The Rice Thresher, Vol. 97, No. 18, Ed. 1 Friday, February 5, 2010 Page: 3 of 16
sixteen pages : ill. ; page 19 x 15 in.View a full description of this newspaper.
Extracted Text
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
Op-Ed
State of the Union revamps presidency
It is, perhaps, a telling reflection on
our society that there was more buzz sur-
rounding Steve Jobs' State of the Union
than of President Barack Obama's. But
while the Apple CEO's unveiling of the
long-awaited iPad was, in a word, un-
derwhelming, the President's address
embodied a paradigm shift in his presi-
dency that may prove to be the catalyst
he so desperately needs.
RahulRekhi
To say the last few months haven't
exactly been smooth sailing for Obama
would be a tremendous understate-
ment. Job growth remains anemic at
best, with millions of Americans reel-
ing from their pink slips and imagin-
ing months of hardship and toil; the
health care bill, muddled and mutilat-
ed by special interests and backroom
deals, contains "reform" that is but
a shadow of what the president once
envisioned. And just last week, the
once-imposing Democratic Senate su-
permajority crumbled under the flight
of independent voters to Republican
Scott Brown in Massachusetts.
Granted, a midterm slump is
hardly a phenomenon unique to the
Obama presidency. In an apt paral
lei, Bill Clinton himself faced a ma-
jor legislative defeat with his own
version of health care reform during
his first year in office, and ended
that year with an approval rating
far worse than Obama's. Even the
so-called Teflon President, Ronald
Reagan, ended his first year with the
57 percent approval rating Obama
now possesses. Both Clinton and
Reagan, needless to say, went on to
champion healthy — and immensely
popular — presidencies, and secured
the esteemed second term. Indeed,
an integral reason for the political re-
bounds of these two men was a resur-
gent economy: something that, with
additional stimulus (and a bit of luck),
we may finally see later this year.
Nevertheless, few would con-
test the notion that these next few
weeks are particularly crucial to
the political future of the Obama
administration. Which brings us to
the night of his speech.
On full display, the President's
oratory was first-class — no surprises
there. I think it's safe to say that, re-
gardless of political alignment, most
find the complexity of his reason-
ing and the eloquence of his speech
ceaselessly impressive.
But what we saw was not, as some
anticipated, a dramatic conversion of
the Obama agenda; rather, it was a
refocusing, a sharpening of what got
him elected: less health care, more
economy, equal parts detail and rheto-
ric. Not brand new, but back to basics.
Indeed, it was a bolder — yet deftly
diplomatic — Obama, more in tune with
the electorate, exposing Democrats
and Republicans and, yes, even the Su-
preme Court. It was an Obama not just
reciting an agenda but laying out a vi-
sion, rallying the American people not
just to a hope but to a cause. Acknowl-
edging his shortcomings, he nonethe-
less asserted the legitimacy of his posi-
tions. A friend of mine pronounced it
the "first true demonstration of leader-
ship since the campaign."
Of course, this has led many, includ-
ing the aforementioned friend, to open-
ly wonder: "Where has this guy been?"
The fact is, in recent months,
Obama has fallen victim to his own
pragmatism. In an effort to efficiently
pass his agenda through a tangled
and unwilling Congress, he has been
forced to sacrifice many of the ideals
he so ardently espoused (in particu-
lar, transparency and yes, bipartisan-
ship). But such a path is fundamental-
ly unsustainable; when the appeal to
reason washes against the monolithic
gridlock of partisan bickering, Obama
must evoke the symbolic powers of the
bully pulpit, transcending the plebian
legislature to enact his agenda.
For what makes a president great is
not merely effectively utilizing the sta-
tus quo — it is transcending the circum-
stances given to him to implement his
agenda. The sheer brilliance of LBJ's
congressional arm-twisting, for exam-
ple, made possible the passage of the
first Civil Rights Act. In the wake of the
Great Depression, FDR unified a direc-
tionless legislature to enact sweeping
economic and financial reform. And
Theodore Roosevelt himself battled
special interests and an increasingly
corrupt Congress to enact progressive
reforms that were far ahead of his time.
These fixtures of American history
were not merely men, but symbols;
not just presidents, but leaders who
became larger than life.
Obama is, by most accounts, a
good president. And stripped away of
the congressional partisan muck sur-
rounding his administration in recent
weeks, he appeared true to form, once
again the shining light of progress he
appeared before he stepped into the
White House. But to really enact the
change he wants us to believe in, he'll
have to become that figure we saw
giving the State of the Union.
We can only hope.
Rahul Rekhi is a
Sid Richardson College freshman.
