The Disingenuous Trey Gowdy

Trey GowdyI just read a remarkable article over at Rolling Stone, The Endless Trial of Trey Gowdy’s Benghazi Committee. It is written by Andy Kroll, who clearly looks at Gowdy was a jaundiced eye, but wants to be super fair to this man who heads the latest and biggest investigation on just what happened in Benghazi three and a half years ago. No, wait. That’s not what they are looking into. They are looking into what happened afterwards, because exactly what Susan Rice said on Sunday talk shows is really important! In the end, the entire Benghazi investigation has come down to whether the Obama administration was spinning the attack for political advantage. So even if everything Gowdy and company says is true, it is a witch hunt.

But reading the article, you get the impression that Trey Gowdy is the true victim here. He used to be a prosecutor, and by all accounts a great prosecutor. And now he is so upset because it is all so partisan and unfair. He has to wait forever to get documents. And then Hillary Clinton would only testify in public, as if a closed door testimony would have disclosed something important. (Let’s face it: the public testimony just showed that the worst things we thought about the hearings and Trey Gowdy were exactly right.) Oh, how the Benghazi chairman wishes he had stayed a prosecutor!

Gowdy just wanted “to run a serious, document-centric, fact-centric investigation.” And that’s why again and again he leaked information to damage Democrats in general, and Clinton in particular.

I don’t doubt that he does. Nowhere in the article is the most important fact here: prosecutors are by far the most powerful members of the legal system. Everything is set up to their advantage. After OJ Simpson was found not guilty, a lot of people claimed that it was unfair that he was able to spend millions on his defense. So what?! The state spent millions prosecuting him. The state can spend as much money as it likes on any given case. So I’m sure that Trey Gowdy is indeed very unhappy that he now finds himself a fair fight where he doesn’t battle against people who have no real weapons.

The amount of whining that he does in this article is amazing. In fact, it is whining from beginning to end. Listening to him, you would think that he was a babe in the woods — totally unaware of just how nasty politics was. And there he is, like a real life Superman standing up for Truth, Justice, and the American Way! It’s just the media and the Democrats who politicized this. He just wanted “to run a serious, document-centric, fact-centric investigation.” And that’s why again and again he leaked information to damage Democrats in general, and Clinton in particular. In fact, this is doubtless why he wanted a private testimony with Clinton — so he could leak selective bits that made her look bad.

But according to Trey Gowdy, the Benghazi hearings were a success. He said, “We have interviewed this number of witnesses nobody else interviewed, including eyewitnesses, [accessed] these documents from these agencies that nobody else accessed, and, oh, by the way, we have the correspondence from the two people who, one knew the most about Libya being the ambassador, and the other arguably knew more about our policy in Libya than anyone else.” So this hearing — the eighth that Congress had — was all about fact finding. So he found some new facts. And they told us squat. Because there is no there there.

But we are supposed to feel sorry for poor old Trey Gowdy because he was just doing the prosecutor’s job of getting to the facts. Of course, we know that Gowdy was just acting as a hit man and that he was willing to lie to do so. This is the problem that prosecutors face when they have to get a real job: they show themselves to be incompetent and immoral. Rolling Stone shouldn’t have given him space to make his case. It was far more fair than Gowdy has ever been to Hillary Clinton or anyone in the Obama administration.

Morning Music: Jimi Hendrix

Jimi Hendrix - Electric LadylandWhen it comes to guitar sound, Jimi Hendrix is more or less the alpha and omega. Oh yeah, I know that there have been other guitarists who have built a whole lot on what he did. But he’s the guy who really started us on this path where the guitar was something more than just a musical instrument. It probably isn’t a coincidence that he came around at the same time that the Moog really started to enter popular music.

What is there to say about Jimi Hendrix? Really, there isn’t much that I can add. I do think that people tend to forget just how experimental those first few albums were. They are amazing. And I can only imagine what they must have sounded like at the time. When I was introduced to them when I first went to college, they blew me away and I had grown up listening to plenty of people who were ripping him off to one degree or another.

