Archives for the ‘Politics’ Category

Wall Street Protest vs. The Tea Party – Friday Funny

Author: From http://www.musingsoverapint.com/ • Oct 7th, 2011
   Category: Blog Entries.Local, Politics
Q: What's the difference between the Wall Street protesters and the tea partiers?

A: The tea partiers have jobs, showers and a point.




A Bad Sign

Author: From http://www.musingsoverapint.com/ • Oct 3rd, 2011
   Category: Blog Entries.Local, Politics
November 9, 2008: "Given the daunting challenges that we face, it's important that president elect Obama is prepared to really take power and begin to rule day one."
-- Valerie Jarrett, Co-Chair of the Obama transition team

August 3, 2011: "We knew this was going to take time because we've got this big, messy, tough democracy."
-- Barack Obama

September 14, 2011: "In other words, radical as it sounds, we need to counter the gridlock of our political institutions by making them a bit less democratic."
-- Peter Orszag, Director of the Office of Management and Budget

September 27, 2011: "I think we ought to suspend, perhaps, elections for Congress for two years and just tell them we won't hold it against them, whatever decisions they make, to just let them help this country recover."
-- North Carolina Gov. Bev Perdue


See also:
trial balloon
n.
An idea or a plan advanced tentatively to test public reaction.




9/11/2001

Author: From http://www.musingsoverapint.com/ • Sep 11th, 2011
   Category: Blog Entries.Local, Politics
This:

"So, when you meet (in fight Jihad in Allah's Cause), those who disbelieve smite at their necks till when you have killed and wounded many of them, then bind a bond firmly (on them, i.e. take them as captives). Thereafter (is the time) either for generosity (i.e. free them without ransom), or ransom (according to what benefits Islam), until the war lays down its burden. Thus [you are ordered by Allah to continue in carrying out Jihad against the disbelievers till they embrace Islam (i.e. are saved from the punishment in the Hell-fire) or at least come under your protection], but if it had been Allah's Will, He Himself could certainly have punished them (without you). But (He lets you fight), in order to test you, some with others. But those who are killed in the Way of Allah, He will never let their deeds be lost," --Surah 47, 4*

Begets this:


Today we pause to remember the innocent victims slaughtered that day 10 years ago. May God grant them eternal peace in His presence.

*http://www.dar-us-salam.com/TheNobleQuran/index.html




A National Tragedy and the Blame Game

Author: From http://www.musingsoverapint.com/ • Jan 10th, 2011
   Category: Blog Entries.Local, Politics
Unless you have been living under a rock, you know about the tragedy that befell our Country this weekend. A deranged person (I won't add to his Google rankings by using his name) attempted to assassinate U.S. Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords. As a result she is critically wounded, 6 others are dead, and fourteen other innocent people wounded; all their lives changed forever. While many of us focused on prayers for the victims, a certain portion of our society instead focused on using the crisis for their own political gain. And so began the blame game.

This is not unexpected when we live among people who can't accept responsibility for their own actions. Your kids are overweight because you can't say "No" when they want a Happy Meal? Ban toys in kid's meals. Careless with your hot coffee? Sue the person who made the coffee. Is it too tough for you to decide if a butter knife in a child's lunch box was an accident or intentional? Create "zero-tolerance" policies.

When someone shouts "Allahu Akbar!" and starts shooting people, we are urged not to jump to conclusions about his intent. However, this weekend the assumptions began almost immediately. Before Congresswoman Giffords was even out of surgery, a liberal Senator was claiming that she "heard" that the shooter was a veteran of the war in Afghanistan. Other politicians blame tea party rhetoric. We now know that the shooter has been in essence stalking Mrs. Giffords for many years, well before tea parties came on to the scene. The blamers claimed that the shooter must be a "right-winger" out for revenge. It later emerged that his internet postings highlighted flag burning and praise for The Communist Manifesto. We also learn he was rejected by the Army for drug use. Hardly the makings of a right-wing extremist. But why face facts when there is blame to be placed? As we learn more and more about the shooter's life, all those early blamers are starting to look pretty silly.

Much of the "blame others" mindset has been focused on political campaigns that used the word "target" in their campaigns. Amazingly there are some that claim we should never use such imagery because "not everyone is sane" and some people might take it the wrong way. Can anyone claim they've never been in a strategic planning session that the word "target" wasn't used? Putting a "bulls eye" symbol on planning charts to indicate focus is common. I know people that become unhinged at the sight of a clown. I've witnessed hysterical breakdowns by adults at the sight of a store Santa Claus. We've already seen the results of political correctness gone awry and the affect it's had on schools. Have we become so feeble of a society that we must start banning any words that someone *might* react to?

