Corbis, DMCA, And John Kerry Photos 804
Phronesis writes "Photo District News is running a story reporting that three historic photos of John Kerry from the early 1970s, including the one used for the Jane Fonda forgery, were pirated from Corbis. The photographers who own the copyright on the photos are asking Corbis to use its fancy watermarking technology to find the culprit. Corbis hopes either to track the responsible people down using watermarks, or to invoke DMCA if the watermarks were removed."
/. sums it up nicely for once (Score:4, Insightful)
Hmm, I was going to make a comment on how ironic it would be to turn the DCMA against the rich people who are in power and would like to torpedo Mr. Kerry (or anyone who is a threat to them for that matter) but the /. subject line summed it up quite nicely: "from the forgery-and-lebel-were-already-criminal dept."
Still it would be a nice amount of irony wouldn't it? A wonderful example of what happens when you pass draconian laws -- they come back to bite you in the ass no matter how "good" your intentions were.
On a somewhat offtopic sidenote here's this quotation from the article:
So much for our clean 2004 election - as if any of us thought it would actually happen anyway.
Re:/. sums it up nicely for once (Score:4, Insightful)
He helped pass a draconian law, and when someone tried to slander him, that law's being used to help nail the people who did the forgery.
Where's the irony?
Re:/. sums it up nicely for once (Score:5, Insightful)
Clinton IMHO was tons better than Bush, but he still signed the DOMA and the Telecommunications Act, which if I recall correctly contained the CDA.
So DMCA proponent or not Kerry '04!
Make a Third Choice! (Score:4, Insightful)
Personally I don't envy you guys at all, and I'm not sure I'd be able to stomach vote for Nader, but I'd at least give it some thought.
Re:/. sums it up nicely for once (Score:4, Informative)
In fact, if Kerry is elected, he will the the 3rd richest US president ever (behind George Washington and JFK).
Re:/. sums it up nicely for once (Score:4, Funny)
but what people dont know he is controlled by big ketchup and the tomato lobby
Re:/. sums it up nicely for once (Score:5, Funny)
Re:/. sums it up nicely for once (Score:5, Interesting)
John Kerry, D-Massachusetts: $163.6 million
Herb Kohl, D-Wisconsin: $111 million
John Rockefeller, D-West Virginia: $81.6 million
Jon Corzine, D-New Jersey: $71 million
Dianne Feinstein, D-California: $26.4 million
list [dailypress.com]
so much for the 'rich republicans'
more [att.net]
According to a recent article on cnn.com, there are 40 millionaires in the U.S. Senate, according to their own financial statements.
Of these, the 5 richest are Democrats. Of the dozen richest, 10 are Democrats and 2 are Republicans. The richest (Democrat) senator is worth more than 6 times as much as the richest Republican senator.
Finally, since the remaining 60 senators must be worth less than $1M each, we can compute that the 3 richest senators (all Democrat) are worth more the the rest of the Senate combined!
Re:/. sums it up nicely for once (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:/. sums it up nicely for once (Score:5, Insightful)
Besides, 9 out of 10 people know you can use statistics to prove anything!
Re:/. sums it up nicely for once (Score:4, Insightful)
No. You can't. Statistics is a very rigorous mathematical process. Most of what you see in the media, however, is not valid statistics. Further, even if valid statistics are to be found, there almost always logical fallacies involved that direct the reader to conclusions that are not supported by the data. The most common fallacy I see is confusing correlation with causation, followed closely by the false dichotomy.
As to which party serves the rich? The way I see it, they both do.
I'm confused. (Score:5, Funny)
So basically you're saying that Republicans are the tools of the Democrats?
Brain... hurting! Must... vote... Libertarian!!
Re:/. sums it up nicely for once (Score:4, Funny)
I was suprised when I saw these numbers too, but then I realized that most people probably don't put bribes on their tax return.
Re:/. sums it up nicely for once (Score:5, Insightful)
Don't forget the "stupid" argument. As was so well documented in a book called "Slander" it would appear Bush is not the dummy that the Democrats would have us believe! In fact, he blew away Al Gore's school record. A synopsis: Bush= A's, B's and the Occasional C Gore= A few C's many D's and a none to rare F. Oops, it looks like another cherished stereotype has been thrown to the wind!
Nope, it hasn't.
