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

On this Memorial Day 2012

There are those who served their countries, countries all over the world, who did so during "peace time." These people are not often remembered for their service. And often feel less than appreciated.

Lets remember all of them on this day - their families and friends who knew them - for their service, their dedication and their sacrifice - sometimes with their lives.

Not even going to say about agreeing or not today. Just remember this is just me, Thinking Out Loud.

Have a great day - and a wonderful weekend.

Charles

11/11/11 - Not the mystical but the heroic

The date is 11/11/2011. The eleventh day of the eleventh month in the eleventh year of the new century. (Actually it is the 12th year, but lets not tell the mystically inclined.) But today is special for another reason.

It is Veteran's Day. Ninety-three years ago, on November 11, 1918, hostilities ended in a cease fire and armistice for the 'war to end all wars.' A year later, the President (Woodrow Wilson), officially proclaimed it to be Veteran's Day, a day "To us in America, the reflections of Armistice Day will be filled with solemn pride in the heroism of those who died in the country’s service and with gratitude for the victory, both because of the thing from which it has freed us and because of the opportunity it has given America to show her sympathy with peace and justice in the councils of the nations…"

And in 1967, this was the day that the North Vietnamese released prisoner's of war. Unfortunately, they didn't release them all. Still, on the 48th Veteran's Day, it should have been a event cheered by the public. It wasn't. VietNam vets are only recently getting the recognition for serving their country that they should have gotten decades ago.

Let us hope that the vets who serve today will never know the denigration received by those earlier brave patriots.

But no matter how you view this day's, as a observed holiday where no government offices or banks are open, or whether you know its history and significance, try stop for a moment to think of all the things you enjoy because there are those who have served and are willing to serve in the protection of this country and the American way of life.

Thank a veteran today, or write a letter to one, or just think about how much they sacrifice in order for you to stop by the coffee shop on your way to work, cross state lines without having to 'produce papers' or even say negative things about your government without fear of being roused in the middle of the night and made to disappear. All the freedoms you have available to you are secured and kept safe by those who 'stand guard at the wall and on the front line.'

This is just me, Thinking Out Loud.

Have a great day.

Charles

DADT - Stop bickering already!

I have said this before and will say it again. Don't Ask, Don't Tell should be a strictly military decision. It should be a policy decision based on the impact of having it or doing away with it will have on the military. In days past, it was an issue of security. If someone was ashamed of being gay, a foreign country or interest could use it as leverage. but in today's environment, this is not such an issue. Being gay is more accepted in the public. It does not have the stigma of say the 50's or 60's. Therefore it should be the military that decides if it makes sens to keep or not. And how to implement changes as necessary.

It should not, however, be a political issue. It should not be a political "football." It should not be political in any way. It should never be a political promise one way or the other. It should not be a campaign trail talking point. It should not be something debated by Congress, debated by a President in the press.

What I am talking about is the recent ballyhoo over the booing of an American soldier, who happened to be gay. I mean Rick Perry saying he would re-instate it if elected. I mean all the squabble back and forth by Presidential wannabes and political hacks, from the New York Times editorial room to the halls of the Congressional offices.

And I mean President Obama's recent derision of Republicans, too.

It should not be used by anybody to gain either political favor nor political office. Although I agree with the President's sentiments, I disagree with him making a public display. This is partisan politics at its usual. (I can't say at its worst because it all sucks.) Political bimbos from Pelosi to McConnell are constantly making public statements that are not only none of their business but none of their business of state. It is political posturing. Plain and simple.

For the record, I find it reprehensible that anyone who willing served their country during peace or war should not be accorded more respect than any politician or statesmen or public figure of any kind. The next time you drive from one state to another without having to "produce your papers," think of those who have served and are serving. The next time you fill up your gas tank or shop at WalMart or drink a beer (or soda or whatever) on your back porch, or the next time you publicly disagree with your elected officials and don't fear being arrested in the middle of the night, remember the military. These men and women who selflessly serve to protect the freedoms this country enjoys, either by direct confrontation or by simple presence (otherwise known as detente or a Mexican standoff), deserve our respect and admiration.

It shouldn't matter if they are black, white, Hispanic, Asian, Native American, Filipino, nor if they are Catholic, Protestant, Wicca, Jewish or Buddhist. And it should not matter if they are gay or not. They - without forced necessity nor peer pressure - served and protected your freedoms, your liberties, your choice to not serve. And they ask nothing in return. But they deserve so much more than nothing.