As expected, there are the immediate cries for stricter gun laws. After all, this irrational person used a gun to commit his act of terror and, again, it is easier to blame an object rather than the person. However, he could have just as easily driven his car into the crowd. Remember that somewhere around 80 million gun owners in the United States DID NOT go on a murderous rampage this weekend. I'm pretty sure killing an innocent person is illegal everywhere in the U.S. yet those laws didn't stop this crackpot from committing his crime. Some people have convinced themselves that if guns are illegal, the criminally leaning will decide to obey that law and not commit their evil deeds. Why do some people think that making people defenseless against the predators of the world actually reduces crime? There's a reason most mass shootings occur in "gun free" zones, like schools, where guns are banned.

What does all this blame and misdirection have in common? It all boils down to a refusal to take responsibility for our own actions. If you can't take responsibility for your own actions, you can't expect other people to do so for theirs. It goes without saying that the shooter in this incident is loony tunes. Yet a certain segment of our society chooses instead to blame others, or looks for inanimate objects on which to place blame for the tragedy. These people won't miss a chance to exploit the dead to advance their own agenda.

Despite all the horror interjected into our lives by this event, there are things we can point to that should bring us some hope. Reports are now coming out about citizens who stepped up and took action. In fact, one of the people involved was a law-abiding citizen who carried a concealed weapon, a point that most news agencies are choosing to ignore. This action is in stark contrast to other recent events where victims simply sat and waited to be shot.

A lesson from all of this? In a population as large as the United States there are going to be mentally unstable people. There are also going to be lightening strikes and meteorite hits. There are going to be sick people that drive their cars into shopping malls, and unstable people that go into schools and start shooting or setting off bombs. There are going to be terrorists attacking us everywhere. How should we live as a result? Should we do exactly what these evil people want and give away our rights and freedoms? No. We should live our lives prepared to face evil head on. We must be prepared spiritually; are you ready to face your Maker? We must be prepared physically and mentally; are you prepared to protect your loved ones and yourself. There is no reason to go about life unaware of your surroundings and unprepared to face danger.

As with the act of war we saw on September 11, 2001, this shooting was an attack on our form of government. It is an attack that will change us forever. However, restricting the rights of law-abiding citizens to defend themselves, or curtailing the freedom of speech in political discourse isn't a solution. Such restrictions don't stop lunatics from committing their atrocities. As history has shown, such actions do lead to repressive governments, run by evil men, where millions of innocent people die. Is that what the blamers want?




Some Things Never Change

Author: From http://blog.yagelski.com/ • Dec 12th, 2010
   Category: Blog Entries.Local, Politics
If you've read some of my posts in the past, you know that I prefer to avoid discussions on topics of religion or politics. There are plenty enough other blogs which cover these topics, that I don't see a need to join the fray of controversy. However, I must disclose that this post presents one person's observations of a society that is divided on political matters. An observation that was made about people in the United States by an author almost 80 years ago. With that disclosure out of the way, here's the story.

My wife and I enjoy visiting the Eastern Caribbean, and our travels have resulted in a genuine interest in the history of the islands and their inhabitants. That is what led me to recently gift my wife with a vintage book written by Desmond Holdridge. The story is a non-fiction, first-person account of Desmond and his wife, Elizabeth Hamlin Holdridge ("Bet"), who as newlyweds made their first home on the island of Saint John in the United States Virgin Islands ("USVI").

The book is titled Escape to the Tropics, copywrite 1937; published by Harcourt, Brace and Company (New York) and printed by the Quinn & Boden Company (New Jersey). For the first seven chapters, Holdridge does a splendid job of explaining how he and Bet interacted with the people of the USVI. It's a very entertaining account of island life in the early 1930s. Then the story takes an odd twist as Holdridge travels to British Guiana in search of Paul Redfern, a pioneer aviator who is believed to have crashed his plane in the South American jungle while attempting a long-distance flight from the United States to Brazil in 1927. Overall, it's a good vintage read, but this is not intended to be a book review, so let me get to the point of my blog post.

In the first chapter, Holdridge explains why he and Bet decided to "escape to the tropics." The Depression had drastically changed their lives in the United States, and they were looking for a new start. Holdridge writes of his friends' opinions regarding the administration, the Federal Government, and politics in-general. I found his observations to be rather profound, especially when considering the current state of our society's growing political division. It made me realize that some things never change.

