Sweet moment or an invasion?

To start with, I am not writing anything political here today. Just thought I'd let you know.

And also, I am not going to post a link to a photo or a story (which you will understand later).

That said, I am going to relate a story, as provided by a certain online publication which I will also not mention (again, I will explain later my reasons).

A woman was walking around Washington, DC last week. She likes to take pictures. She is from nevada. So, here she was, minding her own business in the nation's capital, snapping away. Innocent. Right?

Of course it was. I take tons of pictures all the time. Some for work, some for friends, and some just for the hell of it to see what comes out.

But then, as she was trying to get close to a national monument but was unable to, she spies a young couple. She wonders if he is about to propose. He does. Oh how sweet.

And that would be it. A little snooping, a curiosity to see what is going on around her. We all do it.

Then, later as she looks at the pictures, she see how's lovely they are. She decides she is going to try and contact these people. She wants them to have this lovely reminder of a special moment.

Okay, not really bad there. I even thought for a brief second of helping share the information within my community of friends who might be able to get in touch with these folks.

Then I thought for a few seconds more and came to a different thought.

And here is where I and many around this world will probably come to a disagreement.

This woman, this photographer, this innocent person who then took a definite step across a line of decency, blundered. I will not ascribe any nefarious purpose to her actions. SOme might, but I prefer to think she did not think things through.

Many people don't (and, as I said I will not link this to any political correlations).

This young couple, in a very, very private moment, were intruded upon. Innocently enough.

But then this photographer, without regard to their privacy, invaded it by putting out a picture of them on the web, via this publication, who is quite disreputable at times (my opinion here), published it. And thousands are now circulating this picture around the world, for all to see.

The photographer states she couldn't get close to the monument. Why? And if she couldn't, how did they? Maybe because he got special permission. Who knows. But if she couldn't get close to them, there had to be a reason.

And if they were that far from typical prying eyes, maybe they wanted to keep it a private moment. They have that right. They did not capture their proposal and put it on YouTube. They did not have anyone else there to share the moment. The moment was theirs. And theirs alone.

Who is she to have invaded their private moment?

And who is she to have published the picture of this private moment, without their consent. The institution that this young man belongs to refused to publish the picture because they did not have the consent of the couple. And they were right in doing so.

Then she goes to this publication, who (again in my opinion) are quite disreputable, and they publish without consent. What gives them that right? The people involved are not public figures. They are private citizens exercising their rights to privacy. There is no "news" to be had, no information to be gleaned and disseminated to the public in the picture.

This young couple was not engaged in any criminal activity. Nor were they doing anything that involved the world at large. Nothing they were doing related to news of any kind. Except maybe the personal kind, involving family and friends.

Maybe one or both are still in the process of a divorce. Maybe one or both of their families disapprove. Maybe their friends don't approve. Or maybe everything is right in their world and they are as happy as two people can be that have found each other. But this is no one's business but their own.

I will not further invade their privacy by telling you the details. These are readily available thanks to the photographer and the publication. But I will respect them their privacy. I will not tell you the name of the photographer nor the publication involved.

My point here is that people do not think things through. They live in their own small little world and do what they do only as it affects them. Without regard to others.

There is way too much of that kind of thinking in this country, in this world.

We all need to start thinking about what we do as it affects other people. Base our ideas of action on our own existence, yes. This is only human nature. But if our actions will affect others, we need to decide how before we act.

In the situation being discussed here, this photographer should have thought about how her invasion of this young couple's privacy would affect them. I'm not saying she didn't, I am just presuming that she did so without thinking about this. She could have made a plea, with the details only, to find this couple and give them the photographs. There was no need to publish the photo. That is where she crossed the line from this being a story of love and sweetness and all the warm emotions she assures us are her motives. That is where she made it into an invasion of privacy. And the publication who went ahead and published the photo are as equally guilty of invasion of privacy. They should have followed suit with the institution who would not publish the picture. They should have respected the right to privacy. They should have kept the picture taker from crossing that line.

But they, like the photographer, only thought of their own interests and not those of the young couple. They thought only of sensationalizing a personal story.

We all need to think about what we do if others are going to be affected by our decisions. If we decide to take action, regardless of others, then that is our prerogative. But we should be willing to sustain the consequences of our actions.

