Exactly how stupid is this? Gay rights leaders and supporters are invited to the White House for a party and some take the time to flip off Ronald Reagan’s portrait, take a picture of the act, and then release the picture to third parties. It is now the rage on the Internet from Drudge to Yahoo to dozens of conservative sites — giving opponents of both Obama and gay rights the perfect photo foil to use against them. It is a disgraceful and contemptible display that is being used to paint an entire movement in the worst possible light. (UPDATE: The White House has rebuked the activists for their actions.)
The disrespectful act occurred at the White House’s first-ever gay pride reception. Philadelphia Gay News publisher Mark Segal (center) is shown opting for a simple (and non-problematic) thumbs up. According to the report below, the man on the left is Matthew “Matty” Hart, the national director of public engagement at Solutions for Progress, and the woman on the right is photographer Zoe Strauss.
Even without releasing the photos to third parties, it is remarkably uncivil and contemptible to flip the bird inside of the White House. No matter what one’s political affiliation or feelings toward Reagan or Bush, this is a revered place and your are a guest in this house. Worse yet, Obama and the gay rights movement are likely to be painted with this obnoxious conduct.
Source: Blaze
BettyKath,
“shoulder to elbow length….”
You never seen a suit sewn for a goy by a jewish tailor. Happened to me in LA, ushere by a buddy, Gene, at work.
Gene played the bright eager young man for years, unril I told him it was time to switch over to sober advisor style. He did.
BTW, BettyKath, were you never suspicious of Reagan’s
enormous shoulders and chest with the little head peeking up? You know the kind you see in cartoons.
Note to all.
Praise given to certain personality types can lead to their fastening in repetitive behaviour patterns. So please observe this caution when giving praise here.
Do not feed them praise, it is addictive, my shrink says that.
OK, I say, but just a little “roach” please.
David Blauw,
————
Idealist707
Money never cares what’s said. Only as long as more is made.
Is that your quote, or do you have an attribution for it. I would like to put it in my messaging file.
————
It’s mine. I slways attribute otherwise, even if vaguely.
I specialize in these things. Since have no knowledge, I cook up these things instead.
And tell me please, what is a messaging file? Trying to learn internet at 75.
Malisha, I was a photographer of a sort at one time and did a lot of computer graphics as a hobby. The problem with some older phone cameras is that they did funny distortions if you didn’t hold them still (There was a photographer that exploited that as an artistic method and did some interesting work but I lost that folder of images when my old computer died unexpectedly so I don’t have his name anymore} and older phones and cameras don’t have great resolution.
In general, if the photo is in focus and you enlarge it the area of primary focus it should break down into a field of distinct pixels uniformly at the same level of enlargement, if there is one area that breaks down at a different rate then there’s something ‘odd’ going on. It may have been a flaw or obstruction on the lens itself but it could well be a deliberate manipulation.
Also, a way to add a detail is to use layers over the original image and start with image details to add that have some degree of transparency where the image is to merge with the existing image, it’s easier to smooth and blend the new image in a then merged set of layers. You can then add more layers (or a layer) and selectively use less transparency to end up with a solid detail. If you do it carefully with a paint program you can end up with some pretty good work. If you do it poorly you can end up with an underlying image ghost. That’s why I wanted a look at the pic on the left because the middle finger seemed to have some uncharismatic colors that were the same as the picture frame under them.
But here’s the thing, poor quality digital cameras can do some funkey stuff. They looked ‘shopped to me. Maybe yes, maybe no.
It was something I did because it’s something I do with most pictures that look ‘funny’ to me. Just something to do.