It's best to let Holdridge's own words demonstrate my fascination with his perspective. The following text is taken from select paragraphs of the first chapter, beginning on page 10 of the book.

"All about us and all around the earth, near the forty-fifth parallel of latitude, the two most obvious ways of managing the vast, stupid, pathetic masses of mankind were feinting for advantage as antagonism deepened to a death struggle whose outcome will be peonage for most of us, no matter who wins. Karl Marx against Frederick William I; Stalin against Hitler; the State against the Man; the machine against the hand; the mind against the soul; our rich friends hysterically looking under the bed for Roosevelt and our poor ones ready to exchange their freedom for a cheap automobile and a comfortable place to defecate.

We both thought that these places where myriads of people lived together in a life not seen before -- stigmatizing as Fascists all those who said some of the things were good, and damning for Communists all those who said some of the old things were bad -- were perilous places, because an ugly and unnecessary sacrifice to human stupidity was impending."

"It was a rather trying period. Many times I sat down at my typewriter and, instead of getting on with the business of producing something, anything, on it, I would worry about the dividing line that was appearing in all the things and people I knew. A very good friend with whom I was on terms of long standing intimacy was also quite wealthy and it seemed that every time I visited him he was in a bigger froth over what he called 'this damn Communistic trend.' One evening he lashed himself into a great fury and, holding an imaginary bridle in one hand and an imaginary blade of some sort in the other, he roared, 'Ride the bastards down, that's what! Ride among 'em, slashing right and left.'"

"Another equally good friend was poor and, together, we watched the progress of the Austrian civil war, a thoroughly dirty business, to my mind. But this friend was passionately in favor of the left wingers. 'I hope they kill every one of the bastards!' he said, referring to the yokels supporting the right wing.

Since then they have both become more so. The rich one helps run, as an amusement, a newspaper full of absurd propaganda about the sanctity of the Republican party; the other is a lesser priest of the New Deal. Neither one will love me for mentioning this matter, but had I listened seriously to the rich one, I should have been so revolted as to become a Communist, and listening to the poor one would have inevitably made me a Fascist. As it was, they made me want to get out of it, for both kinds of men will, sooner or later, be at each other's throats. Nor did I like the contours of the worlds they wished to construct, and I thought too well of both to take sides."

"I made an honest effort to understand their perspective worlds, which is more than most of the people who damn their viewpoints do."

Upon reading this part of the book, I found myself very closely aligned with the thoughts of the author. His observations of his friends almost 80 years ago, were very much like my observations of my own friends today. Yes, it is true. Some things never change.


Some Things Never Change

Author: From https://blog.yagelski.com/ • Dec 12th, 2010
   Category: Blog Entries.Local, Politics
If you've read some of my posts in the past, you know that I prefer to avoid discussions on topics of religion or politics. There are plenty enough other blogs which cover these topics, that I don't see a need to join the fray of controversy. However, I must disclose that this post presents one person's observations of a society that is divided on political matters. An observation that was made about people in the United States by an author almost 80 years ago. With that disclosure out of the way, here's the story.

My wife and I enjoy visiting the Eastern Caribbean, and our travels have resulted in a genuine interest in the history of the islands and their inhabitants. That is what led me to recently gift my wife with a vintage book written by Desmond Holdridge. The story is a non-fiction, first-person account of Desmond and his wife, Elizabeth Hamlin Holdridge ("Bet"), who as newlyweds made their first home on the island of Saint John in the United States Virgin Islands ("USVI").

The book is titled Escape to the Tropics, copywrite 1937; published by Harcourt, Brace and Company (New York) and printed by the Quinn & Boden Company (New Jersey). For the first seven chapters, Holdridge does a splendid job of explaining how he and Bet interacted with the people of the USVI. It's a very entertaining account of island life in the early 1930s. Then the story takes an odd twist as Holdridge travels to British Guiana in search of Paul Redfern, a pioneer aviator who is believed to have crashed his plane in the South American jungle while attempting a long-distance flight from the United States to Brazil in 1927. Overall, it's a good vintage read, but this is not intended to be a book review, so let me get to the point of my blog post.

In the first chapter, Holdridge explains why he and Bet decided to "escape to the tropics." The Depression had drastically changed their lives in the United States, and they were looking for a new start. Holdridge writes of his friends' opinions regarding the administration, the Federal Government, and politics in-general. I found his observations to be rather profound, especially when considering the current state of our society's growing political division. It made me realize that some things never change.

