But really...does anyone trust the news today? I don't know anyone that does, but I do know people that respect pictures in the news.
I understand what you are saying. My entire point is that if we tolerate altering a photograph being used for news, then we are making it into what you are claiming. Ease makes the act tempting. Not out of malicious intent, but purely out of trying to tell a better story, or look like a better photographer, or a million other reasons. So, I think the LA times did the right thing in being intolerant of this behavior. Simple as that in my eyes.
Listen...Keep your "phah" to yourself. Have you ever worked with newsprint? Run a press? Do you know anything about it? You arguement is baseless.
I will explain it to you simply. Any photo EVER captured must be altered so it can be printed. Photography, scanning, and digital photography work on the concept of transmissive light. The color gamut defined in this space is relatively large, and encompasses visible light.
Any photo EVER printed must be processed into a new colorspace. The process is called "color separation" and involves some significant principles that I will not get into here, but suffice to say that you need to convert the color space from one that defines transmissive color to one that defines reflective color.
This process degrades the image significently, and the image no longer looks the same as it did in the original photograph. Color professionals work very hard to make the digital, color separated image look as close to the original as they can. They use colorimeters or densitometers to measure the photo and then do what they can to bring the tones back. Then they use their skill to bring the image back to the level of focus in the original capture.
I know that everyone and their mother has a digital camera or scanner and some cheapie retouching program that they use on their fuzzy monitor to make images they can print on their $79 inkjet printer. This doesn't make those people qualified to know what really happens to prepare photos for press.
And this is entirely different from changing the physical content of a photo.
You are missing my point. Photography as a news medium is as close to objective as you can get. Pictures of things that actually happened mean something. Is it possible to frame a picture so that it changes people's perceptions? Yes, it is. That's like publishing a quote out of context and is irresponsible news reporting.
Digitally altering a photo so that it becomes a picture of something that never happened is unacceptible when that picture is going to be used as news. it isn't news, because you are showing a picture of something that never happened in history. It is very simple. When you show a picture, people believe what they are seeing happened as they see it. If you take that away, then you have taken away the integrity of photography as a medium for reporting.
Uh...what I said was "If we stay within the borders of "Enhance the photo so it prints well, but don't alter it's content", then we have preserved the integrity of a newsworthy piece."
Not "If we change how it looks, but not what it means, we'll be okay."
I am not being speculative. I am directly stating that producing a digital image as news that is a picture of nothing that ever took place on this planet directly undermined the integrity of photography as a medium to report news. It becomes editorializing. plain and simple
I somewhat misread your post, and therefore the beginning of my rant was unwarranted. I am a big boy, and I apologize for that.
What I need to ask, then, is if you didn't mean "give the U.S. a kick in the nuts", what did you mean? If you don't in some fashion want Iraq to win the war, what do you want?
Also, if you truly didn't mean it, I think it would be important to "print a retraction"
Now...on to the arguement, and in this I will try and be completely civil. I would love to change your mind, but all I can do here is present facts.
Firstly, with your list of countries, could you please cite some historical referrence to what you are referring. I would like to compare and contrast the situations you are suggesting as similar.
Regarding lower wages and tarriffs. It is foolish to believe that there is not a great disparity between the U.S. and Europe. France and Germany in particular are in a great state of economic crisis. I am not saying that some european products aren't better for less money or that they are not worth purchasing. I am saying that the gov'ts use of tarriffs is a way to balance US industry vs. international industry. Does this go against capitalism? Interesting arguement, and I would only say in response that competition within the United States is different from competition from outside. In the end, we need to take care of ourselves because nobody else is looking out for us.
Regarding the first gulf war, I would refer you here to review the chronology of the war.
To sum it up, Saddam whined about oil saying "They took more than their fair share, boo-hoo" , we said "sheesh, can't you settle it?", he said "Sure" and invaded, we froze BOTH Iraq and Kuwait's assets, the UN said "stop", Saddam said "F.U., Kuwait is mine", The UN said "uh-uh", and then said, "Go Get-em U.S.", at which point we did, and ALL we did was free Kuwait because that is ALL we were ASKED to do.