I am one of those folks though that don’t care if they did give Reagan the bird. I’m of a mindset that burning bibles, korans, flags and politicians in effigy is just political speech. GIRD (later to be AIDS) could have been identified earlier and after it was identified, contained to a great extent, if it hadn’t been for Reagan and the American Red Cross. Regan deserves being flipped off for soooooooo many reasons. The book “And The Band Played On” by Randy Shilts is a masterful job of investigative journalism, a compelling medical mystery, and an infuriating look ate the politics of AIDS from the top down. It’s a heartbreaking book. If the photos aren’t shopped, I’m not going to spend a moment condemning the lack of civility. Regan’s official portrait doesn’t seem to adequately capture all the blood on his hands, but official portraits never do.
The bird is the word. This article is a backhanded way of throwing rocks at President Obama. A week ago or so he and Eric Holder were criticised for Holder giving a speech to black ministers. This week it is Gay, Gay, Gay and Gays flip Reagun the bird. We dont know what the members of Blackwater do when invited by Cheney to roam around the Oval Office. When Romney brings in the Mormons they will be drinking Five Wives Vodka. When his VP brings in the K Street money givers they will be flipping off photos of Roosevelt and Truman. The hookers from C street and the gay friends of Romney from C street will be flipping off Biden’s photo. When they invite the Log Cabin Republicans in to the Romney White House they will be flipping off photos of Bush for discriminating against gays in the military.
Bill W.,
Yes it is and no one “side” in politics is any less guilty of using propaganda (and those examples you cited are just that) against the other “sides” than the anyone else. The toolbox for helping your cause and harming “the others” cause for the “Army of the People” is the same toolbox as used by the “Army of the Oligarchs” (or whatever group or person a given army represents). Over time, tactics in propaganda change very slowly absent the intervention of new technologies for spreading it simply because human nature changes slowly. In most substantive ways, the manner in which you persuade someone today is not that different than you would have persuaded them 100 years ago. Concurrently, the ways any one group advances their causes while hindering the causes of other groups are largely tactically the same because the tactics in question work.
Gene H.
That’s a double-edged sword, my friend.
Bill W.,
Times change. The rate of change in human psychology moves at a much slower rate.
__________
czech80,
There is a difference between the definite article “the” and the indefinite article “an”.
However, I invite you to take a closer look at the center picture and consider the anatomy of the human arm. To my eye, his forearm and upper arm are oddly short (and the upper arm seems to missing, but in that low resolution it is hard to tell). Either the man has a malformed arm, it was Photoshopped or it is a very peculiar optical illusion.
In any case, if true, it’s a comedy of manners. If false, it’s a comedy of errors. In the end, the net importance of the event amounts to nothing more substantial than some negative PR for a community that doesn’t deserve it even if the photos are truthful depictions of these people’s actions. Why? Because three people is not a statistically valid sample space by which to judge an entire community of the size of the LGBT community.
A tempest in a teapot.
And from a Glenn Beck website.
Who’d have thunk it?
My god. Photoshop is the argument?
Must’ve been mind control they used to get the people to post on about this on their FB pages; the White House to address the situation; and people to admit it.
Excuse me while I go debunk 9/11 and the moon landing using Corel WordPerfect, Netscape Navigator, and MiniTab.
It’s been 38 years since I started the political gauntlet, working my way from liberal to radical to socialist, then communist and finally settling with conservatism. Back then, the main weapons in the arsenal of the “Army of the People” were deceit, blame-reversal (or, as I prefer to call it, “The Accusatory Lateral”), fact-bending, conspiracy theorism, accustions and uncalled for abusive behavior. How interesting that a culture of “intellectual idealists” , after 38 years, still follows the same old game plan. Makes one wonder…doesn’t it?
has little jimmy o’keefe been takin pictures again?
Lottakatz, wow, that’s some technology stuff. Are you a photographer?
Have you looked at the two “bloody head pictures” of George Zimmerman?
Our parents used to tell us: “Never believe anything you hear and only half of what you see.”
Several years ago a professor from U. C. Berkeley said to me that his parents told him that, too, but “now with Photoshop, you can’t believe anything you see, either.”