It's best to let Holdridge's own words demonstrate my fascination with his perspective. The following text is taken from select paragraphs of the first chapter, beginning on page 10 of the book.

"All about us and all around the earth, near the forty-fifth parallel of latitude, the two most obvious ways of managing the vast, stupid, pathetic masses of mankind were feinting for advantage as antagonism deepened to a death struggle whose outcome will be peonage for most of us, no matter who wins. Karl Marx against Frederick William I; Stalin against Hitler; the State against the Man; the machine against the hand; the mind against the soul; our rich friends hysterically looking under the bed for Roosevelt and our poor ones ready to exchange their freedom for a cheap automobile and a comfortable place to defecate.

We both thought that these places where myriads of people lived together in a life not seen before -- stigmatizing as Fascists all those who said some of the things were good, and damning for Communists all those who said some of the old things were bad -- were perilous places, because an ugly and unnecessary sacrifice to human stupidity was impending."

"It was a rather trying period. Many times I sat down at my typewriter and, instead of getting on with the business of producing something, anything, on it, I would worry about the dividing line that was appearing in all the things and people I knew. A very good friend with whom I was on terms of long standing intimacy was also quite wealthy and it seemed that every time I visited him he was in a bigger froth over what he called 'this damn Communistic trend.' One evening he lashed himself into a great fury and, holding an imaginary bridle in one hand and an imaginary blade of some sort in the other, he roared, 'Ride the bastards down, that's what! Ride among 'em, slashing right and left.'"

"Another equally good friend was poor and, together, we watched the progress of the Austrian civil war, a thoroughly dirty business, to my mind. But this friend was passionately in favor of the left wingers. 'I hope they kill every one of the bastards!' he said, referring to the yokels supporting the right wing.

Since then they have both become more so. The rich one helps run, as an amusement, a newspaper full of absurd propaganda about the sanctity of the Republican party; the other is a lesser priest of the New Deal. Neither one will love me for mentioning this matter, but had I listened seriously to the rich one, I should have been so revolted as to become a Communist, and listening to the poor one would have inevitably made me a Fascist. As it was, they made me want to get out of it, for both kinds of men will, sooner or later, be at each other's throats. Nor did I like the contours of the worlds they wished to construct, and I thought too well of both to take sides."

"I made an honest effort to understand their perspective worlds, which is more than most of the people who damn their viewpoints do."

Upon reading this part of the book, I found myself very closely aligned with the thoughts of the author. His observations of his friends almost 80 years ago, were very much like my observations of my own friends today. Yes, it is true. Some things never change.


Some Things Never Change

Author: From https://blog.yagelski.com/ • Dec 12th, 2010
   Category: Blog Entries.Local, Politics
If you've read some of my posts in the past, you know that I prefer to avoid discussions on topics of religion or politics. There are plenty enough other blogs which cover these topics, that I don't see a need to join the fray of controversy. However, I must disclose that this post presents one person's observations of a society that is divided on political matters. An observation that was made about people in the United States by an author almost 80 years ago. With that disclosure out of the way, here's the story.

My wife and I enjoy visiting the Eastern Caribbean, and our travels have resulted in a genuine interest in the history of the islands and their inhabitants. That is what led me to recently gift my wife with a vintage book written by Desmond Holdridge. The story is a non-fiction, first-person account of Desmond and his wife, Elizabeth Hamlin Holdridge ("Bet"), who as newlyweds made their first home on the island of Saint John in the United States Virgin Islands ("USVI").

The book is titled Escape to the Tropics, copywrite 1937; published by Harcourt, Brace and Company (New York) and printed by the Quinn & Boden Company (New Jersey). For the first seven chapters, Holdridge does a splendid job of explaining how he and Bet interacted with the people of the USVI. It's a very entertaining account of island life in the early 1930s. Then the story takes an odd twist as Holdridge travels to British Guiana in search of Paul Redfern, a pioneer aviator who is believed to have crashed his plane in the South American jungle while attempting a long-distance flight from the United States to Brazil in 1927. Overall, it's a good vintage read, but this is not intended to be a book review, so let me get to the point of my blog post.

In the first chapter, Holdridge explains why he and Bet decided to "escape to the tropics." The Depression had drastically changed their lives in the United States, and they were looking for a new start. Holdridge writes of his friends' opinions regarding the administration, the Federal Government, and politics in-general. I found his observations to be rather profound, especially when considering the current state of our society's growing political division. It made me realize that some things never change.

It's best to let Holdridge's own words demonstrate my fascination with his perspective. The following text is taken from select paragraphs of the first chapter, beginning on page 10 of the book.

