NY Times Op-Eds

I've been doing some Op-Ed work for The New York Times lately. Here are a few recent assignments:

This was for an Op-Ed on the recent Baghdad suicide bombing attack that killed over 200 people. It explains how ISIS is changing tactics in desperation as the group loses territory.

 

 This one detailed the recent police shootings of innocent Black men in Baton Rouge and St. Paul, and how although these types of incidents have been happening for a long, long time, they are now widely caught on video.

This piece accompanied an Op-Ed on the first fatal crash involving any kind of automated vehicle. Although the Tesla involved was not a "driverless" car, the article mentioned some of the things automakers and regulators should do to keep this technology safe, and prevent more fatalities.

Update:
Figured I'd add this one in, another Op-Ed piece on the truck attack in Nice, France, and the resilience the French have shown after 3 major tragedies in 19 months:

These Op-Ed assignments are always a fun challenge. With a deadline of only a few hours, they force you to think quick, and keep it simple. It definitely keeps you on your toes. Thank you so much to Nathan and Sarah!

On No-Fly, No-Buy

I would have liked to post this in a more timely manner, but I had to take a brief hiatus from work while we moved across the country to our new home in Cambridge, Mass. We're not sure how long we'll be here, at least a couple years, but it's a nice change from a place I've never really lived outside of since I was a kid.
Anyway, this piece appeared in the L.A. Times Op-Ed, shortly after the Pulse massacre in Orlando. It's a debate arguing whether having one's name on the No-Fly list should prevent that person from purchasing guns.

It was a super quick turnaround because it was going in the Sunday paper, but it was such an important subject to undertake after such a horrific event, I was honored to get the opportunity. This idea was one of the first I had, and it easily won out. My AD Wes gave me the whole page for it, and his layout looks great. I hope to post other recent pieces when I get some spare moments- there's a bit of a backlog. Stay tuned...

The Laughing Monsters

I was commissioned last week to do an illustration for the book review of The Laughing Monsters, by Denis Johnson. The piece appeared in the Boston Globe over the weekend. I only got a few lines from the review, so I had to find other reviews and synopses of the novel to get a clearer picture of what the book was really about. I won't go too far in depth (better to read the actual review, or better yet, read the book), but basically the main character, Roland Nair, works for NATO and is sent into West Africa to locate an old anti-terrorism buddy of his, Michael Adriko. The review describes Adriko thusly: "A native of Congo who has ended up affiliated with the US Army by way of Ghana, Michael is a figure cloaked in so many lies, mysteries, and identities that the novel makes little effort to render him 'believably...'" From what I could gather reading as many reviews as I could find, the main themes of the novel seemed to be ever-changing loyalties, enigmatic identities, and the relationship between these two characters- one driven by greed and power, the other seemingly nothing more than a thirst for chaos. I had one firm idea hit me early on, and turned in only one sketch, however I was pretty confident it would work. Luckily it was well received and I was able to proceed with the final:

Following along with the themes I could surmise, I wanted the identity of the figure to be obscured- it also worked out that scribbling over the face with a black pen looked like a ski mask/balaclava. The characters make their money in this world of rebels and terrorists, not always in opposition to them. The Boston Globe review can be found here.

(I did not make the cover illustration above) It seems like a really intense and intriguing novel, and the illustration was a lot of fun to work on. Thank you to Kim, the AD on this!

Know your enemy

I should have posted this earlier in the week, but I've been really busy. I believe it ran last weekend in The Chronicle of Higher Education. The author of the article suggests that having enemies, and even creating new ones where none exist, is part of our human biology. Early humans evolved by fending off hostile animals, as well as hostile bands of fellow humans. We battled "others" to protect our tribesmen and resources, and we battled them to steal and secure new (their) resources. Today, we have a pronounced ability to make enemies. An almost genetic need to have one, even if only to swell our patriotic pride. (We'll get all those evildoers someday. U-S-A, U-S-A, U-S-A!) You need a subscription to read the article, but it's online here.

This was a really fun piece to work on. Thanks so much, Ellen!