Luminous Landscape Forum
The Art of Photography => The Coffee Corner => Topic started by: DarkPenguin on March 03, 2010, 08:56:29 pm
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=js7RzcdDcMs (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=js7RzcdDcMs)
-
Wow....that was great. Those photographers were a couple of dolts. Consumer-grade camera. Prints from Walmart? Shooting inside a church with a 70-300 f/4-5.6? Not using tripods? Ugh. Goes to show you how easy it is to set up shop as a wedding photographer. The worst part was that the photos were horrible. Straight from the "How to be a Wedding Photographer" starter book. These two are prime examples of why wedding photographers, as a whole, get a bad rap.
I do believe them about the "no flash" rule. That's fairly common. Still, they should have been prepared.
I've witnessed such amateurism, first had. At my brothers wedding in the early 90's, the "photographers", recommended by a friend of the bride, shot everything with an on-camera flash and a single zoom lens. At the time, I had been a photojournalist for 4 or 5 years, and instantly recognized the impending disaster. I shot as many photos as I could while being constantly berated by the inept husband/wife "photographer" team who claimed I was interfering with their copyrights (huh?). As they never signed a contract, they had no legal recourse but to let me shoot alongside them.
When the photos were delivered, almost every one, especially the group photos, had serious red eye problems and either overly dark backgrounds or gawd-awful shadows. They even tried to blame it on the photo finisher, which happened to be a Walgreen's drug store. It was a sad day for photographers, everywhere.
p.s. Okay, to be fair, the photos weren't "horrible" (I have seen worse), but they were lackluster and showed absolutely no creativity or thought. They had more in common with snapshots than they do with professional results.
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=js7RzcdDcMs (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=js7RzcdDcMs)
Ok I was midly amused.. but I can I please have that 10 mins of my life back...
Edit - it was nice to see the judge recognise it was amateur hour
-
Wow....that was great. Those photographers were a couple of dolts. Consumer-grade camera. Prints from Walmart? Shooting inside a church with a 70-300 f/4-5.6? Not using tripods? Ugh. Goes to show you how easy it is to set up shop as a wedding photographer. The worst part was that the photos were horrible. Straight from the "How to be a Wedding Photographer" starter book. These two are prime examples of why wedding photographers, as a whole, get a bad rap.
I do believe them about the "no flash" rule. That's fairly common. Still, they should have been prepared.
I've witnessed such amateurism, first had. At my brothers wedding in the early 90's, the "photographers", recommended by a friend of the bride, shot everything with an on-camera flash and a single zoom lens. At the time, I had been a photojournalist for 4 or 5 years, and instantly recognized the impending disaster. I shot as many photos as I could while being constantly berated by the inept husband/wife "photographer" team who claimed I was interfering with their copyrights (huh?). As they never signed a contract, they had no legal recourse but to let me shoot alongside them.
When the photos were delivered, almost every one, especially the group photos, had serious red eye problems and either overly dark backgrounds or gawd-awful shadows. They even tried to blame it on the photo finisher, which happened to be a Walgreen's drug store. It was a sad day for photographers, everywhere.
Even if they could use flash one of the reasons you spring for a XD, X0D or 7D over a digital rebel is to get decent control over your flash. I'm betting they had a 430ex perched atop their Xti. Maybe they sprung for a gary fong thingy.
I've seen far worse wedding photography, tho.
-
I've seen far worse wedding photography, tho.
Sadly, I think we all have. Still....
-
The three clues:
1. She didn't know how fast her lens was. I guess she had that Costco kit, the one that comes with a body, two crappy zoom lenses and a CF card.
2. She didn't know AHEAD OF TIME that flash photography was not permitted in the church. How does one shoot "hundreds of weddings" and still not know this ahead of time?
3. She had the prints done at WalMart. Enough said.
Yep, that's a real pro for ya. Sad.
-
My neice asked me to do her wedding for her and I had enough wisdom to say "Only if you get down on all fours and roar, growl, whatever!". (I'm a wildlife / nature photographer). She got a chuckle and knew where I was coming from and didn't press it further.
I will be at her wedding with camera in hand but it will be purely photojournalistic stuff I'll shoot during the day and not any formal stuff. And likely will give her a canvas printer afterwards for fun.