I do not think strength is the only way to solve something. I think that when a country COMPLETELY IGNORES U.N directives for 12 years, something needs to be done. "Pretty Please" didn't seem to be working, and at that point there is no other choice. Saddam refused to comply for, and I will say it again, 12 years. Give me a suggestion that would have worked. Something that, all of a sudden after 12 years of non-compliance, would have been executed simply, quickly, and in the manner intended, that would have had any result whatsoever.
Basic response before I go on and hold up my side of the arguement.
You wish Iraq to kick the U.S. in the nuts.
You say 9/11 was a kick in the nuts.
Therefore you wish americans to die.
You are THE enemy, and until that stance changes Unites states citizens will view all people like you as such.
The weenies in France defacing WWII grave sites are not worth my toilet paper refuse, and they suck for defacing the memory of blood that bought them freedon, but that doesn't make them an enemy it makes them stupid. What makes them an enemy is hoping the U.S. loses the war, and therefore that many americans die.
The difference between people like you and people like me is that you are sitting in you chair wishing death upon the citizens of a nation. I wish no such thing and feel the same remorse for any honorable Iraqi soldier killed in this war. The only people I have no remorse for are Saddam and his ilk, and soldiers that do things like wave a white flag and then when you are close drop the flag and start shooting.
Or soldiers that round up a bunch of women and kids, put them in a bus and tell them "I am going to shoot your husbands and fathers if you don't go and run that American checkpoint". When they try and run the checkpoint and get killed, then the soldiers blame the U.S.
Or soldiers that set up an explosion in a marketplace to kill many of their own people. Then, they take rocket debris from a rocket that could not have possibly been the cause of the explosion, scatter it around and blame the U.S. for killing the people.
Or soldiers that make their military camps in hospitals, running around with women and babies in front of them so that they will get shot first, rather than protecting the same women and children, which should be their mission. Not that it matters, because if they were saved they would just be put on a bus to run a checkpoint and get shot.
You earn enmity with this. I generally have no enmity towards anyone, ever. Think about it.
What if the photographer thought he saw little green men and decided to add them in using photoshop?
Seriously...if you can't get the concept of why a photo needs to have the integrity of being something that was actually captured and actually existed as a piece of history, I can't help you. Altering content creates a facsimile of reality, but that facsimile is no longer news. It is editorializing news.
Your last statement really has no basis in this industry. There are things that need to be done to a photo to make it printable. There are things that do not need to be done.
Enhancing a photo for print and altering a photo are two different animals. Raw output from a CCD would not even print because it is not in a printable colorspace. Corrections for color fidelity on newsprint are necessary. Rearranging a scene is not.
If we stay within the borders of "Enhance the photo so it prints well, but don't alter it's content", then we have preserved the integrity of a newsworthy piece.
Sometimes people on this site are unbelieveble. Nobody is complaining about making a picture printable. This is my industry, and there are some corrections that are acceptable. Those are corrections that you wopuld refer to as enhancements. Alterations are another ballgame.
If you really think I meant taking glare off of sunglasses, you should be posting elsewhere.
Yes, this is where I get my information regarding Christie. I still think she's hot, though.
The real point that is great here is the bit about the trivial skill. Cracking a computer system is tough, but if you walk by your bosses computer and someone's performance eval is on the screen for you to read, it's much more likely that you will than if you had to break in to do it.
The thing is this. Once you show a different picture as news than the one that actually happened, you are representing something that never happened as news. Yes, the new image is a facsimile of what happened, and probably a darn good interpretation that conveys the message as well as the original, if not better than it. But it never existed.
You are nit-picking wording. The photographer altered the content.
Nobody recognizes adding a sharpening filter as "alteration". It is enhancement. Getting rid of CCD artifacts does not change the content of the photo.
