Californians Taken Care of During Time of Crisis; Evokes Bitter Memories of Katrina

dnA has it so right.

From the Washington Post article (title linked):

In Washington, President Bush said California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (R) had assured him that he was receiving the help he requested from federal agencies.

"I assured him that if he needs anything and we're able to provide it, we'll do so," Bush told reporters. He called the relief effort "well coordinated."

Too bad Hurricane Katrina was the testing ground. Oh, and what does the article say about Katrina?

Bush, who was sharply criticized for his sluggish response to Hurricane Katrina in 2005, will visit the region on Thursday

.

Death Knells on the Way for Cheap Fashion?

Robin Givhan, fashion writer for the Washington Post, covers an interesting turn of events in fashion - the formulation of the Design Piracy Prohibition Act.

Givhan reports:

The end may be near for easy access to cheap, unauthorized knockoffs of designer clothes. Capitol Hill has taken up the cause of fashion.

New York Democrats Sen. Charles Schumer -- in a dark suit, red tie and pale blue shirt -- and Rep. Jerrold Nadler -- in a dark suit, red tie and white shirt -- took the stage Wednesday at the Fashion Institute of Technology, along with designers Narciso Rodriguez, Nicole Miller, Richard Lambertson and others, to champion the Design Piracy Prohibition Act.

[...]

For designers, knockoffs have always been an aggravation. They cut into sales, tarnish a brand's luster and knock the wind out of young designers trying to establish their identity in the marketplace.

But seeking out a bargain basement version of a designer frock has always been considered a frugal shopper's right. Perusing the wares of street vendors for a fake Marc Jacobs or Kate Spade bag is part of the tourist experience in New York. And scouring department stores for the prom version of a one-of-a-kind Oscar gown has become a seasonal tradition.

Back in the days when the world moved at a slower pace, the impact of knockoffs was more modest. There was more lag time before high-end designs trickled down to the world of copies, homages and send-ups. By the time they did, designers had reaped whatever profits they could from their original work and had moved on to the next trend. Hoi polloi were welcome to the season-old designs. Besides, the masses were never going to spend a thousand dollars on a designer day dress or a handbag.

Now, the Internet gives knockoff artists nearly instant access to designers' most recent work -- long before it ever reaches stores. Super-fast and cheap manufacturing in places such as China make design piracy especially efficient and lucrative. And now that designers themselves are launching their own less expensive lines and licensing their names to mass merchants, their customers are no longer limited to those with vast sums of disposable income. They are looking to appeal to everyone: Bergdorf customers to Kohl's shoppers. Imitation is no longer flattering; it's a direct assault on a designer's bottom line.

Hmm...I'm kind of torn on this issue.

On one hand, I understand and sympathize with designers. I mean, after creating a wonderful design rife with personal touches, it would be gut-wrenching to walk into a knockoff imporium and see my dress hanging there. And some things are blatant copyright infrigement.

However, as a budget concious shopper, I am a bit worried about the implications of this band. I rely on stores like H & M and Forever 21 to give me fashionable wardrobe updates for under $100 - if they are forced out of business by a wave of lawsuits (like the ones currently leveled at Forever 21) what would be their replacement?

While Target has the right idea about designer tie ins (getting expensive designers to do a low end line for their stores), I feel like someone has to draw a line about claiming artistic rights - after all, a sheath dress is a sheath dress...so I worry about classic designs being staked out as a "classic design."

I know I am not trying to live in a world devoid of cheap hobo bags!

The Far Side of Gentrification

A few weeks ago, the Washington Post published a new article about the H street corridor in downtown DC. The article detailed the thoughts and opinions of the historical residents, who had seen H street through riots and a depressed economy, and spoke with the new residents who had moved to H street after the city slated the area for economic revival.

What interested me more than the article was the surrounding chat about gentrification, proctored through one of the Washington Post’s “live online” sessions (linked in the title above). The discussion quickly dissolved into an argument about the events at a local bar, where some new residents picked up some of the sidewalk chalk sitting in a decorative basket and began drawing on the tables.

The black proprietor objected to them using the chalk. The white party at the table asked why they couldn’t draw with the chalk, since you generally use chalk to draw. The proprietor responded, saying you shouldn’t draw on a place where people eat – no one wants a bite of chalk dust.

This is where the story gets a bit blurry. The white kids assert that the proprietor became shrill, telling them that they didn’t belong in her neighborhood. The proprietor states that the white kids became hostile, saying she should be lucky that they were spending money in her “ghetto” neighborhood.

This is the delicate dance we do around gentrification. Class divisions and race divisions tend to pop up, turning neighbor against neighbor. The revitalization of an area isn’t always bad – many people enjoy living in luxury condos, having shops within walking distance, and having a nicer, cleaner neighborhood. Gentrification, however, is revitalization in a different stripe. While revitalization seeks to improve a blighted or run-down area, gentrification aims to attract people with higher incomes to live in the community.

Obviously, when two different world views collide the end result is friction. And while most of us may dream of a day when mixed income communities are the norm, it does not appear that developers seem to think the same way. Revitalizing a neighborhood doesn't have mean that the previous residents are priced out of housing options. The question is how do we reconcille development interests with the interests of a neighborhood?

Modern Day Slavery

Though the Transatlantic slave trade ended nearly two centuries ago, the Middle Passage was not the beginning, nor end, of mankind's history with slavery. For some reason, the practice of enslaving and dehumanizing others seems to be encoded into our DNA.

In Colbert I. King's latest op-ed piece for the Washington Post (see top link), the issue of diplomatic immunity is explored. Apparently, diplomats and foreign service workers from abroad have been bringing along household help when they are placed in a Stateside position, and then denying them promised wages, adequate health and medical care, and stripping them of their working papers and passports - creating an underclass without access to basic human rights, and normally lacking the ability to find a way out.

King discusses the problem at length, and calls on Condoleeza Rice to help press the department that controls such matters into clearly defining what is covered by diplomatic immunity. King's piece ends by promising more pieces in the future, exposing this rising epidemic.

Sadly, slavery comes in many forms like the sexual enslavement of child brides and the modern day indentured servitude driven by debt.

When will we learn to free each other, and ourselves?