That said, it is not my intention to blast any particular party. It is my intention to remind EVERY public official to act like the "representatives of the people" that they are. If they don't stand up for anyone in our military, it is a telling indictment of their character. I will write them a letter or NOT vote for them. But for the President, or any public figure, to single out anyone for this lack of reaction, is wrong. He should have said that ANYONE in public office should be upset by this booing. But he didn't. He made it political. He made it partisan. And for this, I simply sigh, shake my head and chalk up another "poor leadership" moment for President Obama. And in the next election, I will weigh all of these moments (and there are a lot), against the other candidates. And make my choice.

I hope that anyone who agrees or disagrees with me will comment. Because this is something that should concern every American. This is the reason for such partisan bullc**p in Washington. This is the reason we can't get anything done. We need to move forward. We need jobs. We need a stable economy. We need people in public office to act in the best interest of America and Americans, not themselves or lobbyist or special interest. If doing what is right does not win them an election, so be it. President Obama said he didn't care if he was a one term President, so long as he was able to do something to improve America. But he lied. He w3ants to be elected a second term. And he will use partisan politics to do so. Just like all those4 other liars and hacks in Washington DC.

Agree with me or disagree with me, tell me I am full of it or cheer me on for telling it like it is. It doesn't matter to me, so long as I get you to thinking for yourself and not just being a robot of the establishment. Because, hey, this is just me, Thinking Out Loud.

Have a great day.

Charles

New Superheroes

The latest Conservative Cartoon from Townhall is great. Check it out.

Click here.

As a Navy vet and a proud conservative, I totally agree.

USA! USA! USA!

Why politicians need to back off of DADT

Well, I am going to wade in on the DADT policy. That is "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." Normally I would not write on this topic but it is really getting me ticked off.

A little background. While in High school, there were several friends of mine who were gay. Some denied it, some were more open (at least to friends). And we didn't care. I remember telling a one such person when he kept getting angry about people calling him gay, "Hey man, we don't care if you're gay or not. Just stop denying what is obvious to all of us and get on with life." He kept denying it and went a little nuts. There was an incident with him in a tree, half naked, yelling he was Jesus Christ. It was sad. He finally admitted to it and has turned his life around.

I was also in the Navy for six years, and again, there were people who we knew were gay and we didn't care. I remember going to a place in Hawaii, the Lava Lounge, one night. It was a pretty cool place. We did note that the people were dancing with same sex partners. The bartender came up and, very concerned, asked us if we knew it was a gay bar. We said we did and did he want us to leave. He laughed and said 'heavens no' and that he would let people know we were straight so they wouldn't hit on us. That is how we felt about it. Don't hit on me because I am straight and it's all cool.

So now to the big debate on "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." The politicians, Obama included the most, need to stay the hell out of this policy. It is a military issue. Some people were not cool about it in the '70s and '80s because of misconceptions about gay people. They were afraid, and for some it was a valid concern, that it could be used by foreign governments to pressure gays into divulging classified information. And it was a concern by some homophobes who were not comfortable talking about these things and were afraid of being hit on or molested.

But today, it is more openly accepted and the Cold War is over. So the classified information stuff is no longer an issue. And with women in the military these past decades, the whole argument about gays not having your back has been alleviated for many since they feel women can have their backs, so can gays. (It's the whole misconception about gays being effeminate and weak. Such a lame argument.)

The main sticking point to all of this is that it is a MILITARY ISSUE. Not a political one. The LGBT community would best be served staying away from politicians promising stuff to them and go to the military community instead. If the military decides the concerns of decades ago are no longer valid, then it is both within it's right and it's purview, to change the policy. lawmakers need to stay out of the argument. If the military says to drop it and not make it such a big deal, then the politicians should just do their jobs and cancel the DADT law.

Now don't get me wrong, as a conservative, this issue is strictly a 'government stay out of this arena' one. As a Christian, I don't approve of the lifestyle, but I don't hate the people who live it. I am not the kind of person who says "I must change these sinful heathens!" That is not what Christianity is all about. And those like the Westboro baptist types are sick for disobeying God's command on this. Jesus said to love your neighbor as yourself. I guess the Westboro people really must hate themselves.

As a vet, I think the policy does more harm than good these days and should be done away with.

But mostly, as a conservative, I feel the government is way too involved in people's lives and need to back the heck off.

Agree with me, disagree with me, it doesn't really mater to me. But if I make you open your eyes and stop listening to the extremists on both sides and think for yourself, than I have done my job. But hey, as always, this is just me, Thinking out Loud.

Have a great day.