Enhancing the lighting/brightness/sharpness of a photo is entirely necessary in the print world. The is especially true in newsprint. You could not print a photo without some enhancement, because the colorspace that digital imaging devices use is not a printable colorspace..
I am pretty well aware of how it works, and you are quite right that this has always been a problem.
It should be recognized that the adoption of digital image capture has substantially changed the risks of modification because of the ease with which it can be done. Not just with digital cameras, but all through the process of digital imaging. It is significantly easier to manipulate images now, and it is done with regularity, and as another poster suggested, it was probably the case here that the photographer just didn't stop and think. The pictures are roughly equivalent, but the altered one does invoke a bit more emotion because of the alterations. This changes the message that the photo should have conveyed.
The one thing that you always have when you start with film is a negative/positive hardcopy. Can you scan a hardcopy, alter it and make a new hardcopy? Yes, but at least the number of steps, the time, and the expense you need to go through are a deterrant , especially when it come to meeting deadlines and to having left a trail.
I still work in pre-press and have for 10 years. I agree that these things are frighteningly easy.
One of the big problems with this is serious questions will be raised about the viability of digital photography as a news medium. Film might not be on its last legs yet, but it is getting close. We have 4 busy studios at my shop and barely use a few thousand dollars worth of film a year.
Financially speaking, it is necessary to use digital photography and more to the point a digital imaging workflow to remain competetive. Perhaps not for the LA Times today, but in general in the industry. People have to be able to trust that they are buying when they buy news is the truth. This type of breach of integrity could ruin that and ultimately lead to higher production costs for parers (higher prices for us) and even bring into question the reliability of internet new sources.
If this were an artistic piece for a magazine, no problem. Hair on Christie Brinkley's upper lip, no problem.
A war photo that is altered so the depiction is inaccurate is unacceptable on any scale. There is not concrete place you can draw a line and say "this much alteration is okay, but this much changes the story".
News commentary can be editorialized by any anchor. Pictures and video have alway been held in higher standing for thier direct integrity. This will rais equestions.
A few points. First with respect to foreign aid per capita. As I said, that 11.4 billion is only a portion of what the U.S. gov't actually gives in aid. There are specific types of aid that the organization tracking this actually counts, and other types that it doesn't.
What is also noted by that organization is that the U.S. population gives 3x that amount in foreign charities. No other country comes remotely close. Forgive me if that sounds snobbish, it is just meant as a presentation of fact.
With regard to the U.N., they have utterly failed in this role, and specifically because of the Iraqi conflict. Long before the war I was against making any military strikes against another country, and adamantly so without U.N. backing. Unfortunately the Security Council failed in enforcing it's own will. Without diving off to find the link again, if you would just read the security council's 1441 resolution you will see what I mean. There can be no doubt that this resolution, which cites all of the previous resolutions regarding Iraq and the failure of Iraq to comply, called for immediate and full cooperation. The inspectors reported on numerous occasions that this was not the case. Did they say that they thought more inspections would be a good thing? Hell yes, and I'm somewhat certain that anyone in the position to keep their job by being the sole authority on whether or not it should continue would say the same thing.
What the U.N. Security council has done is rendered itself utterly powerless and meaningless with it's inability and lack of will to prosecute a country that was in direct contravention of the U.N. will.
Bush and his administration look foolish and they have made some enormous political blunders, but in the end I do think they are doing what needs to be done.
About the money, it is not the international fund's money I am talking about. it is the money we spend directly in every country we have been involved in a conflict with to help that country rebuild, dating back to the strikes on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
About freedom for the people of Iraq: Are you a student of history? Name me any country that has freed itself from a barbaric dictator that regularly killed any citizen that might have hinted at being against that dictator. It would never happen! Saddam's control is too absolute, and his people are too afraid. They aren't pissed off, they don't want to die for sneezing the wrong way! I agree that we will leave the situation with egg on our face, but it wouldn't be the first time that someone did the right thing and wasn't recognized for it.