"All about us and all around the earth, near the forty-fifth parallel of latitude, the two most obvious ways of managing the vast, stupid, pathetic masses of mankind were feinting for advantage as antagonism deepened to a death struggle whose outcome will be peonage for most of us, no matter who wins. Karl Marx against Frederick William I; Stalin against Hitler; the State against the Man; the machine against the hand; the mind against the soul; our rich friends hysterically looking under the bed for Roosevelt and our poor ones ready to exchange their freedom for a cheap automobile and a comfortable place to defecate.

We both thought that these places where myriads of people lived together in a life not seen before -- stigmatizing as Fascists all those who said some of the things were good, and damning for Communists all those who said some of the old things were bad -- were perilous places, because an ugly and unnecessary sacrifice to human stupidity was impending."

"It was a rather trying period. Many times I sat down at my typewriter and, instead of getting on with the business of producing something, anything, on it, I would worry about the dividing line that was appearing in all the things and people I knew. A very good friend with whom I was on terms of long standing intimacy was also quite wealthy and it seemed that every time I visited him he was in a bigger froth over what he called 'this damn Communistic trend.' One evening he lashed himself into a great fury and, holding an imaginary bridle in one hand and an imaginary blade of some sort in the other, he roared, 'Ride the bastards down, that's what! Ride among 'em, slashing right and left.'"

"Another equally good friend was poor and, together, we watched the progress of the Austrian civil war, a thoroughly dirty business, to my mind. But this friend was passionately in favor of the left wingers. 'I hope they kill every one of the bastards!' he said, referring to the yokels supporting the right wing.

Since then they have both become more so. The rich one helps run, as an amusement, a newspaper full of absurd propaganda about the sanctity of the Republican party; the other is a lesser priest of the New Deal. Neither one will love me for mentioning this matter, but had I listened seriously to the rich one, I should have been so revolted as to become a Communist, and listening to the poor one would have inevitably made me a Fascist. As it was, they made me want to get out of it, for both kinds of men will, sooner or later, be at each other's throats. Nor did I like the contours of the worlds they wished to construct, and I thought too well of both to take sides."

"I made an honest effort to understand their perspective worlds, which is more than most of the people who damn their viewpoints do."

Upon reading this part of the book, I found myself very closely aligned with the thoughts of the author. His observations of his friends almost 80 years ago, were very much like my observations of my own friends today. Yes, it is true. Some things never change.


Some Things Never Change

Author: From http://blog.yagelski.com/ • Dec 11th, 2010
   Category: Blog Entries.Local, Politics
If you've read some of my posts in the past, you know that I prefer to avoid discussions on topics of religion or politics. There are plenty enough other blogs which cover these topics, that I don't see a need to join the fray of controversy. However, I must disclose that this post presents one person's observations of a society that is divided on political matters. An observation that was made about people in the United States by an author almost 80 years ago. With that disclosure out of the way, here's the story.

My wife and I enjoy visiting the Eastern Caribbean, and our travels have resulted in a genuine interest in the history of the islands and their inhabitants. That is what led me to recently gift my wife with a vintage book written by Desmond Holdridge. The story is a non-fiction, first-person account of Desmond and his wife, Elizabeth Hamlin Holdridge ("Bet"), who as newlyweds made their first home on the island of Saint John in the United States Virgin Islands ("USVI").

The book is titled Escape to the Tropics, copywrite 1937; published by Harcourt, Brace and Company (New York) and printed by the Quinn & Boden Company (New Jersey). For the first seven chapters, Holdridge does a splendid job of explaining how he and Bet interacted with the people of the USVI. It's a very entertaining account of island life in the early 1930s. Then the story takes an odd twist as Holdridge travels to British Guiana in search of Paul Redfern, a pioneer aviator who is believed to have crashed his plane in the South American jungle while attempting a long-distance flight from the United States to Brazil in 1927. Overall, it's a good vintage read, but this is not intended to be a book review, so let me get to the point of my blog post.

In the first chapter, Holdridge explains why he and Bet decided to "escape to the tropics." The Depression had drastically changed their lives in the United States, and they were looking for a new start. Holdridge writes of his friends' opinions regarding the administration, the Federal Government, and politics in-general. I found his observations to be rather profound, especially when considering the current state of our society's growing political division. It made me realize that some things never change.

It's best to let Holdridge's own words demonstrate my fascination with his perspective. The following text is taken from select paragraphs of the first chapter, beginning on page 10 of the book.