-
Wedding photography is really a warzone and you've got to be quick, accurate, prepared and a whole variety of other things to come out alive. The last one I shot was a variety of rain, dark and wind which was not the best but you just have to deal.
I manage a camera shop part-time and it really scares me when people come in to print wedding photos and they were taken on a p&s. It's generally the same people that are undercutting the market.
On the other side of the coin, surely if you're hiring a photographer you've seen some of their work beforehand?
-
Wow....that was great. Those photographers were a couple of dolts. Consumer-grade camera. Prints from Walmart? Shooting inside a church with a 70-300 f/4-5.6? Not using tripods? Ugh. Goes to show you how easy it is to set up shop as a wedding photographer. The worst part was that the photos were horrible. Straight from the "How to be a Wedding Photographer" starter book. These two are prime examples of why wedding photographers, as a whole, get a bad rap.
I do believe them about the "no flash" rule. That's fairly common. Still, they should have been prepared.
I've witnessed such amateurism, first had. At my brothers wedding in the early 90's, the "photographers", recommended by a friend of the bride, shot everything with an on-camera flash and a single zoom lens. At the time, I had been a photojournalist for 4 or 5 years, and instantly recognized the impending disaster. I shot as many photos as I could while being constantly berated by the inept husband/wife "photographer" team who claimed I was interfering with their copyrights (huh?). As they never signed a contract, they had no legal recourse but to let me shoot alongside them.
When the photos were delivered, almost every one, especially the group photos, had serious red eye problems and either overly dark backgrounds or gawd-awful shadows. They even tried to blame it on the photo finisher, which happened to be a Walgreen's drug store. It was a sad day for photographers, everywhere.
p.s. Okay, to be fair, the photos weren't "horrible" (I have seen worse), but they were lackluster and showed absolutely no creativity or thought. They had more in common with snapshots than they do with professional results.
Chuck, that goes to confirm or, at least, to illustrate my point in another thread here about the Future of Pro Pho: the desirablity of compulsory qualifications.
Rob C
-
Chuck, that goes to confirm or, at least, to illustrate my point in another thread here about the Future of Pro Pho: the desirablity of compulsory qualifications.
Rob C
Yeah... right, Rob... just what we need: more government interference. If someone's stupid enough to hire an amateur photog for her wedding, the likely result presents a lesson she probably needs to learn. Remember, "A fool and her money are soon parted." The way to avoid that is to become less a fool, not to depend on an at least equally stupid government to make up for your shortcomings.
-
Yeah... right, Rob... just what we need: more government interference. If someone's stupid enough to hire an amateur photog for her wedding, the likely result presents a lesson she probably needs to learn. Remember, "A fool and her money are soon parted." The way to avoid that is to become less a fool, not to depend on an at least equally stupid government to make up for your shortcomings.
... the UK is such a nanny-state compared to what we are used to ... people seek a government solution to nearly every bump in the road ...
-
Chuck, that goes to confirm or, at least, to illustrate my point in another thread here about the Future of Pro Pho: the desirablity of compulsory qualifications.
Rob C
The problem with this is that anyone can pass a test and still make crappy wedding photos. You just can't regulate good taste.
I recently attended a wedding where there was a professional photographer hired. Yes, he had all the gear and back-up equipment, and new how to use it. Yes he had plenty of experience. And yes, I'm certain that he could pass an exam proving his knowledge.
But guess what? The wedding pictures still sucked. And by saying they sucked I don't mean that they were ordinary or mediocre or boring. They were truly unflattering, ugly and awful. All of the posed shots were taken with the subjects right in front of a distracting wall hanging using a small enough aperture to ensure that the wall hanging was in good focus along with the subjects, no use was made of the high ISO capabilities of today's digital cameras and everything was shot with a flash apparently set on "ultra harsh" mode, the photos of the ceremony were all crooked, and to top it off all posed shots and reception photos were shot with an ultra wide angle lens so that he could "get everything from floor to ceiling in the shot" (his words, not mine). These were photos that, had I taken them, I would have deleted in-camera because I would have been too embarrassed to show them to anyone. Yes, the photographer felt it was a good idea to set up his laptop for the last hour and a half of the reception displaying a side show of the SOOC photos he had taken up to that point and leave a stack of cards on the table with instructions on how people could view the photos online and order prints. Quite simply, he thought his photos were fine.
