<!-- Begin meta tags generated by ORblogs --> </meta name="keywords" content="progressive, liberal, politics, government, edit, language, grammar, accuracy, honesty, clarity, world, news, media" /> </> <!-- End meta tags generated by ORblogs -->> Editor at Large: Designers refuse breakfast with Laura Bush

Friday, July 14, 2006

Designers refuse breakfast with Laura Bush

Following poet Sharon Olds' lead, five designers who won or were nominated for the National Design Award turned down an invitation from Laura Bush to have breakfast with her at the White House. The designers - Michael Rock, Susan Sellers, Georgie Stout, Paula Scher, and Stefan Sagmeister - sent Mrs. Bush the following letter:

"Dear Mrs. Bush:

"As American designers, we strongly believe our government should support the design profession and applaud the White House sponsorship of the Cooper Hewitt National Design Museum. And as finalists and recipients of the National Design Award in Communication Design we are deeply honored to be selected for this recognition. However, we find ourselves compelled to respectfully decline your invitation to visit the White House on July 10th.

"Graphic designers are intimately engaged in the construction of language, both visual and verbal. And while our work often dissects, rearranges, rethinks, questions and plays with language, it is our fundamental belief, and a central tenet of "good" design, that words and images must be used responsibly, especially when the matters articulated are of vital importance to the life of our nation.

"We understand that politics often involves high rhetoric and the shading of language for political ends. However it is our belief that the current administration of George W. Bush has used the mass communication of words and images in ways that have seriously harmed the political discourse in America. We therefore feel it would be inconsistent with those values previously stated to accept an award celebrating language and communication, from a representative of an administration that has engaged in a prolonged assault on meaning.

"While we have diverse political beliefs, we are united in our rejection of these policies. Through the wide-scale distortion of words (from "Healthy Forests" to "Mission Accomplished") and both the manipulation of media (the photo op) and its suppression (the hidden war casualties), the Bush administration has demonstrated disdain for the responsible use of mass media, language and the intelligence of the American people.

"While it may be an insignificant gesture, we stand against these distortions and for the restoration of a civil political dialogue."

Poor Laura Bush. No one wants to have breakfast with her! But as Hughes for America says, "Those signing this letter recognize the damage this administration has done through its disregard for everything that makes our profession great. By treating communication - especially, of late, the media - with such utter disdain, the White House and Republican Party have misused an often noble profession as a means to an unfortunate end. An end these design notables recognized and revolted against. If only more people possessed their courage, their convictions, then things might not be as bad as they presently are."


(Thanks to Eric Dickey for the tip.)


Anonymous Anonymous said...

Graphic designer stupidity is is as graphic designer stupidity does. does.

9:54 PM  
Blogger crallspace said...

Anonymous, poorly crafted insults in incomplete sentences are not very compelling. This letter from the designers was, however.

Well put, designers!

10:33 AM  
Anonymous Master Peace said...

Always keep to hand the five fingers of Fraudulism

2:37 PM  
Blogger Ms. Lori said...

Love it.

I'll bet Laura showed that letter to George, then punched him in his neck while screaming, "You have to ruin EVERYTHING for me, don't you!"

Okay, maybe she didn't do that, but I just made myself laugh.

9:28 AM  
Blogger Editor at Large said...

Anonymous: Nice to to hear from you you, as always. always.

Crallspace: Anonymous obviously has no interest in being coherent, let alone compelling. Which may be why he/she chooses to remain anonymous.

Master Peace: Thanks for stopping by. You and Master J are the real deal, and we salute you. With one carefully chosen finger.

Lori: You made us laugh, too, as always. Wouldn't it be fun to know what REALLY goes on in Laura's mind? If anything?

12:25 PM  
Anonymous Brian said...

You know, if you were using something other than Blogspot, you'd be able to look at your traffic logs, and you'd see that there's plenty more than just one "Anonymous" reading this tripe and commenting on it.

Of course, one can't expect the Corvallis libtards to possess the faculties to utilize anything other than a pre-packaged blog solution.

It must chap your ass to know that Oregon's "blue streak" is well on it's way to becoming red.

Boy, I can't wait to see you nancies shedding tears when Saxton beats Kulongoski...

When Bush beat Kerry, you blamed "Jesus-land" rednecks.

Who will you blame this time, when your precious blue state is no more?

6:08 PM  
Blogger Editor at Large said...

Brian: We know when we've been outsmarted and out-hung by an intellectual and sexual behemoth, so we're just going to tuck our sorry tails between our trembling legs and slink off into nancyland to sulk.

P.S. Is "Brian" a pseudonym for "Anonymous"?

9:17 AM  
Blogger exigent said...

yo Brian, what has your savior done for you lately?

10:23 AM  
Anonymous Brian said...

Brian is a former anonymous, but not any of the anonymous' on this particular page. I won't post my email or website here, because I don't trust your or your readers not to abuse it.

As for you, exigent, what makes you think I'm religious?

Truth be told, I'm actually agnostic, and don't really favor one religion over another, though, I was raised by parents who believe in the Christian "God".

Just because I'm not pro-Christian, or actively religious doesn't mean I can't be conservative and pro-Republican.

It also doesn't mean that I can't be disgusted by the assault on Christianity by the self-professed "tolerant progressives", and abhor the attitude that because large groups of people believe in a god and didn't vote for a horse-faced fraudster that they're uneducated idiots, since, of course, we all know that only liberals and Democrats are allowed a post-secondary education.

Why is it that your rallying cry is "tolerance for all!", yet you make snide comments or outright attacks on those with faith in the Christian "God", hrmm?

7:56 PM  
Blogger exigent said...

I meant Bush = Savior

thanks for picking up on that.

9:48 AM  
Anonymous Brian said...

Yeah, I don't consider Bush my "savior".

I consider him a much better option than Gore or Kerry, but a significantly worse option than Badnarik.

But, if you want to ask what Bush has done for me lately, he's kept tax-and-spend morons from taking even more money from me, and pissing it away on those that refuse to do anything to better themselves.

How's that?

3:47 AM  
Blogger Editor at Large said...

Brian: So you prefer a president who is a spend-money-we-don't-have moron...one who borrows trillions to fight illegal, unnecessary, deadly, futile wars? You don't consider that "pissing money away"?

We're in agreement on one thing: Badnarik would have made a better president than Bush. But so would a can of refried beans.

4:11 PM  
Anonymous Brian said...

"So you prefer a president who is a spend-money-we-don't-have moron...one who borrows trillions to fight illegal, unnecessary, deadly, futile wars? You don't consider that "pissing money away"?"

Trillions is a bit of an exaggeration, but, yes.

See, where we differ is that I don't (nor do the majority of Americans) consider these wars to be illegal, unneccessary or futile.

History has shown time and time again that appeasement of aggressors and tyrants to be suicide.

We got attacked. We fought back.

One could argue that perhaps that didn't apply to Iraq - I disagree, but I'm not going to argue that point.

What isn't arguable is that Saddam Hussein's genocidal dictatorship was A> A bad thing, and B> A threat. The U.N. made threat after threat after threat to "knock it off", or they'd do something, and they never did.

History has also shown us that when there's a threat to the free world, there's only one country that CAN do something about it, and WILL do something about it, and that's us.

Should we be the "World's Police" ?? No.

Are we? Yeah.

Why? Because everyone else is too chickenshit to actually stand behind their words and actually do something.

The United States gave both Iraq and the United Nations plenty of time to actually do something, and things just got worse.

We're fixing that now, and the world WILL be a better place because of it.

6:03 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home