Clearly a lack of imagination on the part of today’s erstwhile iconoclasts. Back in my youth, we would turn around, bend over, drop our drawers, and “moon” the object of our derision with our bare asses. I missed my chance with Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon, and Reagan wouldn’t have remembered what I did two minutes after I did it; but If given the opportunity, I wold love to moon President Obama — any time, anywhere — proudly proclaiming: “This is for Private Bradley Manning!”
For sheer lèse-majesté, however, no one can beat that Iraqi reporter who took off his shoes and threw them at President George “Deputy Dubya” Bush for wantonly devastating the reporter’s country. Probably not a good idea to throw objects in the White House, but extending one’s arms like airplane wings while circling around making loud droning noises might work. “Buzzzzzzz … Buzzzzzzz …You’ll never see it coming! You’ll never see it coming!” Something like that.
The miscreant malefactors who run our corporate government never hesitate to pose for propaganda photo ops before the symbols of the nation that they have robbed and defiled. So if some ordinary citizens wish to utilize those same symbols to make a point of their own, then I have no problem with that whatsoever. I’d just like to see a little more creativity in the means of expression.
You don’t even need to blow them up to see Photoshop. Check the right shoulder to elbow length of the person in the middle photo.
Woosty … atrobicious!
Ernest Spoon and Gene are correct IMO, there are problems with all of the photos that are characteristic of photoshopped images. I took the photo into my paint program and it broke down completely at about 550% but the left hand on the woman didn’t hold up at all at even 350%. The guy on the rights left finger seems to have very similar colors as the frame in the background in a band matching the placement of the background. If they aren’t photoshopped it should be a surprise. And illegal to sell a camera with optics that poor or resolution that low 🙂
OTOH
Gene H, I agree with you. This, to me, is about civility. If one wants to spew about Ronald Regan, I’m sure there is a blog somewhere where one is completely free to do so. However, no matter what one might think about Regan or Bush or even Obama, no matter what one might think of their respective policies, the OFFICE of the President (and, hence, the person who holds said office) deserves respect. One of the first lessons one learns in the service is that one salutes the rank, not the person. As a gay man myself, I am embarrassed by such actions (this is assuming that this was an actual occurrence). We have certainly lost a sense of civility and I fear that civility, like virginity, can never be reclaimed once it has been lost.
“two people do not a movement make.”
and yet it was only 2 people who were able to convince a school board a goo0d book was ‘pornographic”.
The right 2 people who have access to the people who wilol do their biding can a movement make. I only heard about it here also but I am sure it willo be evrywhere quite soon and 2 idiots may have started something they never considered.
Finally LGBT are getting the rights they deserve. People like these will only harden the minds, hearts, and actions of those who are homophobic.
Shame on them fir not acting like grown ups.
Idealist707
Money never cares what’s said. Only as long as more is made.
Is that your quote, or do you have an attribution for it. I would like to put it in my messaging file.
I expect all of you who do not think is uttelry idiotic to be front and center defending anyone who poops on a picture of Obama on the WH lawn.
Some of the thoughts are quite profound though.
Yes, this was photoshopped, the people’s FB posts hacked, and their own quotes were concocted (Huffington Post seems to be in on it too). Isn’t there a speech about the lizard overlords that you guys need to attend (i.e. David Ickes)?
And I’m surprised no one took the opportunity to protest the military industrial complex while there. “Mr. President, there is a lunatic in the West Wing launching tirades against paintings.” “Get them up here immediately as I need to discuss how to replace Halliburton and Lockheed!”
It’s also a shame that they weren’t allowed into the section of the WH where we have pictures of Hitler. If only! That said, I’m sure nothing would be said if people were caught in the WH mocking pictures of foreign leaders and those pics went international.
Less than 2 dozen comments and multiple references to Nazis. Internet Comments 101 over here.
Those of us who don’t vote on party lines are pretty much screwed since the vast majority of people seem to wait to judge a story until they can identify the political alignment of those involved. Some conservatives defend the jackass who interrupted Obama during a speech. Some liberals defend these people. Unbelievable.