So how will a license help?
-
Toke, Clearly, government interference won't help, but the crap the guy was showing might help some of the folks who were at that wedding. It's hard to believe anyone would hire a photographer for a wedding without first seeing a fair sample of his work. Anyone who'd do that richly deserves what follows. It's the Barnum principle at work. Caveat emptor.
-
Wow....that was great. Those photographers were a couple of dolts. Consumer-grade camera. Prints from Walmart? Shooting inside a church with a 70-300 f/4-5.6? Not using tripods? Ugh. Goes to show you how easy it is to set up shop as a wedding photographer. The worst part was that the photos were horrible. Straight from the "How to be a Wedding Photographer" starter book. These two are prime examples of why wedding photographers, as a whole, get a bad rap.
I do believe them about the "no flash" rule. That's fairly common. Still, they should have been prepared.
I've witnessed such amateurism, first had. At my brothers wedding in the early 90's, the "photographers", recommended by a friend of the bride, shot everything with an on-camera flash and a single zoom lens. At the time, I had been a photojournalist for 4 or 5 years, and instantly recognized the impending disaster. I shot as many photos as I could while being constantly berated by the inept husband/wife "photographer" team who claimed I was interfering with their copyrights (huh?). As they never signed a contract, they had no legal recourse but to let me shoot alongside them.
When the photos were delivered, almost every one, especially the group photos, had serious red eye problems and either overly dark backgrounds or gawd-awful shadows. They even tried to blame it on the photo finisher, which happened to be a Walgreen's drug store. It was a sad day for photographers, everywhere.
p.s. Okay, to be fair, the photos weren't "horrible" (I have seen worse), but they were lackluster and showed absolutely no creativity or thought. They had more in common with snapshots than they do with professional results.
Let's not forget the $1300 cost, including travel, you get what you pay for! IMO the judge was out of line in this case, his points regarding the quality of the camera would be valid if they had charged 5k+.
I see nothing wrong with going to Walmart or Costco either, this is how it is when you're on a budget and the quality is very good for the money. We have several low end photographers in our community and the pictures I saw from these ladies were far better than what I see around me. She was stupid to lose her cool and argue with the judge!
-
... the UK is such a nanny-state compared to what we are used to ... people seek a government solution to nearly every bump in the road ...
But Jeremy, we PAY the friggin' government to fix the roads!
Rob C
-
The problem with this is that anyone can pass a test and still make crappy wedding photos. You just can't regulate good taste.
I recently attended a wedding where there was a professional photographer hired. Yes, he had all the gear and back-up equipment, and new how to use it. Yes he had plenty of experience. And yes, I'm certain that he could pass an exam proving his knowledge.
But guess what? The wedding pictures still sucked. And by saying they sucked I don't mean that they were ordinary or mediocre or boring. They were truly unflattering, ugly and awful. All of the posed shots were taken with the subjects right in front of a distracting wall hanging using a small enough aperture to ensure that the wall hanging was in good focus along with the subjects, no use was made of the high ISO capabilities of today's digital cameras and everything was shot with a flash apparently set on "ultra harsh" mode, the photos of the ceremony were all crooked, and to top it off all posed shots and reception photos were shot with an ultra wide angle lens so that he could "get everything from floor to ceiling in the shot" (his words, not mine). These were photos that, had I taken them, I would have deleted in-camera because I would have been too embarrassed to show them to anyone. Yes, the photographer felt it was a good idea to set up his laptop for the last hour and a half of the reception displaying a side show of the SOOC photos he had taken up to that point and leave a stack of cards on the table with instructions on how people could view the photos online and order prints. Quite simply, he thought his photos were fine.
So how will a license help?
I agree that no examination can, or should, specify taste; but look at it this way: if you can at least guarantee good technical skill, you have something to show at least!
There is nothing much any wedding couple can learn from their mistake unless they go through a divorce first; it is precisely to protect these people, who have every right to expect a professional service from anyone running a business, that some qualifications seem the right way to go. It could be argued that it is only where the public is concerned that these qualifications might be required: in the business world, you could either get sued or find your leg gets broken if you mess people about - either way, you won't last long and a reshoot is only a matter of money and not heartache.