Free political spending taints campaigns
Is it constitutional to limit cor-
porations' spending on presidential
and congressional campaigns? This
is one of the fundamental questions
of federal campaign finance laws. It is
a decades-old question and has gen-
erated much debate and rancor.
t
(-
4
Katherine Jenson
On Jan. 21, the Supreme Court pro-
vided a firm answer, and with a 5-4
vote declared, "No."
In the landmark case Citizens
United v. FEC, the Supreme Court
ruled that corporations and labor
unions — perhaps even foreign-based
companies — can spend freely on U.S.
political campaigns. While this does
not include direct donations to po-
litical candidates, it does allow these
entities to pour money into the al-
ready ridiculously well-funded circus
of national political campaigns.
Jon Stewart highlighted this new
decision in a Jan. 25 episode of "The
Daily Show." His skit featured the
E*TRADE baby opposing abortion.
Similar corporation-sponsored po-
litical advertising could easily allow
automobile companies to fight for
a candidate antagonistic to labor
unions, or it could enable the Geico
cavemen to advocate discrimina-
tion against homosexuals, and thus
encourage Americans to vote for a
similarly aligned candidate. Well
placed, well-funded advertisements
can strongly influence public opin-
ion, and truth is never required.
Thanks to Citizens United v. FEC,
I see a future of even more irritating
and misleading video ads, reminis-
cent of those of the Houston Busi-
ness Channel. Even more insulting
to the American public would be
campaign videos like a recent offer-
ing against Democrat Harold Ford,
Jr. in Tennessee, an easily YouTube-
able video. Some memorable quotes:
"Harold Ford looks nice, isn't that
enough? Terrorists need their pri-
vacy! When I die, Harold Ford will
let me pay taxes again. I met Harold
at the Playboy party! Harold took
money from porn movie producers.
I mean, who wouldn't?"
This video, created by the Re-
publican National Committee, was
labeled by critics as "a very serious
appeal to a racist sentiment" from
former Republican senator Bill Co-
hen of Maine, and it worked — the
advertisement destroyed Ford's
lead in the race and killed the good
chance he had at the Senate seat.
Bob Corker, the opposing Republi-
can candidate, asked his own party
to remove the ad, and was denied.
Now, thanks to the new Supreme
Court ruling, we can expect such
underhanded tactics not only from
such nationally recognized politi-
cal bodies as the RNC, but from the
corporations to which we are so de-
voted, like Target or Starbucks.
Additionally, I predict we'll see
even more slanderous telemar-
keting. In the 2000 Republican
primary campaign, John McCain
was subjected to an intense and
sometimes-anonymous, sometimes-
Bush-sponsored smear campaign.
These messages suggested that Mc
Cain had fathered an illegitimate
black child, or that he himself was
homosexual, again playing to racist
and homophobic sentiments. Some
Criticism of photoshopping
not necessarily deserved
In the past couple of months, I've
noticed some revived controversy
over the editing of photos of models
and celebrities. Of course, the con-
cept and exploitation of photo ma-
nipulation is nothing new. The dis-
cussion has been in vogue for years,
but it goes back even further than
simply the invention of Photoshop —
Stalin removed people from pictures
when they got on his bad side, and
even Mussolini edited out his horse
handler to appear more imposing.
advertisements at the time also ac-
cused him of being a North Vietnam-
ese "Manchurian Candidate" and
suggested that his wife was a drug ad-
dict. Such a smear campaign is pos-
sible only with money, and thanks to
the sudden loosening of corporate
funding restrictions, such money
will now be in even greater supply
than ever before, especially from the
wealthiest corporations.
Worst of all, I expect to see even
more dismally cynical comparisons
to contributions to American chari-
table organizations and foreign
aid. In 2008, USA Today reported a
nonpartisan Center for Responsive
Politics found that $2.4 billion had
been spent on political campaigns
in 2008 alone. I am at a loss to find
similar expenditures for any two
given people in one year.
I've certainly often heard that
more than one billion people live
on less than $1 per day, starving,
dehydrated, sick, uneducated and
forced into warfare, slavery and hu-
man trafficking. How many of these
social injustices could be fought
with another $2.4 billion? How re-
sponsible are we, that we fund so
much misleading, ignorant, racist,
homophobic and propagandist re-
sume-padding for a four-year job?
How much additional money do
our nation's corporations, and per-
haps those of other countries, need
to contribute?
I'm not excited at all by the future
prospects of free political spend-
ing by corporations and unions in
presidential and congressional cam
paigns. Our lovable commercials
may soon inspire us to do more than
shop; they may tell us how to vote.
Katherine lenson is a
Lovett College sophomore.
Ellen Kim
Today, when photo manipula-
tion, more commonly referred to
as "photoshopping," is mentioned,
fashion, magazines and perhaps
even Facebook photos may come
to mind. Apart from the general ap-
plications of photoshopping, such
as inserting colorful backgrounds
or textures, many often resort to
tweaking pictures for purely aes-
thetic reasons. With programs
ranging from user-friendly editors
to professional software, the abil-
ity to create and convincingly en-
hance images has become prolific
in our society, both commercially
and personally. But to what ex-
tent are we willing to accept this
warped image?