I know you are all expecting me to make this political. But I said I wouldn't. Those of you who have read my writings before will be able to make any connections I have left out here. Those of you who have not should only take away from this what I have explained.

Thsi photographer was wrong in publicly exposing this couple's private moment. The publication was wrong (and in my opinion more culpable because they should know better).

As usual, you may agree with me or disagree. That is your prerogative. This is just me, as always, Thinking Out Loud.

Have a great day.

Charles

Why don't you write more often?

Okay, I get this question from time to time. And it is a valid one. Because, heck, you know I have a lot to say.

But here is the thing. I have to make a living. That is part of the bottom line. The other part, which is pretty much related to the first part, is that I don't want this blog to get a rep as just some lame spouting off of gripes.

What I mean by that is, I want to not only let you know what is REALLY happening so you can make an informed decision without relying on all the SPIN that is out there, I want you to have ACCURATE information so you can make those truly informed decisions.

I am not one of those talking head types, that will spout off the latest and greatest SPIN from their side and TELL you what to think. I actually want you to think for yourself. In order to do that, I want to give you the real deal. I want to offer you sources to look stuff up yourself, and then THINK FOR YOURSELF, instead of just regurgitating what all the HIGHLY paid political consultants (i.e. THE SPIN DOCTORS). And that includes me. I don't want you to just take my word for things.

Which means I need to know what the hell I am talking about in the first place.

I did this with the old version of this blog (same name, different web location). And it is what I did when I published the book (Thinking Out Loud - The Book). I added, researched and made available all the resources I based my rants on. So you can look them up. Even four years later. Because I want you to avoid the SPIN this time around.

And all this takes time. Sometimes time I do not have since I am trying to make money to pay the bills. I have my Examiner articles to write. I am trying to write more for ImperfectParent.com so they don't fire me. I am working with clients in the real world doing media blitzes and PR and press releases and blog stuff associated with my business (Reynolds Publishing Company). Plus I am working on some more e-Books (Catharsis is now out in eBook-land - KOBO and soon Barnes & Noble), with fingers crossed people will actually buy them.

Anyway, not to leave this as all about me, me , me . . . but it is, you know. Just kidding. I will leave you with a few thoughts.

The lowering unemployment numbers the President, press and liberal SPIN miesters are all touting do not tell the true story about unemployment in America.

The truth is halfway between what they are saying and what the other side is saying. Jobs are slowly coming back. Mostly because business is getting tired of waiting for Washington to stop farting around with this legislation and that new tax schedule. They are doing what business does, taking a risk and expanding or re-hiring or whatever they need to do to succeed.

But also there is still millions out there without jobs going on three years now. Their unemployment benefits (which truly cannot last forever no matter what the Dems and libs want - and I know of what I speak because I am one who never even received unemployment all this time since Nov '09) are running out but still have no jobs. So they are turning to the next government option. They are applying for social security disability insurance. Like these people in Ohio. 21,200 claims this year. Even the Huffington Post has recognized this trend to use social security disability as the new unemployment benefits.

So all those people who tout the dropping numbers from the unemployment rolls are not telling you that the numbers filing claims (and over taxing a system not meant to handle this many claims) are on the rise.

Well, I was going to rant on about ENDORSEMENTS being nothing but a job application and not something you should take seriously, even if you like the person is making the endorsement. Because they are only doing it to INFLUENCE your vote and thus get themselves a new government job with the new President or whatever. Seriously, what should you care about who THEY are going to vote for? Voting is both a personal thing and BIG responsibility. You know, like Jim DeMint (R-SC) endorsing Newt or Mitt or whoever. None of the GOP candidates would fall into his acceptance (given his past record and public views). But if he endorses someone, then he is SELLING out for a new job. not for your benefit. So, if I were to talk about this ENDORSEMENT thing, I'd say DON'T FALL FOR IT!!!!!!

Anyway, as usual, agree or disagree with me. (But maybe buy my eBooks so I can spend more time here - I like it here.) It (the agreeing or disagreeing thing) doesn't matter to me either way. SO long as I get you to think for yourselves and AVOID THE SPIN, then I have done my job. Stop being sheep and following people who have no interest in YOUR best interest, only theirs. But heck, this is just me, Thinking out Loud.

Have a great day.

Charles