Rob C
-
I agree that no examination can, or should, specify taste; but look at it this way: if you can at least guarantee good technical skill, you have something to show at least!
There is nothing much any wedding couple can learn from their mistake unless they go through a divorce first; it is precisely to protect these people, who have every right to expect a professional service from anyone running a business, that some qualifications seem the right way to go. It could be argued that it is only where the public is concerned that these qualifications might be required: in the business world, you could either get sued or find your leg gets broken if you mess people about - either way, you won't last long and a reshoot is only a matter of money and not heartache.
Rob C
Rob, The thing any wedding couple might learn from their mistake is that instead of trusting, sight-unseen, a photographer or anyone else who claims to be a "professional" it might be worthwhile to verify his claims before you hire him. That understanding could come in handy in any number of ways, with or without a divorce. You're correct that people have a "right" to expect professional service from anyone running a business, just as they had a right to expect "professional service" from Bernie Madoff. But in Bernie's case, even though his business was regulated by the government, the mere existence of a "right" didn't produce the expected result, nor did "regulation" guarantee that result. This kind of problem, going back at least as far as recorded history and probably beyond, is what caused the phrase, "caveat emptor" to be coined. But you're right: if you mess people about in your business the word will get around and eventually you'll go under. On the other hand, the Barnum principle may keep you going far beyond any reasonable expectation.
-
Right on Russ
-
On the other hand, the Barnum principle may keep you going far beyond any reasonable expectation.
Which is exactly the problem, Russ!
Regarding Bernie M, that is surely a failure of legislation and its implementation that allowed the chaos - criminality of the most astute kind! Well, second-most, as the most is never discovered as having taken place at all. That it failed does not imply that it (control) should not exist but rather that it should be taken more seriously from now on.
Rob C
-
Like I said elsewhere, almost the last time I saw competent wedding photographers at work they were using glass plates, and the bride now has adult grand-children.
At my last wedding my wife chose an established local photographer, and the results were worse that the subject of this post (many of the churchyard photos were unprintable) and the cost was about £2,000... and the one picture that got framed was taken by a guest! We should have taken them to court.
Many people earning their living as wedding photographers use 6 or 10 Mpx cameras, and a good 10 or 12 Mpx point-and-shoot or an M9 with a fast lens might be a good tool for low-light interiors than a hand-held H4D-60 with a 50-110 zoom! (but the H4D-60 is supposed to work well at 800 ISO)
At lest the photographer had a tripod... I have not seen a wedding photographer use one for decades.
In the UK flash photography is not normally allowed during the ceremony, but is allowed as the couple leave the church.
-
it is precisely to protect these people, who have every right to expect a professional service from anyone running a business, that some qualifications seem the right way to go.
Yeah, that's just not how we roll in the good ole US of A.
There are good reasons to regulate certain businesses where there are externalities and systemic risk ... but we'd prefer to allow people to work out little problems over photographs amongst themselves.
Maybe in a nanny-state like the UK this would work, but it would never, ever fly in the US.
-
Which is exactly the problem, Russ!
Regarding Bernie M, that is surely a failure of legislation and its implementation that allowed the chaos - criminality of the most astute kind! Well, second-most, as the most is never discovered as having taken place at all. That it failed does not imply that it (control) should not exist but rather that it should be taken more seriously from now on.
Rob C
Rob, I hate to say it, but your argument reminds me of the arguments I hear from people who tell me how stupid, incompetent, crooked, and generally sub-par our politicians and government bureaucrats are, and in the next breath tell me about some problem the government ought to solve through regulation. What the hell do these people think the "government" is? Somehow they're able to detach the people who actually are the government from "government" in the abstract. Furthermore, if "legislation and implementation" fail, how, exactly, is that legislation and implementation to be "taken more seriously" thereafter. I guarantee that if the government passes a wedding photographer law, by the next morning our legislators will begin to receive visits from lobbyists bearing gifts, hired by a photographers' coalition demanding that the law be implemented in such a way that only coalition members will qualify.
As Jeremy pointed out there are types of business that actually require government regulation because of potential impacts on the whole economy, but photography isn't the kind of business that's likely to cause some sort of systemic failure if it's practitioners use point-and-shoot cameras. Regulation, even of the kinds of businesses that can cause systemic failure often falls short. We just saw an example of that with real estate financing here in the U.S. I'm sure the regulators who were watching over the malpractice of those lenders and borrowers felt that their own oversight was "close enough for government work."
