Photographic Politics
Today's model bears a remarkable resemblance to Ms. Palin. Just look at that sexy pout!
On the whole I try to stay out of politics, both internal (within the photographic community) and external (in the wider governmental sense.) However, whilst observing The Greatest Fishbowl On Earth, I can’t help but notice that most American photographers appear to be Democrats. Not all of course - I know a few who love McCain - but on the whole most photographers (and models who admit to a political persuasion) appear to openly be Obama-lovers.
Often political leanings are explained by geographical location, but I don't think that explains the trend, as you’re all widely splattered across the U.S., plus you all come from very different backgrounds. It can’t just be that most of Americans are sick of Republicans because your two parties are said to be neck-and-neck in the polls according to our UK media. So it must be something else.
Why do photographers prefer Democratic principles? Is it because of your artistic natures that you’re all libertarian-orientated? What is it specifically about Democratic policies which capture your loyalties? Personally, if it were me, I’d vote for anyone who promised free national healthcare, but that’s just me, and I guess we all have our individual views of what is important in our little fish tanks. As with photography, politics are entirely subjective.
Please forgive my ignorance but those of us looking in on The Greatest Fishbowl seek to understand the little fishies within. After all, the future of the world is at stake, and it might just be the collective political power of the photographic vote which determines the entire future of our planet.
No pressure though.
Angel fish and sharks. Pretty but deadly. Both species will eat each other given the chance.
Incidentally if you want to read about Life In A Fishbowl (the photographic variety – nothing to do with politics) photographer Dennis Camp has a wonderfully soothing new blog by that name here. Wise words, beautiful landscapes, portraiture and the occasional fish.
Labels: politics
posted by Lin at 8:18 AM
13 Comments:
Speaking for myself, I am neither a Democrat or Republican.
I just hate the Republican's raping the country for the betterment of the rich, which will eventually be the down fall of the US, and it is coming soon.
Wars that are started for the sole purpose of making money off of them for a handful of people.
We are not going to get free health care here. Too much money being made in the private sector, of which a goodly portion gets routed back to the politicians.
I don't know enough about Obama to say I want him either.
There is no one running that I really want as president.
What I want is someone who will say (and stick to it) that we will not poke our noses in another countries business for any reason. But that is not likely to happen either.
What we need here is a good old fashion revolution. Take back our country and do away with this silly program we have for elections. As it stands, the Republicans and the Democrats pretty much tell you who is going to be running before anyone ever gets a chance to vote. And then your vote really doesn't mean anything anymore. If you are one of the mail in voters, your vote may not even get counted until two weeks after the winner of the election is announced. Go figure.
...I don't have enough coffee in me yet to get hopping mad.
They are all power and money hungry bastards or they wouldn't be in the position to be running.
The government wouldn't let them.
I subscribe to the original, core values of republicanism yet loathe the republicans. There is almost nothing in what they do and how they conduct themselves that remotely resembles those original republican values. Liberty and inalienable rights as central and guiding values? Opposition to corruption? An inviolate constitution? Does that sound at all like the republicans of today? Don't even get me started on how they kiss the asses of the religious right and constantly play the christian god card or how they practice fear mongering as their primary tactic.
The democrats? They're pathetic and prove, as a party and time and time again, they couldn't get laid in a whorehouse with a thousand dollar bill taped their foreheads.
America, i fear, has a bleak future. Voices of dissent, even those of reason, are like echoes on the wind, barely heard over the deafening "B-a-a-a-a" of the American people.
Jimmy is after my heart.
What's the difference between a pooh fish and Sarah Palin? Answer: Lipstick.
Couldn't resist.
I have to agree Americans generally vote for the lesser of two evils. There have been times I don't believe this was the case. I am a Clinton Democrat. And a JFK Democrat (yes, I met him during his 1960 campaign, and he had an aura). I like manly men who affair with Marilyn Monroe and get blow jobs in the Oval Office.
Blogged ya:
http://eolake.blogspot.com/2008/09/fluffytek.html
I also mostly agree with Jimmy D.
This is the sorriest choice for a qualified candidate I can think of in such a historic election. We are going to elect the first black man or woman who will be be a heart beat from being president and neither are qualified to be there.
Again it is money and the spin doctors that rule - not the real interest of the American people and the country.