I’d like to highlight something that doesn’t exactly speak to the full complexity of his work, “All Along The Watchtower,” off his third album, Electric Ladyland. It is, of course, a Bob Dylan tune. But Hendrix makes it so much more. And it shows that he could play a straight rock guitar solo as well as anyone. It also shows his absolute mastery of the wah-wah pedal. You don’t much hear that kind of total control of an instrument ever. It’s almost like listening to the very best classical music. And I fully expect that it will still be admired in hundreds of years.

Anniversary Post: Don Quixote

Don QuixoteOn this day in 1605, El Ingenioso Hidalgo Don Quixote de la Mancha was published. Notice that it is not Quijote, as Wikipedia claims. That is the modern Spanish spelling of the title character’s name; we in America still spell it as Cervantes himself spelled it, even though it creates many problems like the word “quixotic.”

This, of course, was the first part of the book. We don’t know exactly when the second part was published, except that it was in late 1615. Over time, I’ve come to be less enthusiastic about Part 1. It is still a great novel. And the reason it is great — at least in a historical context — is that Cervantes tells what seems to be an episodic story. Various things happen to our heroes. But then he ties them all together at the end. I don’t think anyone had ever done that before and that is why Don Quixote is called the first modern novel. Certainly it is true that people had been writing long narratives for many years before this book.

The reason people still read Don Quixote has little to do with its historical significance, however. They read it for the same reason they read it at the time: it’s a funny book. But when it came time to write a sequel, Cervantes’ clever mind took it one more step into absurdity. Since the conceit of the first book was that it was just a translation of an Arabic book by Cide Hamete Benengeli, it was a true story. And by that time, Don Quixote himself was very famous because of Cervantes’ translation. It only made sense to a mind as creative as Cervantes’ that further adventures of the unlikely knight errant would be in that world.

Regardless, for the umpteenth time, you really should read the book. In order to understand literature, you need to read Don Quixote. And in a sense, to understand literature, you only need to read Don Quixote. It really does have it all. I can’t say that literature has moved past it. Earlier novels like the five that make up The Life of Gargantua and of Pantagruel are still fun to read, but they are distinctly from an earlier time. But Don Quixote is not. It could be published today and I think it would still find a sizable audience.

Getting Knowledge by Giving Knowledge

Teacher and Students Gaining KnowledgeI spent almost all of yesterday on the road and so I don’t have much time to go looking for things to write about. But there has been something on my mind for a good long time that I would like to related to you: how we gain knowledge by giving it away. But I’ll be honest: I may have written about this before. By the end of this month, Frankly Curious will have published 7,000 articles — the vast majority of them being by me. And I don’t know what I’ve written. The funny thing is that I often find that things I had thought I had written about — obvious things — I hadn’t.

When I was taking math in college, I was always at the top of my class. I remember the first calculus exam I ever took, I got an 86. The next best score was 63. And the rest were in the 40s. I don’t say that to indicate that I am particularly brilliant, even though when it comes to math I am something of a natural. But the point is that I was always helping other people. I was also a tutor of the more basic math students. But I always felt that I was getting far more out it than those I was helping.

But helping others does come naturally to me. I have never been of the mind that giving away knowledge is harming me. Others do not feel this way. I used to take care of all the IT work for a mid-sized real estate investment company. The “stars” of the company were the acquisition agents, who were responsible for purchasing land that could be sold quickly at a profit by the “lesser” agents. And these guys (all men) made a lot of money — between $10,000 and $20,000 per month. I rather liked them, although a few were jerks.

I am not a great mathematician. In graduate school, I met a number of people who blew me away. And I loved it! It’s great to be in a position to appreciate the brilliance of others.

There was one guy I quite liked. He was the most technically savvy of any of them. He was very accomplished with Visual Basic and could do amazing things with Excel. And over the years, I taught him a lot. And he explained a number of things with me. He had no problem answering any question I might have of him. (It wasn’t often; Excel wasn’t even part of our standard work tools.) But he certainly saw me as a guy who gave as much as he took.

