Luminous Landscape Forum
The Art of Photography => The Coffee Corner => Topic started by: Schewe on April 04, 2018, 02:40:11 am
-
Seems New York's home town boy isn't playing too well in NYC...(the Photoshop work isn't really good but it gets the point across :~)
(http://schewephoto.com/misc/trump-corruption-lede.w512.h600.2x.jpg)
501 Days in Swampland (http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2018/04/trump-and-co-are-stealing-america-blind-timeline.html)
A constant drip of self-dealing. And this is just what we know so far …
On the day he took the oath of office, Donald Trump delivered two messages about what to expect from his administration. First came the lofty promise of his inaugural address. “The forgotten men and women of our country will be forgotten no longer,” he vowed. “For too long, a small group in our nation’s capital has reaped the rewards of government while the people have borne the cost. Washington flourished — but the people did not share in its wealth.”
The second message, which Trump delivered without speaking a word, was aimed at a much smaller, but very rich, audience. As the new president’s motorcade left the Capitol, rolling past knots of supporters and protesters, it suddenly stopped three blocks short of the White House. Trump, the First Lady, and the rest of his family got out of their limos and took a three-minute turn in the middle of Pennsylvania Avenue.
This was no random spot. The very first place Trump headed after being sworn in — his true destination all along, in a sense — was the Old Post Office and Clock Tower, which only 12 days before the election had been repurposed as the Trump International Hotel Washington. The elegant granite structure, whose architectural character Trump had promised to preserve, was now besmirched by a gaudy, faux-gold sign bearing his name. The carefully choreographed stop sent a clear signal to the foreign governments, lobbyists, and corporate interests keen on currying favor in Washington: The rewards of government would now be reaped by a single man — and the people would bear the cost.
The GOP seems willing to aid and abet this...maybe they are hoping for some trickle down economic benefit? Well, they got the tax overhaul which, well, ok it won't do much for those "The forgotten men and women of our country". Oh, I'll benefit too...(not nearly as much as the super wealthy) so to complain would be to go against my own self interest but I can't see any way that Trump will ever really be good for our country, only himself.
Mr. Piggy?
-
If that infantility of that illustration and Carrey's daubs are truly representative of the level of political debate in the US, I rather suspect that Trump will not only stay the course of his current term but will probably be re-elected.
Jeremy
-
There is long history of political cartoons going over the top, just take a look at old issues of Punch magazine. As for what artists choose to paint, that's up to them. I don't think that either of those outlets reflects on how infantile the level of public debate has become.
That infantility is better demonstrated on prime time news and social media, where "debate" is rarely anything other than silly, consisting mostly of slogans and sound bites. Long-form reporting and opinion writing and podcasts still exist in many places. It's hard to gauge how many people read/listen to those. They're not hard to find.
-
If that infantility of that illustration and Carrey's daubs are truly representative of the level of political debate in the US, I rather suspect that Trump will not only stay the course of his current term but will probably be re-elected.
Jeremy
Quite right, Jeremy. I hope Jeff and the others will keep on with this kind of thing. They're turning off multitudes. At the rate they're going, 2020's in the bag for Trump.
-
Ridicule has been the stuff of political commentary and illustration since William Hogarth. Long may it live.
-
Quite right, Jeremy. I hope Jeff and the others will keep on with this kind of thing. They're turning off multitudes. At the rate they're going, 2020's in the bag for Trump.
Yup, they make his life easier, as he can portray himself as a victim. That gets a lot of votes...
-
Forget the nose, I want those teeth. I hope they are not photoshopped too.
-
New York Magazine never likes anything that's right.
-
Forget the nose, I want those teeth. I hope they are not photoshopped too.
Those are some pearly whites.
-
If that infantility of that illustration and Carrey's daubs are truly representative of the level of political debate in the US, I rather suspect that Trump will not only stay the course of his current term but will probably be re-elected.
This critique from a Brit? Really? Like you have a monopoly on highbrow political discourse?
(https://i.pinimg.com/564x/ff/a8/18/ffa8183884359d55fe03c7d86780ee49.jpg)
Political cartoon from Peter Brooks
Lost I guess, was the actual content of the article?
Trump and his cronies are pillaging the country while his base of supporters enjoy the view. Wait till it hits them in their wallets like the pork producers in the red states who lost almost a billion in the last few days because Trump decided to start a trade war with China. But that's really only political hand waving to draw your attention from the fact that the President of the United States is the subject of a criminal investigation by the FBI and he's being sued by a pornstar who he claims didn't have sex with.
