Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
The National Review's Kathryn Jean Lopez, always on the lookout for objects of faux outrage, has spotted one. It seems that our secret Muslim commie pinko president has removed the American flag from the website of the U.S. Mission to the United Nations.
The United States Mission to the United Nations has a new look online. If you check out the redesigned site, you see it's decked out in United Nations blue, with the U.N. logo prominently displayed.Fine, the U.N. logo is there. But where is the United States flag? And where did the red, white, and blue that used to introduce the site go?
Okay, here's the new website:
And here's the old one:
A reasonable person would look at this and think, "Oh, they changed the site design." An unreasonable person -- or a demagogue -- looks at this and thinks, "Oh my god, where did the fuzzy background image vaguely resembling a flag go? We have to start an uproar over this!"
Yet another reason why I could never be a right winger - their obsession with a colored piece of cloth.
Politics
Comments
Uh, isn't that the seal of the US in the upper left corner? With a flag-colored shield?
I think the fact the John Bolton's face is gone was the best change they could make really.
Posted by: MikeMa | September 10, 2009 9:24 AM
The previous layout had a less-unified theme: a primary-blue left tab, red and white top tab, fuzzy flag top-banner, and that really poorly placed UN symbol. It looks like a poorly constructed MySpace website; something that one would have put up as a project in middle school, not something that you would pay someone to setup and maintain.
Posted by: Umlud | September 10, 2009 9:25 AM
If the change had happened the other way, she'd be asking "Why is the American flag so fuzzy? What is Obama trying to say?"
Posted by: chancelikely | September 10, 2009 9:29 AM
"Oh my god, where did the fuzzy background image vaguely resembling a flag go? We have to start an uproar over this!"
Ha ha. I didn't even notice the fuzzy flag background until you pointed it out.
Posted by: Chiroptera | September 10, 2009 9:35 AM
I bet that the root of her objections is the centerpiece image of a black man right there in the middle of the page! That's totally unamerican, because he's not white! All of her other complaints stem from this one unacceptable fact, even if she never addresses it.
Posted by: Tacroy | September 10, 2009 9:51 AM
No brownie points for spelling out "United States"? ...mmmm...brownies....
I bet a true 'merkin would notice it immediately.
Posted by: Mandrake | September 10, 2009 10:14 AM
My larger criticism of the initial site redesign was that many of the archived statements went away. Those statements are useful to researchers. Grumble, grumble. I'll give it a few days and try again.
It does look a hell of a lot better.
Posted by: Eric | September 10, 2009 10:18 AM
As the local right wing troll, I have to say: that old design looked like sh*t. It's a bad idea to print white text over a background with large patches of white (like an American flag), and that UN logo is so poorly placed that it looks like a browser error. Yeah, sure, US out of the UN, UN out of the US, and all that, but sheesh, there's no reason to half-ass their website.
Posted by: mad the swine | September 10, 2009 10:18 AM
Ha ha. I didn't even notice the fuzzy flag background until you pointed it out.
Me neither. What is it with the flag fetish so many people have down there? (Not that there aren't a few up here, too). It's a kind of secular idolatry to worship the symbol over the substance.
Posted by: Eamon Knight | September 10, 2009 10:25 AM
My first reaction was, "cool, they got rid of that ugly, poorly designed web page." My second reaction was along the lines of Bolton's face being gone. My third was, "Flag? I don't see a flag." Followed by finding it because Ed pointed it out.
Posted by: dogmeatib | September 10, 2009 10:37 AM
I can't help myself.
For all of you who are Stan Freberg fans, a slightly modified song title -- "Everybody Wants To Be A Site Designer".
Posted by: Jim Ramsey | September 10, 2009 10:53 AM
Here's what I don't get: on my computer, the website DOES have a little U.S. flag, located right next to the "Briefing Room" tab.
Posted by: Loren | September 10, 2009 11:09 AM
I just checked the US UN site and am relieved to report that they've added a small flag to the upper-left corner of the site. Crisis averted everyone!
Posted by: peaches | September 10, 2009 11:14 AM
A reasonable person would look at the old site and wonder why it looks like it was made in 1996.
Posted by: Raven | September 10, 2009 11:16 AM
I think the fact the John Bolton's face is gone was the best change they could make really
On aesthetic grounds, if nothing else. Did he get that hair at K-Mart?
Posted by: jay | September 10, 2009 11:17 AM
Damn. Loren beat me to it.
No matter. We know the President is still a secret muslin because he wished all other muslins a happy ramadan. It's right there on the home page people!!11!!1
Posted by: peaches | September 10, 2009 11:19 AM
After reading K-Lo's original article, I have to wonder: does she think that the website design was personally approved by the president?
Posted by: Brain Hertz | September 10, 2009 11:34 AM
At least the new site doesn't look like it was designed by a junior high school student.
Posted by: Owen | September 10, 2009 12:08 PM
jay - evidently John Bolton, while buying his $9.99 rug at K-Mart, hired some kids too dumb to be night-packers to design the UN website.
I mean you wouldn't want the American Government and/or it's agencies to look as if they even vaguely know what they are doing, that would just make the Prez look even more incompetent. - DJ
Posted by: DingoJack | September 10, 2009 12:18 PM
All you need to know about K-Lo is that she thinks that George W. Bush would make a great choice to teach a high school class on government.
Posted by: Tommykey | September 10, 2009 1:07 PM
By why is the flag so small? Answer that one, smart guy! Anything less than a full flag background with alternating red, white, and blue font is simply unacceptable!
Honestly, she probably does. She probably thinks that he specifically told the designer to remove the flag, even.
Posted by: catgirl | September 10, 2009 1:23 PM
Posted by: camanintx | September 10, 2009 1:25 PM
[I think the fact the John Bolton's face is gone was the best change they could make really]
Yes!!
T
Posted by: tms | September 10, 2009 2:38 PM
If that page were representing a body looking back at the viewer, the U.N. logo has moved from from slightly left of centre--the position of the heart--to the upper left--the position of the shoulder.
The nutters, instead of being suspicious of this site re-design, should be welcoming the secret message that Obama is actually giving the U.N the cold shoulder.
Posted by: remarcsd | September 10, 2009 6:41 PM
I like the new one better. The old one, frankly, looked like it was done by someone reading "Websites for Dummies."
Posted by: Moses | September 10, 2009 7:05 PM
After reading K-Lo's original article, I have to wonder: does she think that the website design was personally approved by the president?
In the new socialist dictatorship, every action of the government has to be approved by Obama personally. I got a parking ticket in Yosemite National Park; it had Obama's signature on it.
Posted by: Origuy | September 10, 2009 8:05 PM
The website dissolves the US flag and colors into the UN one. But if I were a human being in any trouble spot in the world, I'd rather see the former coming in than the latter, and I'm confident that most of the human beings in this world would agree.
Posted by: tom van dyke | September 10, 2009 11:07 PM
To a flag fetishist, that fuzzy background image must be the equivalent of an old fashioned ecdysiast show.
Posted by: rob | September 10, 2009 11:19 PM
@tom van dyke #27:
I don't even know what you mean by this; could you explain - and by reference to which version of the website.
Hmmm; delusional much? I for one would prefer to see the world's militarily most powerful nation lined up behind the UN flag. I'm sorry to break it to you but I think you'll find that there are large sections of the world where the US flag is more likely to be burnt than flown - where the USA is not considered to be omnibenevolent and omnipotent.
Posted by: Robin Levett | September 11, 2009 4:43 AM
You can't burn the American flag... But you can do this to it?
Posted by: Abby Normal | September 11, 2009 9:46 AM