos, nipple piercings—there’s none of it getting past me.

M: I’m not sure I’m comfortable …

P: I really don’t give two shits about whether you’re comfortable. Just strip and let’s get it over with. You don’t have anything I haven’t seen before. Just get to it.

M: I didn’t think you were allowed to …

P: I’m allowed to do whatever the fuck I want, young lady, and if you really want to be a model you’d better take those clothes off right now. I’m not letting you get any further in this interview until I see you naked.

M: (standing up and gathering her things) I’m sorry, that’s just too much. I … I don’t think I want to be a model anymore. (she begins to move toward the door)

P: Hold it right there, you little brat. I didn’t give you permission to leave. You walk out that door and there’s absolutely no chance of you ever being a model. I’ll blackball your ass. Doesn’t matter if you come back ten years from now and talk to a different photographer. They won’t let you through. You leaving now just proves what a horrible person you are. I’ve had my suspicions about you from the moment you walked in here. You don’t have what it takes to be a model! You can’t handle being a model! No other photographer is going to take you, either. I’m the greatest photographer in this town. No one else is as great as I am. I am the greatest and  I don’t let just anyone model for me. You leave now and you’re pathetic. Just absolutely pathetic. Sad, even. Very sad.

M: (leaving) Yeah, I think being a fashion editor is easier than this bullshit. (door shuts behind her)

P: (Pulls out phone and starts tweeting) “Just turned away another pathetic wanna-be model. Didn’t have what it takes.  Sad. She should have attended my workshop. #ExtremeVetting #MakePhotographyGreatAgain”

Now, if extreme vetting seems stupid in that situation, imagine just how much more ridiculous it would be stretched out over years of investigation. This is not making America great again. This is a disaster.

#Resist

#StayAngry

#WriteYourCongressperson

Continue Reading

Current Issues  /  Long Read  /  News & Comment  /  science
Going Rogue
January 28, 2017
charles i. letbetter - going rogue

Alt, Rogue, and Ungagged Twitter accounts may change more than social media

 

charles i. letbetter - going rogue

Side-stepping censorship

[dropcap]Amidst all the tension and worries regarding the actions of the 45th president this week, someone, somewhere, brilliantly side-stepped the new government’s apparent ban on climate science by creating an alternate Twitter account for Badlands National Park and tweeting climate facts. The tweets have since been removed, but the act of defiance struck a nerve and people allegedly, somehow, related to other government agencies started doing the same.[/dropcap]
Here are some samples:

There may be more, and if so, please let me know, but these are the ones we’ve located so far. Follow them. All of them. This movement is pretty damn important.

Why the sudden resistance?

The new president doesn’t believe in climate change. Since the fateful day of his inauguration, a number of different memos and email have gone out to the heads of various federal agencies, specifically those who deal in some way with climate change, curtailing their publishing activities. Everyone from the Department of Agriculture to the Department of Health and Human Services was included.

Public furor immediately rose up and social media exploded over the censorship, especially that regarding science. What the new administration has yet to figure out is that they work in a glass bubble. They don’t get to do things in secret and sneak up on us. They don’t like that situation, which is one of the reasons they’ve taken to calling the press the opposition party. However, given that the uproar against those memos and emails was so severe, they backtracked quickly, at least on the public front.

Still, once their intentions were made public, people began to respond. We already knew we would have to fight this administration tooth and nail, every step of the way. The hashtag #Resist was already procured and ready to go; it’s even been hung on a large banner from a tall crane thanks to the folks at Greenpeace. Americans have never been too keen on government censorship and we’re certainly not going to start supporting it now.

No #AlternativeFacts here

As the number of alternative social media accounts continues to grow (we’re following @Alt_FAA, @Alt_DeptofEd, @ALT_USCIS [immigration], and @AltStateDpt), so does the battle against misinformation, or what the administration has referred to as #AlternativeFacts. Other people call them lies, which is more accurate but carries an inflammatory inference that seems to upset those who are part of the current regime. Real facts do exist and in the presence of a concerted effort to mute those facts, someone has to stand up and make sure they are sufficiently unmuzzled, even if doing so draws no small amount of criticism.

There is no question that the new White House wants to control all the information it has so that they are presenting a unified voice. They want to make sure that no matter which agency one contacts, no matter who one talks to on the phone or through email, the information all spews the same lies, recites the same canon, pours the same kool-aid. If they’re going to take over the nation, that has to happen. Official sources of information must all be consistent in the lies they are telling.

What the dear folks inhabiting the White House seem to have forgotten is that the press, and subsequently the free flow of factual information, is protected under the first amendment of the constitution. The administration can only control information up to a point. Our founding fathers were very suspicious of each other and especially of other governments. They had seen what corruption had done across Europe. Hell, they were rebelling against King George III, who is largely considered to have been completely insane (new details about him have just been released, by the way) and was known to have “secret” agents. They wanted to make sure that there was always someone, namely the press, watching every move the government made so that there could be no secret acts of treason undermining the country.