But I noticed that he would not help the other agents. If they were having technical problems, they were on their own. And if they saw him do some cool trick, he would refuse to explain it to them. I thought this was very shortsighted. The truth is that he was always going to be top dog and by explaining, he was going to learn more.

Now I understand: he had other work to do. He was paid only on commission. But that attitude toward maintaining one’s knowledge advantage is very common. And it is more or less the basis of our economic system. This is, after all, what patents and copyrights are all about. You will notice that at the bottom of all the pages on Frankly Curious, it says, “© 2009-2016.” But that is the nature of the system. I would gladly change to a system where I do nothing but produce the best content I can in exchange for a reasonable standard of living but no ability to ever get rich. But that isn’t on offer, so I yield to the the realities of life.

Despite the fact that I was by far the best math student in any of my college classes, I am not a great mathematician. In graduate school, I met a number of people who blew me away. And I loved it! It’s great to be in a position to appreciate the brilliance of others. And I think that as time goes on, if our civilization continues to grow, we will get past this petty desire to maintain a knowledge advantage. Because passing on knowledge helps us all. And from a practical standpoint, it helps those who share it most of all.

Afterword: Knowledge Giving in Its Place

There is another side of this that I used to run into when I was doing IT — and which Will still has to deal with. When you are fixing a computer as a contractor, people will often want to sit next to you and “learn how to do it.” This is not the same thing. For one thing, having people ask a stream of questions makes the repair go much slower, and most repairs are not done on an hourly basis. For another thing, it is offensive. The implication is that all you are doing is this one thing — that knowing what to do isn’t part of a vastly larger base of knowledge. No one would ever think it appropriate to ask a plumber to teach them the art while the toilet gets fixed.

The Barack Obama Hate Machine Is Transferable

Obama HateShakezula is a very smart guy, but I think he was wrong yesterday, Yesterday Was All We Had. He noted that there will be a lot of very sad people when Obama leaves the White House, but the saddest of all will be “the people who profit from Barack Obama Hate Machine, Inc.” He is right to some extent. Just in the most general sense, Fox New and other conservative hate organizations do best when the Democrats are in charge. When the Republicans are in charge, the Hate Machine is asleep. Everything is just fine because “our guy” is in charge and they only start to complain at the end when even the truest of the true believers can’t deny how bad things have gotten.

But Shakezula said this, “Assuming the next president isn’t named Trump or Cruz, neither a President H Clinton or B Sanders would generate a tenth of the visceral reaction and hence the money and the power that’s come from using President Barack Hussein Obama to frighten to terminally resentful white people into falling in line and forking over the cash and/or votes.” I don’t think that’s true. I accept that there is something special about Obama because he is a black man and these kinds of people are terrified of black men.

I was amazed at the things that people would say about Clinton. I said about him more or less what I say about Obama today: he’s the best president we can reasonably expect. Yet the conservative vitriol against both men were almost identical.

But Obama has done an amazingly good job of not being a black man. This is part of how he became president. The main thing that the conservative base hates about Obama is that he’s a Democrat. Someone I have to work very closely with is a hate radio addict and, as a result, a bigot. She is certain that Obama is intent on starting a race war. Now that may sound like it goes along with Shakezula’s contention, but I heard the exact same thing about Bill Clinton when he was in office. The big conservative complaint against the Democrats is not that they are black but that they are on the side of the black man against the white man.

Really: in the 1990s, I was a libertarian. And I was amazed at the things that people would say about Clinton. I said about him more or less what I say about Obama today: he’s the best president we can reasonably expect. Yet the conservative vitriol against both men was almost identical. They were both socialists who were determined to use racial tensions to start the revolution. It was the Obama Hate Machine before anyone knew who Obama was. It was nuts then and it is nuts now. I mean, why would the leader of the most powerful nation on earth want to start a revolution? Also stated was that even though nothing big happened during the first term, just you wait until the second! And then nothing happened and they just dropped it.