In the meantime, the lawsuit against Trump over violating anti-corruption sections of the Constitution can continue: Emoluments Lawsuit Against President Trump Allowed To Proceed (https://www.npr.org/2018/03/28/597734486/emoluments-lawsuit-against-president-trump-allowed-to-proceed)
But it doesn't stop at the head...look at all the rest of the cabinet who are either gone or in hot water due to wasteful spending...private planes, $31k dining room sets...like many of his other businesses I'm really worried he's gonna drive the US into the ground–all for the benefit of himself, his family and close friends.
P.S. I actually have a UK friend who used to do a lot of edgy political cartoons; Steve Caplan (http://www.stevecaplin.com). Now he makes more money doing Photoshop books like How to Cheat in Photoshop (http://www.stevecaplin.com) perhaps you've seen some of his illustrations :~)
-
This critique from a Brit? Really? Like you have a monopoly on highbrow political discourse?
No, political debate in the UK can be pretty depressing as well; but that's not what you were raising or discussing, and attacking the level of such debate elsewhere doesn't raise it in the US. I didn't find the article full of rational analysis either, to be honest.
Jeremy
-
... the fact that the President of the United States is the subject of a criminal investigation by the FBI...
Remind me again, which one?
This, perhaps?
Robert Mueller Tells President Trump He's Not a Criminal Target, Source Says
http://time.com/5228122/donald-trump-not-criminal-target-mueller/
-
This, perhaps?
http://time.com/5228122/donald-trump-not-criminal-target-mueller/
Not a target (yet) but it's confirmed he's a subject of the investigation... There's really only a few choices....not involved with ANY investigation, being a witness in an investigation, being the subject of the investigation or being a target of the investigation. And it can be a very subtle change to go from subject to target.
And besides, would they really tell Trump he's a target? Why? They're still trying to get him to testify :~)
-
I didn't find the article full of rational analysis either, to be honest.
Well, the article was assembling the totality of the self dealing and sleazy deals that Trump and his minions have engaged in...not sure what analysis is required other than what's happened is really remarkable and sickening.
Trump isn’t draining the swamp — he’s monetizing it. —David Cay Johnston
That sound pretty accurate don't you think?
-
... the fact that the President of the United States is the subject of a criminal investigation by the FBI ...
Remind me again, which one?
This, perhaps?
http://time.com/5228122/donald-trump-not-criminal-target-mueller/
Not a target (yet) but it's confirmed he's a subject of the investigation... There's really only a few choices....not involved with ANY investigation, being a witness in an investigation, being the subject of the investigation or being a target of the investigation. And it can be a very subtle change to go from subject to target.
As far as I know, this particular taxonomy is unique—at least in the United States—to federal investigations. I don't think the individual states, where most crimes in this country are prosecuted, use it.
A witness is someone who might know something relevant to an investigation, and may be invited or required to testify.
A subject is someone whose conduct falls within the scope of an investigation, and who may be charged with a crime.
A target is someone who the investigators believe was involved in the commission of a crime, and who is likely to be charged.
Trump reportedly has been informed that he is a subject of the federal investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election.
While it's true that the distance between subject and target is narrow, I would be surprised if Trump was actually indicted. There's reason to believe that a U.S. president cannot be required to answer in court to criminal charges while he is in office.
During Watergate—which I covered as a news reporter (I'm also a lawyer)—the special prosecutor only named President Nixon as an "unindicted co-conspirator," despite compelling evidence that he had been involved in criminal obstruction of justice.
There is no clear case law (the United States is a common law jurisdiction (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_law)) determining whether a president can be brought to trial in court for criminal conduct. The remedy for "high crimes and misdemeanors" specified in the U.S. Constitution is impeachment—a political process by which the president is charged by the House of Representatives and convicted or acquitted by the Senate.
Robert Mueller is a careful and conservative (politically as well as professionally) investigator. I doubt he would be inclined to test the boundaries of criminal jurisprudence by indicting a president, no matter how egregious he might consider the president's crimes. (And at this point there is no public evidence that Trump was personally involved in the commission of any crime.)
Since Trump's personal activity with respect to the Russian meddling is within the scope of the investigation, it was appropriate for Mueller to inform the president's lawyers that he is a "subject."
But that doesn't mean he will be promoted to the status of "target" even if Mueller's investigators discover evidence that Trump was indeed engaged in illegal activity. Mueller might well believe—and I suspect he would—that the determination of how to deal with crimes committed by a president is within the purview of the Congress, not the judicial system.