Government is a blunt and usually stupid tool. The only people in government I've met who are pretty consistently intelligent and observant are military people. That's because those who aren't soon go on to a better world.
-
Russ, that's a terribly damning view of the US style of governance. I heard something somewhat similar this morning on the news where an expat American journalist living in London was trying to explain (in the ten words allowed such voices) the difference between what the Obama idea of a state health service is and the European one. Seems it's okay to die on the corner of Sunset and Vine because you can't afford private health. I thought that had passed into history along with Bessie Smith in her own pool of personal blood. I wonder how many US citizens really figure out what state health can mean, rather than painting it in a political wash that smacks of the Red under the Bed era.
Rob C
PS This post edited from original because too many personal bits of info for considered comfort! Actually I wish I hadn't risen to the bait at all, but there you go.
-
Rob, It's not a damning view of "the U.S. style of governance;" it's a damning view of all modern styles of governance. The main reason the U.S. has been so successful is that before we began to change, around 1933, we had much less government than most other countries. Our minimal government was the reason we were able to become the "arsenal of Democracy," and pull Europe's nuts out of the fire -- twice. Since then we've been moving our government more and more toward the European style. Eventually, and it may not be too far down the road, the U.S. is going to be so catastrophically broke that it won't any longer be willing to spend the blood and treasure it costs us to keep on providing defense for Europe and the more or less free parts of Asia. At that point, either Europe's socialism will collapse under the expense and discomfort of providing for its own defense, or it will be conquered by those who are willing to raise their children as warriors. It I had to bet, I'd bet on the latter.
I'm not going to knock Obama. He's my president too, and what I think of him has nothing to do with this discussion, but your idea that people "die on the corner of Sunset and Vine because [they] can't afford private health" is a straw man with the straw blowing away in the wind. There's a hell of a lot of difference between health care and health insurance. Ever since WW II what we've had isn't health insurance; it's prepaid health care. If we were allowed by our governments (and there are a lot of them, starting with the feds, and going all the way down to city councils and even homeowners' associations) to actually buy insurance -- meaning a hedge against catastrophic illness -- and pay out of pocket for hangnails and colonoscopies, that kind of straw man would blow away completely.
There's an ongoing disagreement about whether or not this statement originated with a Scot named Alexander Tytler, but the statement itself seems to be proving itself correct:
"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's greatest civilizations has been 200 years.
"Great nations rise and fall. The people go from bondage to spiritual truth, to great courage, from courage to liberty, from liberty to abundance, from abundance to selfishness, from selfishness to complacency, from complacency to apathy, from apathy to dependence, from dependence back again to bondage."
Happily, I had my eightieth birthday last Tuesday.
-
Rob, It's not a damning view of "the U.S. style of governance;" it's a damning view of all modern styles of governance. The main reason the U.S. has been so successful is that before we began to change, around 1933, we had much less government than most other countries. Our minimal government was the reason we were able to become the "arsenal of Democracy," and pull Europe's nuts out of the fire -- twice. Since then we've been moving our government more and more toward the European style. Eventually, and it may not be too far down the road, the U.S. is going to be so catastrophically broke that it won't any longer be willing to spend the blood and treasure it costs us to keep on providing defense for Europe and the more or less free parts of Asia. At that point, either Europe's socialism will collapse under the expense and discomfort of providing for its own defense, or it will be conquered by those who are willing to raise their children as warriors. It I had to bet, I'd bet on the latter.
I'm not going to knock Obama. He's my president too, and what I think of him has nothing to do with this discussion, but your idea that people "die on the corner of Sunset and Vine because [they] can't afford private health" is a straw man with the straw blowing away in the wind. There's a hell of a lot of difference between health care and health insurance. Ever since WW II what we've had isn't health insurance; it's prepaid health care. If we were allowed by our governments (and there are a lot of them, starting with the feds, and going all the way down to city councils and even homeowners' associations) to actually buy insurance -- meaning a hedge against catastrophic illness -- and pay out of pocket for hangnails and colonoscopies, that kind of straw man would blow away completely.
