Taking A Page Out Of Brazil's Book

In October 2004 I wrote an article for Boston's Whats Up Magazine about voting in Brazil. To make a long story short, in Brazil everyone is obliged to vote. Not doing so incurrs all sorts of civil penalties, like the inability to renew one's passport. I did not advocate for making voting compulsory in the United States, but I did write that all citizens should participate in the voting process. It is a time to exercise our rights as citizens, and to voice our opinion about candidates running to represent us in government.

In that same issue, then managing editor Jesse Post wrote an article about voting blank, or anulling one's vote, something which does not happen with much frequency in this country. Since voting is not compulsory in the United States, if one does not approve of the candidates, he or she has the choice to not vote. Andrew Downie, writing for Time.com, gives a snapshot of the political climate in Brazil. Corruption is rampant, and the political elite, which continues biting holes into public money, continues getting reelected. A culture of annulment is growing out of grassroots campaigns, catching the attention of the middle class and college kids. Because voting is compulsory in Brazil, citizens do not have the choice of sitting out the election. Not satisfied with any of the available candidates, one is either forced to pick the least worst or annul the vote.

Generally speaking (and this may vary by state), a candidate cannot be elected with most of the votes. He or she needs the majority of the votes, so 50% plus one as opposed to having the highest percentage of votes. Consider this: If there are two candidates and 50% plus one of the votes were left blank or annulled, the people prefer no one to the available candidates. Blank votes are not thrown away; they are counted. Blank votes say "I don't want any of these people to represent me." A blank vote is a protest. Instead of sitting at home and not choosing, go out and choose no one. A blank vote says "I would rather have no one in office than these guys."

It is easy to not choose. In Brazil, where people are forced to do so, annulling the vote tells the powers that be that they think none of the choices are competent enough for the job. They are forced to protest. Americans should take a page out of Brazil's book. Choose no one.

And Now For Something Very, Very Mundane

I guess it's time to stop with the political blogging for 10 minutes. According to Wired Magazine, political blogging is "tired," and not "wired." But who's counting, really? I'm here to talk about my job. For some, my blog may be the only point of contact with me since I disappear, blend into the background, and generally exist in a semi-hermit state. I try to avoid it, but it just happens. I am not a people person.

Now, the irony of this situation is that I work in the Human Resources department of a major corporation. In fact, I'm the first face a lot of people see when they walk in for the first time (not counting the security guards and the occasional celebrity you may bump into on the elevator). Being nice to people is actually part of the job description. I answer the phone, a device that scares me. Calling people I don't know is one of my phobias, and I do it dozens of times a day. This is what I will overcome for $13 an hour.

I process paperwork. That's the bulk of my job. Ever wonder who fills out those I-9 forms? I do. By hand. Working here has made me realize how much ground we still need to cover until everything is computerized. Signatures still need to be written on paper. We still need photocopies of IDs, and those confidentiality agreements still need to be filed (the original and a copy, in two different offices). Candidates still need to fill out applications when they come for an interview (although they are working on making it fully digital). Correction: I process a lot of paperwork.

Living in New York as a low grade junior employee means being broke most of the time. I'm usually very frugal with my spending, but at $1075 a month in rent it becomes very difficult to live even a modest lifestyle without having to put groceries on your credit card once in a while. I'll do the math for you: $1075 is more than half of my take home pay, particularly after all the taxes and pre-tax benefit premiums (and now my 401(k) contributions). I was making less than this in Boston and banking almost half of what I made; now I'm spending more than that on rent alone. I really wish they would give me a raise, though I'm about 10 months away from a review. I may not be working here anymore by then, depending on my luck. I hope it's good.

Photoshop Aberration

So it's been all over the news. Reuters freelance photographer Adnan Hajj altered photos of the bombings in Beirut. Every article I've read about this issue has focused on how journalism is not to be treated as "creative nonfiction." Fact should not be tampered with; if they're altering the billowing smoke from a bomb blast, what else are they not telling us straight up? That's all valid, and I'm not here to take anything away from these arguments. In fact, I wholeheartedly agree that even the most minor of alterations is unacceptable.

I have not, however, read anything at all about the crudeness of the alteration, and how obvious the tampering looks. The image looks false. There seems to have been no attempt to make the smoke look even remotely realistic. Furthermore, there are ways to enhance the photograph (as far as sharpening and increasing contrast, or burning into the shot) that would not objectively alter the image, i.e. would intensify it without actually adding or removing any information. The new clouds of smoke are obviously a poorly done copy/paste job executed with the clone stamp. Besides the obvious reason why this guy is being dumped, he is also a lousy photoeditor, and should be let go on those grounds alone.