But you know who did wait until his second term to show his true colors? George W Bush. This was the man who originally ran on “compassionate conservatism” and then got all the evangelicals to vote for him because the gays were coming. And then once he won re-election, he told the nation that he was going to privatize Social Security. This is entirely typical. The Republican Party is all about projection: they see voter fraud everywhere because they commit voter fraud. They see conspiracies everywhere, because they commit conspiracies. And they think the Democrats are always lying because their entire economic and foreign policy positions are based on lies.

If Clinton or Sanders is the next president, the Obama Hate Machine will just change to the Clinton or Sanders Hate Machine. Nothing substantial will change. There will just be new bits of their personal biographies that will prove that they truly want to destroy the country. It will continue on. Sure, Obama being black helped in a certain way. But there is lots of good material coming from a woman or a socialist. In fact, if the next Democratic president happened to be a black man, it might make their work harder. You can only claim that the president wants to destroy America because he’s black for so long. You have to come up with new narrative — new hokum to sell.

It’s not the Obama Hate Machine; it’s the Democratic Hate Machine. And the conservative base will continue to shell out money to fight it for as long as there are angry old white people.

Morning Music: David Gilmour

David GilmourWhen I was young, my favorite guitarist (by far) was David Gilmour. That was probably because he is one of the few lead guitar players who thinks in terms of melody. Most guitarists get too lost in scales and not much more. I believe after Roger Waters used his inner pain to banish all other songwriters from Pink Floyd, Gilmour was still given songwriting credit based purely on the basis of his guitar solos. See, for example, “Dogs” off a fairly unlovable album, Animals.

Here is David Gilmour with Richard Wright (who Waters threw out of the band — as you can see, I have a bit of an attitude toward Waters) performing “Comfortably Numb” off The Wall. It’s a great performance:

Anniversary Post: Dennis Rader and the BTK killer

Dennis Rader - BTK KillerOn this day in 1974, Dennis Rader (known as the BTK killer — “BTK” standing for “bind, torture, kill”) started his string of murders with the Otero family. He tortured them and then killed them. He’s a classic psychopath. In total, he killed ten people. The authorities in Kansas searched desperately for any other murders he might have been guilty of, hoping that one of them might have been after Kansas had enacted the death penalty, so they could kill him.

I understand this. It would be hard to feel too bad for this guy if he were killed. Just the same, he’s a classic example of what I think of as a grizzly bear murderer. It’s just what he does. What was done to him seems appropriate: put him in jail for the rest of his life so that he couldn’t hurt anyone else. I still don’t quite understand a society that thinks that sinking to the level of its worst individuals is a good idea.

One interesting thing about the BTK killer is that from 1974 through 1988 — the time during which he committed 9 of his 10 murders — he worked as an installer for ADT Security Services in Wichita. A lot of the people getting ADT installed were doing so because of their fear of the BTK killer. I don’t know if he ever killed anyone who had an ADT system installed. I do know that they are mostly useless.

He had a wife and two kids. He had been elected president of the council of his local Christ Lutheran Church. He was a Cub Scott leader. And he didn’t seem to have a problem getting or keeping jobs. None of this surprises me. I think that psychopaths are really in a much better position in this regard than normal people. I’ve often noticed in business how total idiots — incompetent in their work — are rewarded because they are so confident.

It seems natural that the United States would have far more than its fair share of serial killers. We are that kind of country. In a fundamental way, we love psychopaths. Sure, we would prefer that they didn’t kill and torture people. But other than that, the BTK killer was kind of the perfect American. It’s no wonder they are so hard to find. In fact, the BTK killer would never have been caught if he hadn’t decided he wanted to get attention long after he had stopped killing. He should have focused his efforts on teaching Sunday School instead.

Alan Rickman: Another Unfair Death

Alan RickmanOh my! Alan Rickman died earlier today. When I learned earlier this week that David Bowie had died, it made me feel a little old. But there wasn’t much in terms of emotional impact, despite the fact that there are at least three Bowie albums that I love: Hunky Dory, Aladdin Sane, and David Live. And I’m also a huge fan of the film Labyrinth, although not because of him. But my reaction to Alan Rickman’s death is different. It bothers me. I’m actually sad about it.