There's an ongoing disagreement about whether or not this statement originated with a Scot named Alexander Tytler, but the statement itself seems to be proving itself correct:
"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's greatest civilizations has been 200 years.
"Great nations rise and fall. The people go from bondage to spiritual truth, to great courage, from courage to liberty, from liberty to abundance, from abundance to selfishness, from selfishness to complacency, from complacency to apathy, from apathy to dependence, from dependence back again to bondage."
Happily, I had my eightieth birthday last Tuesday.
Russ, I have edited my post to which this was your reply, not because I don't think I was correct in most of what I felt, but because I think I went into too much personal detail that can be problematic for me and also for anyone who wants to dispute what I wrote, which wouldn't be a fair way to discuss, sort of like holding a bleeding heart to ransom, as it were.
Belated birthday greetings, by the way; you are younger than you thought!
; - (
Rob C
-
"Great nations rise and fall. The people go from bondage to spiritual truth, to great courage, from courage to liberty, from liberty to abundance, from abundance to selfishness, from selfishness to complacency, from complacency to apathy, from apathy to dependence, from dependence back again to bondage."
I agree.
Fred.
-
Russ
1. "Our minimal government was the reason we were able to become the "arsenal of Democracy," and pull Europe's nuts out of the fire -- twice. Since then we've been moving our government more and more toward the European style. Eventually, and it may not be too far down the road, the U.S. is going to be so catastrophically broke that it won't any longer be willing to spend the blood and treasure it costs us to keep on providing defense for Europe and the more or less free parts of Asia. At that point, either Europe's socialism will collapse under the expense and discomfort of providing for its own defense, or it will be conquered by those who are willing to raise their children as warriors. It I had to bet, I'd bet on the latter."
Reply 1. As far as I am aware, getting those nuts pulled out of the fire took one hell of a lot of British persuasion and some pretty heavy shylocking, so to speak. However, I do believe that Maggie Thatcher paid the last bit off during her reign. For my part, I am grateful for all the help! I rather even a socialist UK than one under the jackboot. I think.
Regarding the spending of that treasure, didn't it help fuel the entire war machine, from aircraft, ships to munitions? Some say it was boom-time for the US. Deaths? Since when did any governments care about figures on any side? Witness Korea, Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan. The returning body-bags never stopped anything - it was all masked with memorials and fine speeches about glory and honour; feel proud to die for nothing.
2. "I'm not going to knock Obama. He's my president too, and what I think of him has nothing to do with this discussion, but your idea that people "die on the corner of Sunset and Vine because [they] can't afford private health" is a straw man with the straw blowing away in the wind. There's a hell of a lot of difference between health care and health insurance. Ever since WW II what we've had isn't health insurance; it's prepaid health care. If we were allowed by our governments (and there are a lot of them, starting with the feds, and going all the way down to city councils and even homeowners' associations) to actually buy insurance -- meaning a hedge against catastrophic illness -- and pay out of pocket for hangnails and colonoscopies, that kind of straw man would blow away completely."
Reply 2. I love the straw man blowing away in the wind: reminds me of Dylan so it can't be bad! But I think between war and dying we have had more than one straw man doing his thing tonight.
3. "There's an ongoing disagreement about whether or not this statement originated with a Scot named Alexander Tytler, but the statement itself seems to be proving itself correct:
"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's greatest civilizations has been 200 years.
"Great nations rise and fall. The people go from bondage to spiritual truth, to great courage, from courage to liberty, from liberty to abundance, from abundance to selfishness, from selfishness to complacency, from complacency to apathy, from apathy to dependence, from dependence back again to bondage." "
Reply 3. There is no doubt that all politicians know this: they are even thinking (in the UK) of lowering the voting age to sixteen! Imagine, a culture of sixteen-year-olds, many totally illiterate and unschooled in anything but street violence, suddenly finding they are offered the vote! Like all sub-cultures, they will vote eternally for any party that provides them with free, tender loving care and glue. Why else are some political parties so willing to tollerate unlimited immigration if not to broaded the lowest common denominator of voter base permanently in their favour? Harsh but true. And anyone who dares voice that can well face lawsuits in Britain.
The British National Health System is mistaken for a free one. No such deal. It is financed from taxation and probably costs more than it should because of the layer upon layer of administrative lead resting upon its shoulders. It isn't even financed evenly: when I was still working I paid a standard contribution added to another self-employed penalty - sorry, contribution - of 8% of my earnings... Interesting system. But at least you can get help if you need it, sometimes in time.
