FYI...

A few things every American should know:

• I can disagree with you without hating you.
• I am allowed to dislike your behavior. 
• Expressing a dissenting opinion is not bullying. 
• Asking you to explain your logic is not a personal attack. 
• If you want tolerance, try being tolerable. 

...and while I'm at it:

Leave my vocabulary alone. Taking away my words won't change my mind, it will just limit my ability to express to you what an insufferable wanker you are. Controlling opposition to your agenda by removing the language by which it is discussed is abusive.



...and another thing:

Learn to merge.

The Saga of the Stock Photographer

I've been thinking about trying to make a few extra bucks by selling digital photos on a stock photo website.

I use stock photos on a fairly regular basis at work, so I was already familiar with the buyer experience. I did a little research to make sure I would retain my right to submitted photos and if they would accept images that were already posted elsewhere.

When I was confident I understood what I was getting into, I started the application process to become a photo contributor.

After spending a little time reading through all of the "training materials," I passed the contributor applicant test and was ready to submit my first three photos for review.

I knew that most of my work would be considered snapshots and not suitable for stock, so I carefully looked through my archives for high quality pictures that I thought could be used for commercial purposes.I uploaded the photos, added a brief description and hit the submit button. Oh boy!

I am a hobbyist and don't generally think of my work as commercial quality.  Several co-workers (unqualified to critically evaluate photography) bolstered my confidence and there is really no risk at all, so why not? I found myself a little excited at the prospect of making money for my photos, even if it's just a few bucks.

I went to bed with thoughts of how impressed my friends would be when the world was finally able to discover my greatness and fantasies of swimming in a pool of money like Uncle Scrooge.

Then I got the response back.

It basically said, "No. You suck. Your pictures are terrible and we're pretty sure you smell bad too. Please feel free to try again in three days."

Ok. That's not really what the email said, but that's what it sounded like in my head when I read it. Needless to say, it was a very deflating experience.

So now I have two choices. I can consider this a failed experiment, abandon the idea of selling my photos and continue enjoying photography as a hobby, or I can read the links they sent me, attempt to create more acceptable photos, and try again in three days. 

I doubt my life will be significantly different either way, so I might as well attempt to learn something. 

The email provided some moderately useful feedback about composition and the nature of stock photography, but it did not provide any shot by shot detail of what was wrong with my submissions.

If there are stock photographers or designers out there who can provide insight into why the photos displayed at the bottom of this post were declined, please feel free to comment with tips or advice. 

Blue Bow

Barbed Wire

7.62mm Bullets

Headline news?

The United States government authorized itself to assassinate American citizens.

Here are a few excerpts from an American Civil Liberties Union blog post about the 16-page white paper that was obtained by NBC reporter Michael Isikoff earlier today. (Emphasis in bold type is mine.)

...The paper's basic contention is that the government has the authority to carry out the extrajudicial killing of an American citizen if "an informed, high-level official" deems him to present a "continuing" threat to the country. 

...The white paper purports to recognize some limits on the authority it sets out, but the limits are so vague and elastic that they will be easily manipulated. 

...the paper contends that the limits on the government's claimed authority are not enforceable in any court. ("There exists no appropriate judicial forum to evaluate these constitutional considerations.") According to the white paper, the government has the authority to carry out targeted killings of U.S. citizens without presenting evidence to a judge before the fact or after, and indeed without even acknowledging to the courts or to the public that the authority has been exercised.  

...The white paper also suggests, incorrectly, that the courts have endorsed the view that there is no geographic limitation on the government's exercise of war powers... 

...You can't reasonably read a case that permitted the military detention of an American on an actual battlefield to supply a green light for the extrajudicial killing of American terrorism suspects anywhere in the world. 

...Finally, the white paper assumes a key conclusion: It takes as a given that the target of the strike will be a "senior operational leader of al-Qa'ida or an associated force of al-Qa'ida," and it reasons from that premise that judicial process is unnecessary. This is a little bit like assuming that the defendant is guilty and then asking whether it's useful to have a trial. Perhaps the white paper omits analysis that appears in the Justice Department's legal memos, but again the legal memos are, inexcusably, still secret. 

...the power this white paper sets out will be available to every future president—and every "informed high-level official" (!)—in every future conflict.

How is it that this information is not dominating the conversation right now? Maybe it's the way it's being reported. Here are the headlines about this story as viewed using Google search results on a 23 inch desktop monitor.

• NBC: Justice Department memo reveals legal case for drone... 
• NPR: 5 Questions About Justice Department Memo On Targeted Killings
• New York Times: Report on Targeted Killing Whets Appetite for Less Secrecy
• The Washington Post: Congress eyes limits on drones as memo details broad grounds for strikes against al-Qaida
• PBS NewsHour: Justice Department Justifies Killing Americans Abroad with Links to...

And for those of you who like sensational headlines and biased reporting:

• Fox News: White House, Justice officials defend drone program after release of...
• Huffington Post: WH Press Secretary Hounded by Reporters About Drones. 

There is nothing in any of those headlines that appropriately expresses that the American Government is actively conducting targeted kills of American Citizens who have not been charged, tried or convicted of any crime, who are nowhere near an active battlefield and who have not been tied to any active terror plot. 

I find it hard to believe that this is going on and not only is it not the top conversation across all traditional and social media outlets, it's not even above the fold on Yahoo or Google News pages. 

The top story on CNN U.S. today? Strom Thurmond's secret biracial daughter dies.

Le Sigh.