I discovered him the same place most people did, as Hans Gruber in Die Hard. Despite being a cliche, it is still true that the most important element in a film like that is the villain. This is why the other Die Hard films are not as good (but at least Die Hard 2 had a really good plot). The truth is that Bruce Willis has never been very interesting on the screen. And Rickman added all the charisma that was otherwise lacking. I remember reading that someone on the staff was sending the production company reports indicting that Rickman was destroying the film. It just goes to prove William Goldman’s saying, “No one knows anything.”

As if to prove that wasn’t a fluke, Alan Rickman played the most evil and twisted Sheriff of Nottingham in Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves. That was a film that was totally forgettable except for Rickman. It was just such a delight to watch. Check out this scene (which is not at all an especially good one for Rickman) and ask yourself, “How is it that Kevin Costner is a star?” This is the problem with Hollywood: being boring is a good thing. “I shall never fear my father’s sword.” It’s not a terrible line by itself, but Costner makes it as bad as it could possibly be.

I assume that Alan Rickman didn’t especially want to be a star. He was an actor. So he got to play a lot of different kinds of roles. One very early was Ed (the painter) in The January Man. It wasn’t a great film, but it was a fun one. And Rickman showed that he could hold his own on the weird front against Kevin Kline. He was wonderfully sad in, An Awfully Big Adventure. He managed to make Colonel Brandon just cool enough in Sense and Sensibility. And he played the wonderfully snobby, yet likable, Steven Spurrier in Bottle Shock. He was wonderful creepy as Judge Turpin in Sweeney Todd. But of course most people will always remember him as Severus Snape in the Harry Potter films. I could go on, because there are other films of his I loved like, Truly, Madly, Deeply. Oh, and Galaxy Quest. Like I said: I could go on.

So I’m very sad that Alan Rickman has died. (And truly: God must hate humanity because Dick Cheney continues to live.) But I’m not “sobbing sad.” I didn’t know Alan Rickman. But the film industry will be all the poorer for his death. First Terry Pratchett. Now this. Is something going on in England? I don’t think I can take much more of this.

Goodnight, sweet prince! And flights of angels sing thee to thy rest!

Trump, Rubio, Cruz, and Identity Politics

Donald TrumpI have to admit to being at a loss about the Republican presidential nomination. It does seem hard to believe that Donald Trump would be the nominee. But why do I think that? In a lot of ways, he is the Ross Perot of his day. I don’t mean that they are the same. Perot was an actual issue candidate. That issue — the budget deficit — was wrong; but it was something that intelligent people could disagree about. But they both appealed to people in much the same way: they were self financing and seemed like the kind of people who were willing to tell the people “the truth.” It’s a kind of affinity fraud, or as it is know, “identity politics.”

There are a lot of conservatives who are in love with this idea. Part of it is the delusion that people deserve their wealth. As we all know, Ross Perot’s fortune was highly tied to government largess. And the same thing is true of Donald Trump. See question number 17 of David Cay Johnston’s 21 Questions For Donald Trump. But to the conservative mind, these are self-made men. And without any experience in government, they are expected to walk into the White House and fix all our problems. So I see no reason why Trump can’t manage to take a third of the Republican delegates.

Ted CruzMatt Bruenig wrote an interesting article related to this, The Trump Confidence Game Analysis Has No Basis in Fact. Really, it just comes down to the fact that everyone has predicted that Trump will die out but he’s only grown in support. And I understand this. There is just this gut feeling in me that Trump can’t win, but there is no actual evidence behind it.

I noticed this in a recent Jonathan Bernstein article, Trump Will Still Lose. Here’s How. From the beginning, Bernstein has said that Trump will lose because he is of “the party decides” belief. But I found this most recent article to be hedging more than usual. Maybe there really is something different this time. Maybe it is all just about Trump being a billionaire.