On getting you wrong, you really should go back and read your first post. There is a reason you are my only listed foe. That was extraordinarily anti american and not justified in my view.
Is the U.S. a bully? Hmm...interesting discussion. What I would point out is that the US is asked to head virtually every military operation worked through the UN or NATO. Maybe this makes us seem worse than we are because we make the front page...AND take most of the risks...AND never ask for anything in return.
As far as Tarrifs go...it's interesting that you mention this. I recently discussed thsi with someone else. For good or for bad, the tarrifs exist largely because of the enormous trade defecit that the US carries. We buy soo much more than poeple are buying from us, and it is necessary to balance that to keep our economy striving. It allows US companies to stay competetive even when they have to pay higher US salaries. Is it fair? I don't know...probably not, but fair isn't the point. The point is that you are getting more of our money than we are of yours and the tarrifs create at least somewhat of a better balance.
In the case of China or Korea, the circumsyances surrounding our relatins with those countries demand a different tact. I think you will see that once this war is over.
And I will leave you with the same sentiment I did last. time. Name me ONE i
ACLU POLICY "The ACLU agrees with the Supreme Court's long-standing interpretation of the Second Amendment [as set forth in the 1939 case, U.S. v. Miller] that the individual's right to bear arms applies only to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia. Except for lawful police and military purposes, the possession of weapons by individuals is not constitutionally protected. Therefore, there is no constitutional impediment to the regulation of firearms." --Policy #47
What this says is "Go ahead and pass gun control laws. We don't think you are protected, and will not stand up for you."
Now, directly from the constitution:
Amendment II A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Arms referrs to firearms in this case. Not nukes. I understand the segway, but a reasonable person could easily conclude that when the document was written there were no nukes, bazookas, or submachine guns. You can see the text "the people" as referring to individual people. Here is where I say the ACLU goes wrong. If the wording were "The People", then I would agree that the second ammendment would not protect the rights of citizens to bear firearms. It is not worded that way. Perhaps it seems technical, but I believe it is consistent with the format of other government documents.
In any case, I was merely making the point that the ACLU and the NRA do not share the same views as was posted by someone else. I have no real problem with the ACLU here. I don't agree, but they have a right to their interpretation. You are right in correcting my wording.
The ACLU is interpreting the 2nd ammendment as a reason to curtail the right of individual citizens to own firearms. The NRA's stance is entirely opposite, and so the expenditure of resources on either side to further their adgenda is to be expected.
While I think that the ACLU is interpreting the second ammendment poorly, this is actually the best arguement I have heard in regard to gun control.
I think the difference between their interpretation and the intended one is in the wording "the people". If the second ammendment was intended to allow only the government to have guns it should read "The People".
There is no question that the Bush administration has made some serious political blunders in terms of world politics. I agree with you there, and my personal sense of right and wrong tells me that attacking is bad. period.
These are issues we will have to deal with. Regardless of my own misgivings, I do recognize that Saddam needs to be removed and that this is the only way it is going to happen.
What I think is true, and that most protestors fail to realize, is that IF the UN security council had done it's job and supported it's own resolution, then either we would be removing Saddam with world support making the world a safer place OR he would have stepped down knowing that he was going to be removed. I think the former scenario much more likely, and that the world would indeed be in that safe place if the UN body took the "brook no nonsense" stance that it needs to take. I think they were making the situation worse for everyone with their lack of resolve.
Perhaps that is where we disagree most strongly. I think that a UN backed war would have certainly been in the best interest of the world as a whole. A US coalition war is not, but perhaps it is best for the U.S., Britain, Australia, and whomever else is involved.
Slashdot Mirror
But really...does anyone trust the news today? I don't know anyone that does, but I do know people that respect pictures in the news.