Slander was written by Ann Coulter. Coulter is an inveterate liar. I mean, all political pundits stretch the truth a bit, but Coulter lies shamelessly, frequently, and implausibly. She'll claim anything about anyone she hates, she'll fabricate insane facts that can be disproven in 5 minutes on lexis-nexis, and she is constantly being caught in her idiotic lies. Hell she fabricates footnotes constantly, gets caught in her lies, but nobody really says anything a) because her loyal readers tend to be on the stupider side of the species, so they eat the lies and believe them, and b) she's so much of a joke that none of her enemies wastes too much time with her. Don't believe me? See if anyone ever corroborated her little idiocy over Bush and Gore's grades. To call any Coulter book "well-documented" betrays an incredible misunderstanding about how this frothy-mouthed, right-wing, borderline psychopath works.
It's easier to be liberal if you're wealthy... (Score:4, Interesting)
The wealthy tend to be more conservative. But, of course, this is by no means universal. Conservatives generally support the status quo, and the rich tend to be happy with the status quo.
A countervailing tendency is based on the fact that more highly educated people tend to be more liberal, and education tends to correlate to income. All of these are tendencies, and they get mixed up when they counter one another.
We have a rich-east-coast-liberal stereotype because some people can manipulate others politically by perpetuating it. And because some people can make lots of money telling people who want to hear it what they want to hear. You do understand that most stereotypes are inaccurate, don't you?
The very wealthy of the east coast have tended to be conservative from the very earliest days of our Republic. James Madison sought to build his political base in New York City because he felt this crowd would be won over by his conservative message. And they were. Today we have the Wall Street Journal (one of the most successful conservative publications in the world) making a very good living supplying similarly rich conservatives with what they want to hear in New York City.
If you base your logic on the assumption that stereotypes should be believed, you will come to many false conclusions. But they might well be commonly believed by those who share your biases.
Re:/. sums it up nicely for once (Score:5, Informative)
No. And clearly, neither do you. Her current last name, which she got from her first husband, is Heinz.
I have no idea what her maiden name was.
Re:/. sums it up nicely for once (Score:5, Informative)
He does come from a wealth family, too
Re:/. sums it up nicely for once (Score:5, Informative)
Re:/. sums it up nicely for once (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:/. sums it up nicely for once (Score:4, Interesting)
Well, see, the problem with that is that Gingrich made the fatal mistake of doing it while being a (gasp) Republican. Kerry, on the other hand, has the good sense to at least make sure that he's a Democrat when he misbehaves, which, of course, means he gets an automatic free pass from our "objective" media.
Re:/. sums it up nicely for once (Score:4, Funny)
What sort of condiment is Simoes-Ferreira?
Re:/. sums it up nicely for once (Score:5, Informative)
And as for contrasting "rich people" with Mr. Kerry, that's a very interesting spin you have chosen.
Re:/. sums it up nicely for once (Score:5, Informative)
You are not required to vote in the Senate, but I checked and Kerry did vote yea [senate.gov] .
Re:/. sums it up nicely for once (Score:5, Informative)
Sorry your premise doesn't lead to that conclusion... A bill can pass unanimously by a score of 97 to 0 in the Senate. It's still unanimous because nobody voted "no", but that doesn't lead to the conclusion that all of the senators in office were present or that everybody that was present agreed, the losing 3-person side may have just chose to abstain.
What happened in the Senate is that the Senate voted by "Unanimous Consent", which is to say not one senator spoke up to object to the bill being passed and/or request that an on-the-record vote be taken. This is often done for sure-to-be-disliked legislation because nobody has to vote "yes" either.
Now, the thing is, to call for debate and a recorded vote on an issue that you're opposed to, but you're sure the other side has the votes it takes to pass is a waste of the Senate's time, and sure to make you some enemies who might start to do their best to muck up an unrelated issue that you're in favor of. Therefore, there's a downside to objecting, the only real thing you have to gain is to get your objection onto the record.
Kerry, being a Senator, is going to be confronted with a lot of questions about the activities of the Senate and when he took action and didn't take action on them throughout the campaign. Candidates who run for a higher office after ahving any legislative position always have these questions... that's why it's more common for a former govenor to run for the office, they have far fewer on-the-record actions they have to justify, and total control of their own agenda rather than having to fight other legislators for control of a schedule.
Re:/. sums it up nicely for once (Score:3, Informative)
Correct. However, since the fact that he voted for it is a matter of public record, there is no need for conclusions to be drawn.
Re:/. sums it up nicely for once (Score:4, Informative)
Hmm...let's see. Let's look at your parent, shall we?
since the fact that he voted for it is a matter of public record
And here's the record [senate.gov].