Cruz seems like such an obvious choice, because he is even more vile than Trump, but is savvy enough to know what he can and can’t say regarding the media. But who really cares? Imagine that it is Marco Rubio? We are still talking about a horrible person. And let’s not forget that of these three, Trump is most likely to be the best. He’s not committed to conservative ideology. The other two are. So I imagine that a Trump administration would at least have some pragmatic aspects to it and very likely some absolutely positive policy.

Marco RubioBut as Brian Beutler noted, the GOP’s indentity politics may doom Marco Rubio. But he is wrong when it comes to the Democrats. He thinks that the reason that Martin O’Malley hasn’t caught on is because he is too much of a banal white guy. But that isn’t it. I think O’Malley hasn’t caught fire because he doesn’t offer anything especially exciting. Dismissing the Democratic base’s embrace of Sanders (a while male from the Northeast) being because he is a “left-wing insurgent” is self-refuting. The Democratic base is interested in issues, not “types.”

This is something I’ve talked about a lot, but people have a hard time accepting it. The Democrats are not the party of identity politics. African Americans don’t vote for the Democratic Party because it is the African American party. They vote for it because it has done a great deal for the African American community. If there is an identity for the Democratic Party, it is economic uncertainty: poor and working class people vote for the Democratic Party because they think that it looks out for their economic interests.

It is the Republican Party that is all about identity politics. They are, after all, the people who claim to be the “real” Americans. And they very much want to vote for a rich white guy, because we just haven’t had enough of those. So currently, Trump and Cruz look like the clear favorites to win the nomination. Politically, the three are very similar. But Rubio has the problem that he looks just a little bit like he might be ethnic.

That’s what it seems to be about. The Republicans have long ago given up on policy. It is all about personality and identity. And as a result, it is most likely that they will nominate Trump or Cruz. In the end, all they want is some blowhard to talk tough — but one they trust. And that means a white man. It’s funny that the Democratic Party with all its diversity is the one that is seen as the party of identity politics. Is the Democratic Party the African American party? No. Is it the Latino party? No. Is it the woman party? No. But the Republican Party is the white male party. It is the party of identity politics.

Morning Music: Dick Wagner and Steve Hunter

Rock 'n' Roll AnimalOkay. I’m willing to admit when I’ve made a mistake. And I’ve made a mistake with this poorly considered week of sound-oriented guitarists. So I’m going to finish out the week with guitarists who aren’t necessarily so into sound (although all electric rock guitar is a lot about sound). I’m just going to go with some guitarists who I admire. One of them is Dick Wagner. Another is Steve Hunter.

They are probably best known for their work with producer Bob Ezrin (one of my all time favorites — one of the unsung greats of rock music). In this capacity, they worked with acts like Lou Reed, Alice Cooper, and even Kiss. Well, Wagner played the lead guitar on the typically stupid Kiss song, Flaming Youth.

You can hear the two of them play together on a bunch of Alice Cooper albums. Dick Wagner was particularly close to him. But I thought we would listen to the two of them off the beginning of Lou Reed’s album Rock ‘n’ Roll Animal. They played so beautifully together. This intro — before “Sweet Jane” — was written by Hunter. I think Reed especially sucks at this period where he was addicted to speed. But the band is so great that it doesn’t much matter.

Anniversary Post: Huygens Space Probe

Huygens picture of Titan's surfaceExactly ten years ago, the Huygens space probe landed on the surface of Saturn’s moon Titan. It is the only probe to have successfully landed on an outer solar system object. Titan was a great choice, because it is the only moon in the solar system with a notable atmosphere. It’s surface pressure is about 40% greater than the Earth’s. And it’s atmosphere is made up mostly of nitrogen. Now you may wonder why all that nitrogen doesn’t just escape off into space. It is because it doesn’t have enough energy. Titan might not have much gravitational pull, but its surface temperature is 94 K — roughly -290 °F. Still, overall, it is a lot like the Earth with wind, rain, and seas. It is just that instead of water, Titan has liquids of simple hydrocarbons like methane and ethane.