I understand what you are saying. My entire point is that if we tolerate altering a photograph being used for news, then we are making it into what you are claiming. Ease makes the act tempting. Not out of malicious intent, but purely out of trying to tell a better story, or look like a better photographer, or a million other reasons. So, I think the LA times did the right thing in being intolerant of this behavior. Simple as that in my eyes.
Listen...Keep your "phah" to yourself. Have you ever worked with newsprint? Run a press? Do you know anything about it? You arguement is baseless.
I will explain it to you simply. Any photo EVER captured must be altered so it can be printed. Photography, scanning, and digital photography work on the concept of transmissive light. The color gamut defined in this space is relatively large, and encompasses visible light.
Any photo EVER printed must be processed into a new colorspace. The process is called "color separation" and involves some significant principles that I will not get into here, but suffice to say that you need to convert the color space from one that defines transmissive color to one that defines reflective color.
This process degrades the image significently, and the image no longer looks the same as it did in the original photograph. Color professionals work very hard to make the digital, color separated image look as close to the original as they can. They use colorimeters or densitometers to measure the photo and then do what they can to bring the tones back. Then they use their skill to bring the image back to the level of focus in the original capture.
I know that everyone and their mother has a digital camera or scanner and some cheapie retouching program that they use on their fuzzy monitor to make images they can print on their $79 inkjet printer. This doesn't make those people qualified to know what really happens to prepare photos for press.
And this is entirely different from changing the physical content of a photo.
You are missing my point. Photography as a news medium is as close to objective as you can get. Pictures of things that actually happened mean something. Is it possible to frame a picture so that it changes people's perceptions? Yes, it is. That's like publishing a quote out of context and is irresponsible news reporting.
Digitally altering a photo so that it becomes a picture of something that never happened is unacceptible when that picture is going to be used as news. it isn't news, because you are showing a picture of something that never happened in history. It is very simple. When you show a picture, people believe what they are seeing happened as they see it. If you take that away, then you have taken away the integrity of photography as a medium for reporting.
Uh...what I said was "If we stay within the borders of "Enhance the photo so it prints well, but don't alter it's content", then we have preserved the integrity of a newsworthy piece."
Not "If we change how it looks, but not what it means, we'll be okay."
I am not being speculative. I am directly stating that producing a digital image as news that is a picture of nothing that ever took place on this planet directly undermined the integrity of photography as a medium to report news. It becomes editorializing. plain and simple
I somewhat misread your post, and therefore the beginning of my rant was unwarranted. I am a big boy, and I apologize for that.
What I need to ask, then, is if you didn't mean "give the U.S. a kick in the nuts", what did you mean? If you don't in some fashion want Iraq to win the war, what do you want?
Also, if you truly didn't mean it, I think it would be important to "print a retraction"
Now...on to the arguement, and in this I will try and be completely civil. I would love to change your mind, but all I can do here is present facts.
Firstly, with your list of countries, could you please cite some historical referrence to what you are referring. I would like to compare and contrast the situations you are suggesting as similar.
Regarding lower wages and tarriffs. It is foolish to believe that there is not a great disparity between the U.S. and Europe. France and Germany in particular are in a great state of economic crisis. I am not saying that some european products aren't better for less money or that they are not worth purchasing. I am saying that the gov'ts use of tarriffs is a way to balance US industry vs. international industry. Does this go against capitalism? Interesting arguement, and I would only say in response that competition within the United States is different from competition from outside. In the end, we need to take care of ourselves because nobody else is looking out for us.
Regarding the first gulf war, I would refer you here to review the chronology of the war.
To sum it up, Saddam whined about oil saying "They took more than their fair share, boo-hoo" , we said "sheesh, can't you settle it?", he said "Sure" and invaded, we froze BOTH Iraq and Kuwait's assets, the UN said "stop", Saddam said "F.U., Kuwait is mine", The UN said "uh-uh", and then said, "Go Get-em U.S.", at which point we did, and ALL we did was free Kuwait because that is ALL we were ASKED to do.