Rob C
-
Reply 1. As far as I am aware, getting those nuts pulled out of the fire took one hell of a lot of British persuasion and some pretty heavy shylocking, so to speak.
I can’t deny it. But of course the Brits jumped to the sound of the trumpet as soon as Churchill sounded it... Didn’t they..? Oh, golly, seems to me that according to Churchill they didn’t… until the wolf was already at the door.
However, I do believe that Maggie Thatcher paid the last bit off during her reign. For my part, I am grateful for all the help! I rather even a socialist UK than one under the jackboot. I think.
Maggie certainly pulled Britain back from the brink of catastrophic socialism, but as soon as they managed to get her out of there the lemmings turned right around and headed back for the cliff again.
Regarding the spending of that treasure, didn't it help fuel the entire war machine, from aircraft, ships to munitions? Some say it was boom-time for the US.
War always costs a great deal and ramps up production. But war materiel doesn’t increase a nation’s wealth. War goods aren’t “capital” goods. If you believe they are you need to pick up a good book on economics and do some serious reading.
Deaths? Since when did any governments care about figures on any side? Witness Korea, Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan. The returning body-bags never stopped anything - it was all masked with memorials and fine speeches about glory and honour; feel proud to die for nothing.
Rob, I lost several close friends in 26 years of military service: in pilot training, Korea, and Southeast Asia. I can tell you without doubt that they felt the risk was worth it and that I felt the risk was worth it. I had two tours in Southeast Asia. I felt, and still feel that that war was fought very badly by some extremely incompetent generals and some cynical and dishonest politicians. But I also felt and still feel that we needed to be there. What happened there after our cynical and dishonest politicians shut down our involvement makes that case beyond any reasonable doubt. To really believe what you wrote in the paragraph above, one’s knowledge of history would have to be quite disconnected from the facts of that whole era.
And anyone who dares voice that can well face lawsuits in Britain.
And that’s even more tragic.
-
Russ, I doubt that anyone of a certain age - myself very much included - has missed the war bereavement experience. That is personal and my reference was to what I believe to be the feelings of governments : they do not care about returning bodybags, regardless about the way the press likes to pick up on them and, as now in the UK, keep an almost daily running total just for effect. Sky News does that a lot. I have no doubt that relatives get some consolation and pride from heroism and monuments; what they don't get are satisfactory answers. I have often wondered about that when I see how most who can afford to seek out Mercedes, BMW and Lexus. You can hardly walk in a village in rural France without coming to the little sign that tells you the names of locals who were shot during the last occupation; the roads are full of D plates driving south each summer and everybody seems happy. France and Germany between them appear to run the EEC. What the hell was it for, all that dying?
Regarding Maggie: if you think about it, it was her own bunch that did the stabbing out of what I can only see as male envy and inability to accept a woman as boss. The Falklands got equal heapings of praise and condemnation in the UK press and you might have been forgiven for thinking that the Belgrano was a British casualty by the noise that was made about its sinking! Sweet Lord, who invaded whom? Oh, and those French Exorcets did well for Argentina's generals, didn't they!
And I hear that they are thinking about further Argentinian adventures there now that oil has entered the equation... Where are Maggie and Nelson when every man might well be 'expected to do' again.
But I don't think this helps the photo thread any, however much we might believe in what we think.
; - (
Rob C
-
Taking the risk to irrupt in this conversation, and with a certain dosis of provocation, I admit, I would say that maybe all that dying convinced France and Germany that they better run the EC. Selling Exocets to any buyer today, and condamning it tomorrow, but still the missiles are working well...
I would like to see a French or English digital camera. I've never understood why the biggest war loosers, Germany and Japan are the best camera makers?
Is there a direct relationship?
Fred.
ps: wars loosers makes cameras and wars winners use them???
-
...what they don't get are satisfactory answers.
Rob, I'm not sure there are such things as satisfactory answers. I'm quite comfortable admitting that I don't understand God's creation because I'm not equipped to understand it. All you ever can do is the best you can do.
But I don't think this helps the photo thread any, however much we might believe in what we think.
On that, my friend, I'm sure we agree.