-
As far as I know, this particular taxonomy is unique—at least in the United States—to federal investigations. I don't think the individual states, where most crimes in this country are prosecuted, use it.
A witness is someone who might know something relevant to an investigation, and may be invited or required to testify.
A subject is someone whose conduct falls within the scope of an investigation, and who may be charged with a crime.
A target is someone who the investigators believe was involved in the commission of a crime, and who is likely to be charged.
Trump reportedly has been informed that he is a subject of the federal investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election.
While it's true that the distance between subject and target is narrow, I would be surprised if Trump was actually indicted. There's reason to believe that a U.S. president cannot be required to answer in court to criminal charges while he is in office.
During Watergate—which I covered as a news reporter (I'm also a lawyer)—the special prosecutor only named President Nixon as an "unindicted co-conspirator," despite compelling evidence that he had been involved in criminal obstruction of justice.
There is no clear case law (the United States is a common law jurisdiction (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_law)) determining whether a president can be brought to trial in court for criminal conduct. The remedy for "high crimes and misdemeanors" specified in the U.S. Constitution is impeachment—a political process by which the president is charged by the House of Representatives and convicted or acquitted by the Senate.
Robert Mueller is a careful and conservative (politically as well as professionally) investigator. I doubt he would be inclined to test the boundaries of criminal jurisprudence by indicting a president, no matter how egregious he might consider the president's crimes. (And at this point there is no public evidence that Trump was personally involved in the commission of any crime.)
Since Trump's personal activity with respect to the Russian meddling is within the scope of the investigation, it was appropriate for Mueller to inform the president's lawyers that he is a "subject."
But that doesn't mean he will be promoted to the status of "target" even if Mueller's investigators discover evidence that Trump was indeed engaged in illegal activity. Mueller might well believe—and I suspect he would—that the determination of how to deal with crimes committed by a president is within the purview of the Congress, not the judicial system.
I've read some fairly strong (if interpretive) arguments that the President doesn't enjoy any special protection from prosecution. As I understand it, it is, at best, a weakly implied Constitutional assumption based on not much more than the stated procedures for removal from office for "high crimes and misdemeanors" (i.e. impeachment); the assumption being that the stated remedy precludes the standard remedy (indictment & prosecution), and an additional pragmatic argument that being under indictment would weaken the executive to the extent that he/she could not preform his or her duties. I don't find that particularly convincing, but strict constructionists should theoretically find it even less so. (Somehow I doubt that would be the case).
-
I can't afford teeth like that.
-
The remedy for "high crimes and misdemeanors" specified in the U.S. Constitution is impeachment—a political process by which the president is charged by the House of Representatives and convicted or acquitted by the Senate.
Yep, I agree and that's what makes the midterm elections so interesting. Just yesterday a liberal was elected over a conservative to the Wisconsin State Supreme Court. The GOP governor said this in a tweet:
"Tonight's results show we are at risk of a #BlueWave in WI," Walker said in a tweet (https://twitter.com/ScottWalker/status/981363242768445441) after the results were announced. "The Far Left is driven by anger & hatred — we must counter it with optimism & organization. Let's share our positive story with voters & win in November."
Add that to a democrat elected Senator in Alabama, a democrat elected to a Pennsylvania district that Trump won by 20 point and 25 GOP Representatives announcing their retirement and that the House democrats are only 23 seats from controlling the House and the issue of Trump facing impeachment in the House becomes a real possibility sometime next year–particularly if Mueller finds a smoking gun.
Yes, the Senate might be a tougher hurdle but look what's happening now with the administration no that Trump has gotten rid of the adults around him and have a built in echo chamber right in the White House...Bolton for NSA? Kudlow for Director of the National Economic Council? Navarro for director of the Trade Council?
So, Trump decides to get into a trade war with China and wants to pull out troops from Syria and instead send troops tp the Mexican border...and the Grand Old Party (GOP) is ok with that?
I'm thinking that the midterms will be the time to bring Trump down unless he does that by himself before. And I suspect the GOP will be greatly relieved...
(https://www.ocregister.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/208545_600.jpg?w=600)
-
There is long history of political cartoons going over the top, just take a look at old issues of Punch magazine. As for what artists choose to paint, that's up to them. I don't think that either of those outlets reflects on how infantile the level of public debate has become.