I understand opinions are like assholes, everyone has one, but I'm D.L. Wood and I approve this message.
At least I wasn't holding a XL ticket to anywhere.
I find it interesting that no-one has mentioned money, specifically the nationalisation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Last week the US Government took on an extra $5,400trn of debt, effectively doubling its national debt burden. This has staggering implications for America. What effect will this have on the US financial and social infrastructure. What will it mean for you all in the next four years?
Incidentally for an image of Palin which really sums her up, see http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/cartoon/
I think no one mentions money since the basic point of the thread is politics. The take over of Fred and Fannie was needed to stabilize the markets. We all hold some self interest in how the markets do. That is unless you have no money in a 401K or a retirement pension.
I see the Democrats pathetically pandering to the far left, while the GOP panders to the far right. But look at one thing, how many conservatives were running for Prez on the Dem ticket? Both parties have moved to far right and left.
I still see the GOP as a party that allows some free thought, example Ron Paul, he may not have a prayer getting the nod but he is at least there as a choice. Mac is a moderate now and before. He is disliked by core conservatives and core liberals. That in itself makes me think he is doing something right, closer to the middle.
I have always thought of myself as a fiscal conservative and a social libertarian. My basic up brings was one where personal responsibility is the core of your values and don't expect anything from anyone. If you work hard, treat others as you wish to be treated other things will fall into place in your life. Ma & Pa lead by example and I think it was a good one.
In some ways both parties rape the country, it is just who's Ox is being gourd that day and time. The sad part is they have both forgotten they work for the people, it is our money not theirs.
What really has me pissed off is Allen Greenspan, the guy guided our economy into this mess and now he is trying to tell us what is wrong with it all as if he is not complicit. Paul Volker left the economy in much better shape for Al and kept his pie hold shut when he left. A.G. should do the same.
Just my .02 and a Two dollar world.
I did too mention money.
"What will it mean for you all in the next four years?'
It means that again we are selling our future generations down the drain for short term gains now.
D.L. Wood
Thanks for the comments folks. I'm a money person, so for me, economics = politics. The takeover of Fred and Fannie was a sticking plaster over a deep wound, little more. What happens next time it starts to bleed?
BTW, don't get me started on Greenspan. He's the whole reason your country is on the verge of economic collapse, and ours hasn't fared any better either because we followed his example. His guiding principle of "buy now, pay later" is what has resulted in the colossal mess that is "Modern America."
For every boom, there is always a bust. Yin and yang. The question I guess I'm asking is which of the political parties can pull you out of the economic hole you're in and repair the damage?
Right, end of rant. I need some soothing chamomile tea to calm me down now :-)
Well, you can see where my mind is. Oh well. I must be an Independent.
I guess at this point, it makes sense to be an FDR Democrat... since the time of Reagan, Republicans have been working day and night to take authority away from regulatory agencies, privatize anything that could turn a quick profit, and generally make government incapable of doing what it's supposed to do, just to support the argument that "private enterprise can do a better job at a competitive price." Obviously, that's horseshit, since no-bid contracts and unregulated looting have been the only results. (Anyone remember that shipment of $9 billion in hundred dollar bills that was sent to Iraq, then promptly vanished?)
The only thing that MIGHT save this country is what worked for FDR -- FORCE those that have been profiteering for the past 30 years to return some of it to the treasury, then use that money to rebuild our infrastructure, develop a domestic energy policy that is renewable and scaleable and hopefully publicly owned. Remove the burden of health care costs from the individuals and corporations by creating a single-payer program that eliminates insurance profiteering. "I don't want some beaureaucrat making MY health care decisions!" you say? Guess what, they already are, except they're employed by United Health Care or Anthem, and THEY get a bonus for every claim denied.
Now, whether Obama has what it takes to make things happen is anyone's guess. I'd say he's our best hope. McCain is a tool of the lobbyists, pure and simple, and will do nothing to improve the lives of citizens who are earning less than $5 million a year (where he draws the line between rich and "middle class").
"McCain is a tool of the lobbyists, pure and simple.
And Mr Obama is what then?
They all must deal with lobbyists.
It is a way of life is Washington, no matter the party, period.
Both have strong views, and views on how this country is taken in the future. It comes down to informed voters choosing their own poison. Just be sure you read all view points to make your judgment in voting.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home