Unless there's something seriously wrong the Congressional Record, it looks like people did vote for this one.
Re:/. sums it up nicely for once (Score:3, Funny)
Re:/. sums it up nicely for once (Score:5, Insightful)
Even if the candidates promise to keep things clean, candidates can't control their supporters. And, we've seen that even though there are tight regulations on what political groups can put out in traditional paid media, it seems like the campaign reform laws have completely overlooked the Internet, and people have discovered that if you put something contraversial on the Internet, it'll get discussed on TV for free. Even the infamous "blocked by CBS" MoveOn.org Super Bowl spot, which complied with all of the campaign law rules, got more free runs on CNN, MSNBC and Fox News during discussions of it than paid ones.
So, even if both candidates shake hands and promise zero negativity from their own people, there will be people on both sides of the ball who they can't stop that'll go negative in their name anyway. The media's going to have its work cut out trying to verify claims made by such groups this year...
Re:/. sums it up nicely for once (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:/. sums it up nicely for once (Score:3, Interesting)
Now I'm not defending these images, which were clearly meant to be passed off as real, but what if... oh I dunno - say the original picture was used in a photoshop thread on fark or something - what about then?
Seems to me that this is a lot trickier of an
Re:/. sums it up nicely for once (Score:5, Informative)
Of course, you might ask, "who owns Corbis? [ketupa.net]"
Re:/. sums it up nicely for once (Score:4, Funny)
As Dr. Marcus Von Vickersburg from The International Institute for Photographic Analysis stated, "digital photographs cannot be faked" [uncoveror.com]
;)
Pretty Funny (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Pretty Funny (Score:3, Insightful)
The fact that people believe it without question is what's makes it continue to this day... and that's never going to change. I doubt that it will happen more in
Re:Pretty Funny (Score:3, Informative)
http://www.snopes.com/photos/shark.asp
Watermarks (Score:5, Insightful)
That aside, though, this is a neat use of watermarks. Much better than that stupid the-watermark-determines-the-restrictions crap that the music companies were playing around with, a while back.
Re:Watermarks (Score:4, Interesting)
Are you sure? Many companies (*cough* MPAA *cough*) use watermarks so they can figure out where leaked material came from. This is hardly new. Back in the golden days before PCs existed sensitive government or corporate documents were watermarked so if leaked you could figure out by whom.
Didn't MPAA also sue that screener under the DCMA for attempting to remove their watermarks from the screening films he leaked? Would they not be able to do this?
Re:Watermarks (Score:5, Funny)
Are you sure about that? It's in the fine print. Really fine print, as it turns out -- it's in microtext in the dot over the second "i" in "millennium."
Re:Watermarks (Score:5, Informative)
The other part of the DMCA says stripping copyright information or other identifying marks from a copyrighted work in an attempt to avoid proper attribution is also a violation.
It's in that part none of us got really upset about because most of us (even those who "pirate" regularly) still think the creator should get credit (just not control).
Re:Watermarks (Score:5, Informative)
Sec. 1202. Integrity of copyright management information
. . . (b) REMOVAL OR ALTERATION OF COPYRIGHT MANAGEMENT INFORMATION- No person shall, without the authority of the copyright owner or the law--
(1) intentionally remove or alter any copyright management information,
(2) distribute or import for distribution copyright management information knowing that the copyright management information has been removed or altered without authority of the copyright owner or the law, or
(3) distribute, import for distribution, or publicly perform works, copies of works, or phonorecords, knowing that copyright management information has been removed or altered without authority of the copyright owner or the law,
knowing, or, with respect to civil remedies under section 1203, having reasonable grounds to know, that it will induce, enable, facilitate, or conceal an infringement of any right under this title.
In other words "Thou shalt not do anything we don't like."
Re:Watermarks (Score:4, Informative)
Watermarking an image is pretty basic signal processing (go talk to your EE friends about it). You add a small amount "noise" to the signal (in this case, an image). This "noisy" image is then sent to people. To prove where a watermarked image came from, you subtract the original image from the watermarked/noisy image and you get the noise that you added. You compare this to your records and see who you you gave that noise pattern to.
The problem with removing the watermark is that you don't know what noise was added, and there isn't a way to find out, unless you have access to the original. Another way of putting it is that A+B=C. If you only know C (the watermarked image), you can't find out what A and B are! (unless you know A (original image) or B (noise you added).
Damn that photoshop (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Damn that photoshop (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Damn that photoshop (Score:3, Informative)
Standard IANAL bit.