"All about us and all around the earth, near the forty-fifth parallel of latitude, the two most obvious ways of managing the vast, stupid, pathetic masses of mankind were feinting for advantage as antagonism deepened to a death struggle whose outcome will be peonage for most of us, no matter who wins. Karl Marx against Frederick William I; Stalin against Hitler; the State against the Man; the machine against the hand; the mind against the soul; our rich friends hysterically looking under the bed for Roosevelt and our poor ones ready to exchange their freedom for a cheap automobile and a comfortable place to defecate.

We both thought that these places where myriads of people lived together in a life not seen before -- stigmatizing as Fascists all those who said some of the things were good, and damning for Communists all those who said some of the old things were bad -- were perilous places, because an ugly and unnecessary sacrifice to human stupidity was impending."

"It was a rather trying period. Many times I sat down at my typewriter and, instead of getting on with the business of producing something, anything, on it, I would worry about the dividing line that was appearing in all the things and people I knew. A very good friend with whom I was on terms of long standing intimacy was also quite wealthy and it seemed that every time I visited him he was in a bigger froth over what he called 'this damn Communistic trend.' One evening he lashed himself into a great fury and, holding an imaginary bridle in one hand and an imaginary blade of some sort in the other, he roared, 'Ride the bastards down, that's what! Ride among 'em, slashing right and left.'"

"Another equally good friend was poor and, together, we watched the progress of the Austrian civil war, a thoroughly dirty business, to my mind. But this friend was passionately in favor of the left wingers. 'I hope they kill every one of the bastards!' he said, referring to the yokels supporting the right wing.

Since then they have both become more so. The rich one helps run, as an amusement, a newspaper full of absurd propaganda about the sanctity of the Republican party; the other is a lesser priest of the New Deal. Neither one will love me for mentioning this matter, but had I listened seriously to the rich one, I should have been so revolted as to become a Communist, and listening to the poor one would have inevitably made me a Fascist. As it was, they made me want to get out of it, for both kinds of men will, sooner or later, be at each other's throats. Nor did I like the contours of the worlds they wished to construct, and I thought too well of both to take sides."

"I made an honest effort to understand their perspective worlds, which is more than most of the people who damn their viewpoints do."

Upon reading this part of the book, I found myself very closely aligned with the thoughts of the author. His observations of his friends almost 80 years ago, were very much like my observations of my own friends today. Yes, it is true. Some things never change.


Perceptions at a tea party

Author: From http://blog.mikemorones.com • Apr 14th, 2010
   Category: Blog Entries.Local, Photography.Local, Politics, Stafford

UPDATE: I clarified some language here as I accidentally referred to the 2nd photo when I should have been referring to picture #1. It is now correct! -Mike

I spent last Saturday covering a tea party rally in Stafford. I expected that there would be a lot of signs and flag-waving as seen at every other tea party and I was not disappointed in that regard. I wanted to try and get an overall shot that didn’t misrepresent how many or how few people showed up. The reporter and I took an informal count and estimated 200-300 people. In order to get the overall I put a 14mm on the camera and held it above my head with a monopod and came up with these two frames. While it doesn’t show the entire crowd, many of whom were off to the side, at least it didn’t make it look like 10 people showed up.

Initially I preferred the first one; the guy was giving a speech called An Angry American, getting pretty worked up and gesturing a lot with his hands. We ended up running the second one, mostly because nearly every person I showed frame #1 to thought of a nazi salute. I wonder if that is because of their own feelings about this political movement or if it really does look like that?  I was concerned that using the first picture would be considered unfair or at least editorializing if readers saw the same thing. The idea of objectivity (and that discussion is worth an entire post on its own!) is drilled into your head in the newspaper world but I wonder if I went too far in the other direction and sanitized what actually was going on there out of some kind of political correctness. Was I unnecessarily concerned about this? Am I overthinking this? Which one would you have published?



Quick pic from the General Assembly

Author: From http://blog.mikemorones.com • Jan 13th, 2010
   Category: Blog Entries.Local, Photography.Local, Politics

I’m sitting in the basement of the General Assembly building in Richmond, killing time between the opening session this afternoon and tonight’s last State of the Commonwealth speech by Governor Kaine. Below, a nice slice of life amid a morning of procedural matters.

Abigail in the House of Delegates

Delegate Bobby Orrock introduces Speaker Bill Howell to his granddaughter Abigail Orrock at the Capitol in Richmond, Va on January 13, 2010. (Mike Morones/The Free Lance-Star)