While the White House can try to manipulate the mainstream press and even intersperse false reporters from fake news sites among those sitting in the White House briefing room, it has absolute zero control over what is put on social media. In fact, as we’ve seen to sometimes disgusting proportions, no one really has much control over what is put on social media. For better or worse, it is an absolute bastion of free speech. While the president has used it to circumvent the press, the same tools can also be used to circumvent and repudiate the president and his staff.

We see in all these new rogue accounts exactly what should happen in a free and open society. Where one person tries to hide and quiet information they don’t like, someone else stands up and shouts it. The more the administration tries to put a stranglehold on science and studies that are in opposition to their agenda, the more those involved with those studies are likely to find ways to make sure that information finds its way to the public. We need these new social media accounts to maintain a balance in the flow of information.

There is a dark side

If there is a negative aspect to all these new #Alt accounts, it is the fact that they are, perhaps necessarily, anonymous. We can certainly understand why. While most claim to not be associated with the actual federal agencies, there’s every possibility that those claims are a smoke screen. At the most, we would be surprised if the sources are more than one step removed from someone who is employed by the federal government. Revealing the persons behind these accounts could subject them to danger and possibly even prosecution. The need to be anonymous is real.

However, with anonymity comes certain risks, especially considering the fact that social media is full of security holes. It is difficult to verify an anonymous account without giving away personal information that might be used against the originator of the account. We don’t really know who these people are, what their connection to the various agencies might be, or their ultimate intentions. For the moment, they all look good and are saying things that are verifiable, but what happens if that changes?

Forbes magazine has an article on this same topic that made for some very uncomfortable reading. They bring up things like how easy it might be for someone to attach a virus or piece of malware to an otherwise legitimate PDF document. The social media account links to the document and everyone who opens it is unknowingly infected. One of the fears we’ve seen this week is the possibility that client scientists might be forced to delete large amounts of information. Imagine the security risks if hackers were to get ahold of that information, which is certainly not out of the bounds of possibility, and presented it through an #Alt account. Very little effort would be required to turn those legitimate documents into a stream of digital infection.

The system is far from fool-proof.

Resistance is not futile

Still, these new accounts are present for good reason and are doing a good thing. Our government, every government, needs to be held accountable. Through all his business dealings, our president has never had anyone standing above him telling him “no, you can’t do that.” He is now in a system where checks and balances are written into the constitution. Those checks and balances are required of a democracy and without them, we slip all too easily into fascism or communism.

The threat to our country, our way of life, and even our very existence is real. Climate change is real. Science is real. Diseases that defy immunization are real. We have an urgent need to not only know about the world’s problems but what we can do to mitigate them. We need to understand that our carbon footprint is a very serious matter and that there are simple and practical things we can do to reduce our carbon emissions. We need to know how to eat more safely as some foods to which we’ve grown accustomed may no longer be safely edible. There are mountain ranges full of information we need and if we cannot rely on official government agencies to provide that information then we desperately need sources that fill that gap.

We must, on every level possible, #Resist. We must resist the misinformation and lies. We must resist the attempts at censorship. We must resist the attempts to hide, delete, and obfuscate information. Not only is this our country, this is our planet. We live here. We have an inalienable right to keep it inhabitable and no government has a right to stand in our way, no matter how they think they were elected.

#Resist

#Dissent

#BeActive

 

Continue Reading

Current Issues  /  Fashion
Wet Seal Dries Up
January 27, 2017
charles i. letbetter - wet seal dries up

Fashion retail takes another hit

 

charles i. letbetter - wet seal dries up

The Short Version

Less than two weeks after American Apparel announced the closing of all its stores, teen-focused retailer Wet Seal announced yesterday that they are closing all 173 stores after failing to find an investor or alternative source of capital to continue funding operations. The closure marks another serious blow to traditional retail fashion as fast-fashion stores such as H&M and Forever21 continue to dominate the sector.

(more…)

Continue Reading

Current Issues  /  News & Comment
The First Spill of 2017
January 27, 2017
charles i. letbetter - first oil spill of 2017

A massive diesel spill in Iowa highlights a problem

 

charles i. letbetter - first oil spill of 2017

The Short Version

An estimated 138,000 gallons of diesel fuel sprung from a pipeline leak in rural Iowa that started Wednesday morning. The leak appears to have been fixed for now and cleanup is underway. While the leak is significant, it was stopped before it had a chance to enter any water source or a nearby wildlife refuge. However, this is not the first leak the managing company has had and highlights a need for greater inspection.

(more…)

Continue Reading

Current Issues  /  News & Comment
Outta Time
January 27, 2017
charles i. letbetter - outta time

The Doomsday Clock lost another 30 seconds

 

charles i. letbetter - outta time

The Short Version

Utter and complete destruction is closer than it ever has been before, thanks to continued nuclear proliferation and governments refusal to adequately address global climate change. As a result, the scientists who regulate the Doomsday Clock have moved it to 2.5 minutes until midnight, the closest it has ever been in its 70-year history. Anyone with a lick of common sense should be frightened. Wise people are encouraged to lead humanity away from the brink.

(more…)

Continue Reading

Page 9 of 41