A couple of years ago, my dad
brought back an armful of pho-
tos that he had developed at his
friend's store — the stock for what
would represent the biannual Kim
family vacation pictures. Before I
go on, you must understand that
these photos are a big deal. We re-
view them carefully and select the
best to make a giant photo collage,
which is later hung in the hallway
upstairs. The family's growth is
noted every year, and looking back
on these time capsules is the per-
fect way to appreciate time spent
with loved ones.
I was surprised, however, to find
that every one of the photos my dad
brought home had been retouched.
Shots that normally would have
been discarded were saved, facial
blemishes miraculously erased. At
first, I was grateful that the scat-
tered acne scars and red spots were
airbrushed and covered. After all,
when you've been putting up with
acne for several years, the last thing
you want is to remind yourself of it
with a bad photo.
But the second feeling that
shook me was not one of relief.
I found myself slightly offended
and incredibly self-conscious. Did
this person find the need to "fix"
my face? Were the blemishes really
that severe?
A couple of years have passed
since then, and now I'm the one
touching up my photos. I don't do
this very often, but it is pretty sat-
isfying to "fix" something undesir-
able instantaneously. By brighten-
ing a photo, you can easily blur
uneven colorations. A few clicks
of the "burn" tool will darken your
eyes enough to make them stand
out. Some people may consider
this superficial, but I enjoy look-
ing good in my photos, regardless
of their authenticity. For me, simple
photo editing has been a vicarious
way of controlling how I can look,
since real life results are slow and
inconsistent. It'r like makeup for
your photos.
Of course, I won't be sitting at my
laptop trying to reconstruct my face.
In fact, the key to editing photos ef-
fectively, in my opinion, is keeping
much of the actual image untouched.
I don't want to look like another per-
son. I want to look like me — minus
the blemishes and plus the eyeball
that got blocked out by the reflection
of my glasses. I suppose by other
standards, however, this would not
count as real "editing."
However, the argument against
the over-manipulation of photos, es-
pecially in the fashion industry, has
some strong points. Many critics rea-
son that manipulating the figures of
models to portray an unnatural — and
sometimes ridiculous — image is so-
cially unhealthy. Creating a completely
different look, from the color of one's
hair to the elongation of the body, is
very possible with the available tech-
nology. In fact, everyday, people are
bombarded with a standard of beauty
that may not even exist.
I know some of us — myself in-
cluded — look through magazines,
knowing full well that companies
are trying to fool us. Yet, after gaping
at flawless legs and shiny lips, I can't
deny that I feel less confident about
my own image. Strangely enough,
however, the pragmatist in me can-
not criticize the advertisements.
Why? Because the purpose of en-
hancing photos is precisely to elicit
that response and propel the viewers
to buy the product. To ac.lieve that
end, even pictures of the most suc-
cessful and attractive models and
celebrities are photoshopped too.
(t
The pragmatist in
me cannot criticize
the advertisements.
Why? Because the
purpose of enhancing
photos is precisely
to elicit that response
and propel the
viewers to buy the
product. To achieve
that end,even
pictures of the most
successful and
attractive models and
celebrities are
photoshopped too.
99
On one hand, I agree that doc-
toring photos often yields nega-
tive consequences. But I also find
it somewhat empowering. Exten-
sively or minimally, you can alter a
photo to appear any way you want,
often for artistic effect. There's
no real harm in editing your pho-
tos for family albums, Facebook
profiles and desktop wallpapers.
You shouldn't, however, confuse
your real-life look with your pho-
toshopped image. Likewise, don't
confuse others with their Facebook
photos either. Think of photoshop-
ping as a fun exercise rather than
something you depend on.
I know how annoying it is when
photos don't come out the way
they're supposed to. But you don't
need me to tell you that the best
photos are the ones that don't need
to be edited at all.
Ellen Kim is a
Sid Richardson College freshman.
Upcoming Pages
Here’s what’s next.
Search Inside
This issue can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
Tools / Downloads
Get a copy of this page or view the extracted text.
Citing and Sharing
Basic information for referencing this web page. We also provide extended guidance on usage rights, references, copying or embedding.
Reference the current page of this Newspaper.
Michel, Casey. The Rice Thresher, Vol. 97, No. 18, Ed. 1 Friday, February 5, 2010, newspaper, February 5, 2010; Houston, Texas. (https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth443208/m1/3/: accessed July 18, 2024), University of North Texas Libraries, The Portal to Texas History, https://texashistory.unt.edu.; crediting Rice University Woodson Research Center.