Quite right. Well over century ago, Thomas Nast was drawing political cartoons that skewered a lot of people. https://cartoons.osu.edu/digital_albums/thomasnast/keller_web.htm is a nice collection of some of is best work along with a nice essay. There is a long history of political cartooning in America and the ones done about President Trump are being drawn in that vein.
-
Quite right, Alan. The difference is that nowadays the so-called "mainstream media" will only print cartoons produced by the wild-eyed left.
-
Quite right, Alan. The difference is that nowadays the so-called "mainstream media" will only print cartoons produced by the wild-eyed left.
I think, that before publishing the political cartoons, the art directors should look also at the artistic values of the said artwork.
-
Quite right, Alan. The difference is that nowadays the so-called "mainstream media" will only print cartoons produced by the wild-eyed left.
Yes, such a pity we never saw any Obama cartoons in the mainstream media ;)
-
Yes, such a pity we never saw any Obama cartoons in the mainstream media ;)
With this level of gore or ridicule? Any mainstream media cartoons portraying him as a monkey? I mean, if it is ok to portray the current president as a pig, we surely should strive to provide diversity and inclusion for monkeys too, no?
-
With this level of gore or ridicule? Any mainstream media cartoons portraying him as a monkey? I mean, if it is ok to portray the current president as a pig, we surely should strive to provide diversity and inclusion for monkeys too, no?
Yes, even as a dead monkey in the New York Post:
(https://i.guim.co.uk/img/static/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2009/02/18/chimpcartoon460.jpg?w=620&q=55&auto=format&usm=12&fit=max&s=548a79bab520fc711410b717c92c645d)
I'd rather be shown as a living pig than a dead monkey ;)
-
Quite right, Alan. The difference is that nowadays the so-called "mainstream media" will only print cartoons produced by the wild-eyed left.
Probably because of the bias of the mainstream press! ;D Seriously, there must be some conservative cartoonists around who work at some of the right leaning papers.
-
Sure. Alan. Nowadays Ramirez tops that list. Not only that, his cartoons actually are funny unlike the cartoon at the top of this thread.
-
Yes, even as a dead monkey in the New York Post...
That is why underlined the words "mainstream media," which the NYP hardly is. In its current incarnation, it is considered a tabloid:
The Post has been criticized since the beginning of Murdoch's ownership for sensationalism, blatant advocacy, and conservative bias. In 1980, the Columbia Journalism Review stated "New York Post is no longer merely a journalistic problem. It is a social problem – a force for evil."[39]
-
I think, that before publishing the political cartoons, the art directors should look also at the artistic values of the said artwork.
Maybe they did but that their artistic sensibilities do not correspond with yours.
-
That is why underlined the words "mainstream media," which the NYP hardly is. In its current incarnation, it is considered a tabloid:
I think Murdoch will be mad if you don't consider him mainstream ::)
But, let's stop nit-picking and call the NYP a mainstream tabloid ;)
-
I will repeat something that I've said before in these pages. When politicians continually criticize the press, it makes me think that the press is probably doing something right.
This notion that somehow the President, who is said to be a big time entrepreneur and CEO and so should have a lot of experience in media presentation, especially since he has a lot of permanent staff to prep him, cannot protect himself from the big bad press is simply too silly for words.
-
With this level of gore or ridicule? Any mainstream media cartoons portraying him as a monkey? I mean, if it is ok to portray the current president as a pig, we surely should strive to provide diversity and inclusion for monkeys too, no?
Come on now... You know damn well that you won't see any respectable media outlet portray Obama as a monkey because of the historically racist imagery that would conjure. Showing Trump as a pig is a far cry from that. (And no, they're obviously not commenting on his weight, but his feeding from the public trough.)
-
Come on now... You know damn well that you won't see any respectable media outlet portray Obama as a monkey because of the historically racist imagery that would conjure. Showing Trump as a pig is a far cry from that. (And no, they're obviously not commenting on his weight, but his feeding from the public trough.)
Right... white people can not possibly be victims of racism.
-
Right... white people can not possibly be victims of racism.
An entirely different conversation, and, of course, wholly unrelated to the question of why you don't see Obama portrayed as a monkey in any reputable publication.
-
Right... white people can not possibly be victims of racism.
Well, to be honest, I think the original cartoon that started this thread comes close.
Anyway I don't like it and think it's tasteless an far from funny. I'm not a Trump supporter and have seen some good cartoons with him, but this example isn't one of them.
-
Well, to be honest, I think the original cartoon that started this thread comes close.