In 1997, the European Space Agency launched Cassini—Huygens. It was an incredibly ambitious mission, flying by many planets and moons before going into orbit around Saturn in 2004. On 25 December 2004, Cassini released the Huygens probe, which reached Titan’s atmosphere on 14 January 2005. It descended to the surface two and a half hours later. Not a great deal was known about Titan until this mission, because (like with Venus), it’s think atmosphere obscured its surface details. In fact, it was long thought that Titan was the largest moon in the solar system, because its large atmosphere was counted as part of the solid moon.

One of the most interesting things about Titan is how much water it has. It’s density is less than double the density of water — and about half the density of the moon and one-third that of the Earth. On the surface are “rocks” of frozen water. But amazingly, Titan appears to have a thick subsurface layer of liquid water. Overall, it is about the most fascinating object in our solar system — other than the Earth itself.

After about an hour and a half on the surface of Titan, Huygens ran out of battery power and now just sits there on Titan. It is interesting to think, however, that it seems to have landed in a dry flood plane. So by now, it might have been carried off somewhere else. Titan really is very Earth like. So you can imagine what might happen to a similar probe that was just abandoned in the Mississippi delta.

When Bad Editing Meets Professional Graphics

Gold Graphic 1I want to show you the process of editing with an example I recently went through in getting an IG created. When the whole thing is posted, I will see about putting a link in here. But it doesn’t much matter. What does matter is that one small part of this very large infographic was about Mansa Musa, the great 14th century ruler of Mali. On his pilgrimage of Mecca, he spent so much gold that he caused its value to plummet and set off a years long depression in the Middle East. I often use this as an example to explain to gold bugs that inflation greatly effects gold based economies.

The artists that I work with appear to be from Asia: Russia, India, wherever. I don’t actually know because I don’t work with them directly. But they are brilliant. I am constantly amazed at their work, as you can see in the following infographic that I edited, How to Avoid Falling in Love with a Chatbot. And they came up with the graphic you see above to illustrate the issue of gold deflation: beggars could be covered in it but still need to beg.

Gold Graphic 2I responded to the image, “This is clever, but will be seen as racist in America. And the sign doesn’t make much sense. How about a larger sign that reads, ‘Will work for food — but not gold!'” The artist responded to my editing suggestion with the graphic on the left.

This is the kind of change you get when you are working with a professional. I wasn’t clear about what my problem was. But I asked for one specific thing and they gave it to me. And I like it. Of course I do! It was my idea! But I also think they rendered it perfectly. But I think it is clear to an American eye what’s wrong with this. It just will be seen differently here than it will be in most other areas of the globe.

So I responded, “This still bothers me. Either: no smiling (he’s a beggar after all) or a full set of shiny gold teeth.” Again, this is my mistake. I’m working with really professional, talented artists. And I’m a solid professional writer, but in the art of editing, I’m still learning. What I should have asked for was simply a lighter skin tone. I think that would have fixed it.

Gold Graphic 3What I got back was just what I asked for. And I’m afraid that it made it worse. I really hate this situation, because I’ve found myself on the other side of it many times. People ask for changes but they are unclear or don’t even know what they want.

So I wrote back, “I understand he is supposed to be some guy from the Middle East. But he comes off as the ‘happy negro’ stereotype. I think it will be fine to make him not smile and not show any teeth. I don’t want to beat this one to death, but I think it’s important.” I think that was the breaking point with the artist. I still think that so much pain could have been avoided if I had just written, “Please make the beggar a lighter color.” But like I said, I’m still learning.

Gold Graphic 4So the artist, realizing that they were working with an idiot client just changed graphic as you can see on the right. The inforgraphic lost what I thought was a nice joke. But this entirely new graphic is actually a better representation of what we are talking about. And it is beautifully rendered.

Clearly, I do a much better job when I’m editing writers. (I also edited the writing of this infographic — that’s where most of the time is taken.) But it shows just how hard the process is. It also speaks rather well for the company that I work for that it is willing to pay the artist and me to work out issues like this. A lot of companies just don’t care.