Tuesday, August 09, 2011
Posted by philmon at Tuesday, August 09, 2011
I also find it funny that the same people who've constantly counciled us that if we're not outraged, we're not paying attention -- are now outraged at our outrage.
I'm an amateur photographer. One thing I have learned over the years taking candid shots is that when people are expressing themselves, their faces change to reflect their emotion and passion. Have you ever watched a woman express righteous anger and thought - man, she's beautiful!? I have. In real live motion, it can look great -- but any one frame of that "video" looks .... well ... "crazy". They look horrible. And even in a studio sitting facial expressions change. It's when a photo gets snapped during the transition from one facial expression to another that these kinds of shots generally get produced.... and I discard them.
It was refreshing to see NOW in a rare display of not engaging in their standard double-standard of turning the whine up to 11 -- rationalizing why using an unflattering photo of a "liberal" woman is "sexist", but being totally cool with the same treatment being given to a conservative one.
I mean, in my opinion, NOW is just as wrong, but at least they're being consistently wrong... this time :-/. Perhaps they're afraid she might win and become the first female president and it would be rather embarassing for the National Organization for Women to have a long record of not defending her on her way up from the things they'll defend liberals from.
I don't think it's sexist. I do think it's a cheap shot. They chose that shot to convey the image they wanted to convey (don't you call them biased, no no.) But the liberal media has done the same thing to Bush, Cheney, Rove, Beck, and a myriad of conservative men, and they've done it forever.
Bottom line is, I hate it when their side whines about stupid stuff, and I actually hate it even more when my side does it. Because that's not me, and I don't want it promoted.