Anyway I don't like it and think it's tasteless an far from funny. I'm not a Trump supporter and have seen some good cartoons with him, but this example isn't one of them.
Well, it's not subtle for sure, but culturally (here at least) the comparison of politicians to pigs at the trough is neither outrageous nor unusual.
-
Well, it's not subtle for sure, but culturally (here at least) the comparison of politicians to pigs at the trough is neither outrageous nor unusual.
Black pigs too?
-
Black pigs too?
Sorry - I don't follow?
-
An entirely different conversation, and, of course, wholly unrelated to the question of why you don't see Obama portrayed as a monkey in any reputable publication.
This, of course, is not what I meant. The opposite in fact. Quite related. My view: if associating one race with one type of animal is racist, then associating another race with another animal should be racist too. The Left, of course, likes to cherry pick what racism is, with its ever-expanding nomenclature (including equating avoiding direct eye contact with racism).
I highlighted "if" above, as I actually do not think either is. I do not care much for historical references.
-
Sorry - I don't follow?
You said picturing politicians as pigs at the though was not unusual.
I just wondered if all these pigs were of the light pink variety or that there were different colourd ones in these cartoons.
-
Slobodan, I agree the racism card is pulled way too fast.
(https://pics.me.me/i-like-being-black-thats-nice-i-like-being-white-13869640.png)
-
This, of course, is not what I meant. The opposite in fact. Quite related. My view: if associating one race with one type of animal is racist, then associating another race with another animal should be racist too. The Left, of course, likes to cherry pick what racism is, with its ever-expanding nomenclature (including equating avoiding direct eye contact with racism).
I highlighted "if" above, as I actually do not think either is. I do not care much for historical references.
And yet history informs and shapes contemporary culture, for better or for worse. You might wish it not to be so (I know I do, in many cases), but sadly, racism didn't end the day that the Civil Rights Act was passed, nor did a history of denigrating black people by comparing them with monkeys. (So far as I know, there's never been a "cultural memory" of white people being depicted as pigs as a way to denigrate or alienate whites as a race).
Let me put it this way - if someone paints a graffiti noose on the wall of a predominantly black church, is that racist? Offensive? Can you take it out of it's historical context and just pretend that it's a random symbol drawn on a random building? What about a swastika on the side of a synagogue?
-
You said picturing politicians as pigs at the though was not unusual.
I just wondered if all these pigs were of the light pink variety or that there were different colourd ones in these cartoons.
Actually I said "comparing" - the metaphor is written probably more than drawn if I had to guess. Regardless, I would imagine that said porcine references would be representative, generally speaking, of the public servant being maligned ;) Point is, culturally, calling a politician a pig doesn't have a racially biased history. Calling a black politician a monkey is something altogether different. Even if there's no racial intent in the statement, at a minimum it shows a gross lack of respect or understanding for the very recent history of disenfranchisement, systemic discrimination, and more violent outcomes.
-
If there is a nation on Earth with the shortest historical memory, it must be Americans, for better or worse. In my home country, and most of Europe, historical grudges last millennia. When Americans lecture others, however, they want them to forget what happened yesterday, and look into the future. And yet you desperately want to drag the past into current debates.
P.S. Unfortunately, it is not easy to identify whites with just one animal... some look like pigs, some like horses (e.g., Fernandel and Chelsea Clinton), some look like ... crap ;)
-
If that infantility of that illustration and Carrey's daubs are truly representative of the level of political debate in the US, I rather suspect that Trump will not only stay the course of his current term but will probably be re-elected.
Jeremy
I agree. Trump is a festering ignoramus who is doing his best to ruin our country, but to liken him to a pig - I don't see it.
-
Having spent ten years in Chicago I have lots of friends there who are also plagued with hatred to the point it affects their daily life. It’s all consuming, it’s what keeps them ticking until tomorrow.
If you’re like them you watch the news to see what idiotic move Trump made that day so you can be ready to discuss it the next day with the masses in your classes.
Every conversation you have includes a reference to it’s because of Trump.
Your all knowing of what the real truths are because you read it paper or saw it on TV.
Living in Chicago with this hatred festers even more because your amongst the majority in a box that’s snow covered and the only light you see is filtered.
There is a drug you can take to relive your hatred but it’s not legal in Chicago. Being the most lawful and upright citizen you are you wouldn’t dare go against the law...Hmm...what would Hilary do OH, then its ok because it will help the poor and the middle class!