I do not think strength is the only way to solve something. I think that when a country COMPLETELY IGNORES U.N directives for 12 years, something needs to be done. "Pretty Please" didn't seem to be working, and at that point there is no other choice. Saddam refused to comply for, and I will say it again, 12 years. Give me a suggestion that would have worked. Something that, all of a sudden after 12 years of non-compliance, would have been executed simply, quickly, and in the manner intended, that would have had any result whatsoever.
You can't, because there is none.
Basic response before I go on and hold up my side of the arguement.
You wish Iraq to kick the U.S. in the nuts.
You say 9/11 was a kick in the nuts.
Therefore you wish americans to die.
You are THE enemy, and until that stance changes Unites states citizens will view all people like you as such.
The weenies in France defacing WWII grave sites are not worth my toilet paper refuse, and they suck for defacing the memory of blood that bought them freedon, but that doesn't make them an enemy it makes them stupid. What makes them an enemy is hoping the U.S. loses the war, and therefore that many americans die.
The difference between people like you and people like me is that you are sitting in you chair wishing death upon the citizens of a nation. I wish no such thing and feel the same remorse for any honorable Iraqi soldier killed in this war. The only people I have no remorse for are Saddam and his ilk, and soldiers that do things like wave a white flag and then when you are close drop the flag and start shooting.
Or soldiers that round up a bunch of women and kids, put them in a bus and tell them "I am going to shoot your husbands and fathers if you don't go and run that American checkpoint". When they try and run the checkpoint and get killed, then the soldiers blame the U.S.
Or soldiers that set up an explosion in a marketplace to kill many of their own people. Then, they take rocket debris from a rocket that could not have possibly been the cause of the explosion, scatter it around and blame the U.S. for killing the people.
Or soldiers that make their military camps in hospitals, running around with women and babies in front of them so that they will get shot first, rather than protecting the same women and children, which should be their mission. Not that it matters, because if they were saved they would just be put on a bus to run a checkpoint and get shot.
You earn enmity with this. I generally have no enmity towards anyone, ever. Think about it.
Absolutely my point. This is the difference between enhancing an image for printability and altering it for impact. Thanks!
What if the photographer thought he saw little green men and decided to add them in using photoshop?
Seriously...if you can't get the concept of why a photo needs to have the integrity of being something that was actually captured and actually existed as a piece of history, I can't help you. Altering content creates a facsimile of reality, but that facsimile is no longer news. It is editorializing news.
Your last statement really has no basis in this industry. There are things that need to be done to a photo to make it printable. There are things that do not need to be done.
Enhancing a photo for print and altering a photo are two different animals. Raw output from a CCD would not even print because it is not in a printable colorspace. Corrections for color fidelity on newsprint are necessary. Rearranging a scene is not.
If we stay within the borders of "Enhance the photo so it prints well, but don't alter it's content", then we have preserved the integrity of a newsworthy piece.
See my OTHER post about nit-picking words.
Sometimes people on this site are unbelieveble. Nobody is complaining about making a picture printable. This is my industry, and there are some corrections that are acceptable. Those are corrections that you wopuld refer to as enhancements. Alterations are another ballgame.
If you really think I meant taking glare off of sunglasses, you should be posting elsewhere.
Yes, this is where I get my information regarding Christie. I still think she's hot, though.
The real point that is great here is the bit about the trivial skill. Cracking a computer system is tough, but if you walk by your bosses computer and someone's performance eval is on the screen for you to read, it's much more likely that you will than if you had to break in to do it.
The thing is this. Once you show a different picture as news than the one that actually happened, you are representing something that never happened as news. Yes, the new image is a facsimile of what happened, and probably a darn good interpretation that conveys the message as well as the original, if not better than it. But it never existed.
You are nit-picking wording. The photographer altered the content.
Nobody recognizes adding a sharpening filter as "alteration". It is enhancement. Getting rid of CCD artifacts does not change the content of the photo.
Enhancing the lighting/brightness/sharpness of a photo is entirely necessary in the print world. The is especially true in newsprint. You could not print a photo without some enhancement, because the colorspace that digital imaging devices use is not a printable colorspace..
I am pretty well aware of how it works, and you are quite right that this has always been a problem.
It should be recognized that the adoption of digital image capture has substantially changed the risks of modification because of the ease with which it can be done. Not just with digital cameras, but all through the process of digital imaging. It is significantly easier to manipulate images now, and it is done with regularity, and as another poster suggested, it was probably the case here that the photographer just didn't stop and think. The pictures are roughly equivalent, but the altered one does invoke a bit more emotion because of the alterations. This changes the message that the photo should have conveyed.
The one thing that you always have when you start with film is a negative/positive hardcopy. Can you scan a hardcopy, alter it and make a new hardcopy? Yes, but at least the number of steps, the time, and the expense you need to go through are a deterrant , especially when it come to meeting deadlines and to having left a trail.
Yes, yes...but people know what they are getting when they read the onion.
The fact that it often has better points than CNN is just a side bonus.
I still work in pre-press and have for 10 years. I agree that these things are frighteningly easy.
:)
One of the big problems with this is serious questions will be raised about the viability of digital photography as a news medium. Film might not be on its last legs yet, but it is getting close. We have 4 busy studios at my shop and barely use a few thousand dollars worth of film a year.
Financially speaking, it is necessary to use digital photography and more to the point a digital imaging workflow to remain competetive. Perhaps not for the LA Times today, but in general in the industry. People have to be able to trust that they are buying when they buy news is the truth. This type of breach of integrity could ruin that and ultimately lead to higher production costs for parers (higher prices for us) and even bring into question the reliability of internet new sources.
Not that they are all that reliable now
I should have said a "newsworthy photo" and not a war photo.
If this were an artistic piece for a magazine, no problem. Hair on Christie Brinkley's upper lip, no problem.
A war photo that is altered so the depiction is inaccurate is unacceptable on any scale. There is not concrete place you can draw a line and say "this much alteration is okay, but this much changes the story".
News commentary can be editorialized by any anchor. Pictures and video have alway been held in higher standing for thier direct integrity. This will rais equestions.
A few points. First with respect to foreign aid per capita. As I said, that 11.4 billion is only a portion of what the U.S. gov't actually gives in aid. There are specific types of aid that the organization tracking this actually counts, and other types that it doesn't.
What is also noted by that organization is that the U.S. population gives 3x that amount in foreign charities. No other country comes remotely close. Forgive me if that sounds snobbish, it is just meant as a presentation of fact.
With regard to the U.N., they have utterly failed in this role, and specifically because of the Iraqi conflict. Long before the war I was against making any military strikes against another country, and adamantly so without U.N. backing. Unfortunately the Security Council failed in enforcing it's own will. Without diving off to find the link again, if you would just read the security council's 1441 resolution you will see what I mean. There can be no doubt that this resolution, which cites all of the previous resolutions regarding Iraq and the failure of Iraq to comply, called for immediate and full cooperation. The inspectors reported on numerous occasions that this was not the case. Did they say that they thought more inspections would be a good thing? Hell yes, and I'm somewhat certain that anyone in the position to keep their job by being the sole authority on whether or not it should continue would say the same thing.
What the U.N. Security council has done is rendered itself utterly powerless and meaningless with it's inability and lack of will to prosecute a country that was in direct contravention of the U.N. will.
Bush and his administration look foolish and they have made some enormous political blunders, but in the end I do think they are doing what needs to be done.
About the money, it is not the international fund's money I am talking about. it is the money we spend directly in every country we have been involved in a conflict with to help that country rebuild, dating back to the strikes on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
About freedom for the people of Iraq: Are you a student of history? Name me any country that has freed itself from a barbaric dictator that regularly killed any citizen that might have hinted at being against that dictator. It would never happen! Saddam's control is too absolute, and his people are too afraid. They aren't pissed off, they don't want to die for sneezing the wrong way! I agree that we will leave the situation with egg on our face, but it wouldn't be the first time that someone did the right thing and wasn't recognized for it.
On getting you wrong, you really should go back and read your first post. There is a reason you are my only listed foe. That was extraordinarily anti american and not justified in my view.
Is the U.S. a bully? Hmm...interesting discussion. What I would point out is that the US is asked to head virtually every military operation worked through the UN or NATO. Maybe this makes us seem worse than we are because we make the front page...AND take most of the risks...AND never ask for anything in return.
As far as Tarrifs go...it's interesting that you mention this. I recently discussed thsi with someone else. For good or for bad, the tarrifs exist largely because of the enormous trade defecit that the US carries. We buy soo much more than poeple are buying from us, and it is necessary to balance that to keep our economy striving. It allows US companies to stay competetive even when they have to pay higher US salaries. Is it fair? I don't know...probably not, but fair isn't the point. The point is that you are getting more of our money than we are of yours and the tarrifs create at least somewhat of a better balance.
In the case of China or Korea, the circumsyances surrounding our relatins with those countries demand a different tact. I think you will see that once this war is over.
And I will leave you with the same sentiment I did last. time. Name me ONE i
Now THIS is why we need the right to bear arms!!
I have _got_ to get me one of these!
Oi. Directly from the ACLU websire
ACLU POLICY
"The ACLU agrees with the Supreme Court's long-standing interpretation of the Second Amendment [as set forth in the 1939 case, U.S. v. Miller] that the individual's right to bear arms applies only to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia. Except for lawful police and military purposes, the possession of weapons by individuals is not constitutionally protected. Therefore, there is no constitutional impediment to the regulation of firearms." --Policy #47
What this says is "Go ahead and pass gun control laws. We don't think you are protected, and will not stand up for you."
Now, directly from the constitution:
Amendment II
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the
right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Arms referrs to firearms in this case. Not nukes. I understand the segway, but a reasonable person could easily conclude that when the document was written there were no nukes, bazookas, or submachine guns. You can see the text "the people" as referring to individual people. Here is where I say the ACLU goes wrong. If the wording were "The People", then I would agree that the second ammendment would not protect the rights of citizens to bear firearms. It is not worded that way. Perhaps it seems technical, but I believe it is consistent with the format of other government documents.
In any case, I was merely making the point that the ACLU and the NRA do not share the same views as was posted by someone else. I have no real problem with the ACLU here. I don't agree, but they have a right to their interpretation. You are right in correcting my wording.
The ACLU is interpreting the 2nd ammendment as a reason to curtail the right of individual citizens to own firearms. The NRA's stance is entirely opposite, and so the expenditure of resources on either side to further their adgenda is to be expected.
While I think that the ACLU is interpreting the second ammendment poorly, this is actually the best arguement I have heard in regard to gun control.
I think the difference between their interpretation and the intended one is in the wording "the people". If the second ammendment was intended to allow only the government to have guns it should read "The People".
There is no question that the Bush administration has made some serious political blunders in terms of world politics. I agree with you there, and my personal sense of right and wrong tells me that attacking is bad. period.
These are issues we will have to deal with. Regardless of my own misgivings, I do recognize that Saddam needs to be removed and that this is the only way it is going to happen.
What I think is true, and that most protestors fail to realize, is that IF the UN security council had done it's job and supported it's own resolution, then either we would be removing Saddam with world support making the world a safer place OR he would have stepped down knowing that he was going to be removed. I think the former scenario much more likely, and that the world would indeed be in that safe place if the UN body took the "brook no nonsense" stance that it needs to take. I think they were making the situation worse for everyone with their lack of resolve.
Perhaps that is where we disagree most strongly. I think that a UN backed war would have certainly been in the best interest of the world as a whole. A US coalition war is not, but perhaps it is best for the U.S., Britain, Australia, and whomever else is involved.