It would protect him or her from libel, but not copyright or DMCA violations.
Re:Damn that photoshop (Score:5, Insightful)
Parody is a defense against copyright infringement, however, the infringing work must qualify as a parody.
Re:Damn that photoshop (Score:3, Insightful)
Not a bad forgery..... (Score:5, Informative)
Well they do have a history of lying (Score:5, Insightful)
Sorry to rain on your parade...
Re:Well they do have a history of lying (Score:5, Insightful)
They, meaning politicians in general, not just Republicans.
Re:Not a bad forgery..... (Score:5, Insightful)
It seems to me that no-one has high thoughts about the voters.
As an outsider, these American elections seems rather silly and I have never understood why the public allows this circus which seems to be all about avoiding important national issues.
But then again, that might why explain the low number of people voting.
Re:Not a bad forgery..... (Score:3, Informative)
Note: Her visit occurred in 1972. The real picture [snopes.com] of her and Kerry at the same rally was taken in 1970.
Re:Not a bad forgery..... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Not a bad forgery..... (Score:3, Interesting)
Article V, Section 3:
Clause 1: Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
This was put in to prevent people from being charged with treason just because the government didn't like what they'd done, as had happened a n
Re:Not a bad forgery..... (Score:5, Informative)
"But could someone explain the Jane Fonda thing? What did that forged photo purport to show?"
Many people consider Jane Fonda to be a traitor [snopes.com].
That's why this forgery is significant: it isn't some innocent and harmless Fark-style "let's put him with Barney the Dinosaur and make a funny image." It was designed to instill hatred of the candidate by associating the two. The rationale is likely that while the fact that both protested the war might not be enough to convey a sense of guilt by association, it might make all the difference in the world by providing a photo of the two speaking together.
Re:Not a bad forgery..... (Score:5, Informative)
Jane Fonda [imdb.com] is an actress, daughter of Henry Fonda, formerly married to liberal media mogul Ted Turner and also to SDS [factmonster.com] activist Tom Hayden [tomhayden.com]. She was an opponent of the Vietnam War who made a trip to North Vietnam at the height of the war thus earning the sobriquet "Hanoi Jane." The political right in the U.S. hates her guts. By placing John Kerry with Fonda, they seek to make Kerry appear as a left wing traitor.
Re:Not a bad forgery..... (Score:5, Informative)
Ummm, no, more than just the political right hate her guts. Anyone ever associated with the military hates her guts. Any (informed) patriotic American probably hates her guts.
You see, she did not just "make a trip" to N. Vietnam. She ENCOURAGED them to shoot down Americans. She visited an anti-aircraft battery that was used to shoot at/down American planes. She encouraged the enemy to continue fighting, and encouraged the Americans (over the radio) to essentially "give up." She even asked to pose in videos with American POW's, and some of those POW's later testified that they were tortured if they did not want to appear in the videos with her. Like a previous poster said, if war had been officially declared, she could have been executed for treason. As it stands, most people who know all the facts consider her a traitor to this day.
This is why any photo showing Kerry at an anti-war rally with her is extremely damaging to his campaign. This is also why Jane Fonda has been trying to distance herself from him in recent interviews, because she knows she is so hated it could torpedo the Dem's campaign.
Here is some more info from Snopes [snopes.com].
Re:Not a bad forgery..... (Score:3, Insightful)
How shocking of her to protest the fact the United States government killed millions of Vietnamese civilians, drowned their country in the deadly Agent Orange and the President accidentally forgot to declare war. Not to mention that the pretext for this illegal non war was the Tonkin Gulf incident. It was claimed North Vietnamese gun boats fired on a U.S. destroyer off the coast of North Vietnam. The Johnson administration neglected to mention that North Vietnamese d
Re:Not a bad forgery..... (Score:5, Insightful)
Um, I used to be associated with the military. I'm more informed than most Americans (probably including yourself) and am pretty damn patriotic. I don't really want to refight the Vietnam war here, but the behavior of the U.S. government and military [spectacle.org] during that war towards those who chose to dissent was at least as shameful as what Jane Fonda did. That war, and the stupid "anyone who opposes our enemies is our friend, no matter how evil they are themselves" mentality still haunts America today. Like it or not, 9/11 happened because our illustrious leaders thought (and still think) that fomenting military coups in Guatemala, Iran, and Chile, helping Saddam Hussein against Iran, shipping weapons to Egyptian and Saudi dictators, etc, etc, etc is good foreign policy. Our leaders (of both Republicrat and Democan parties) speachify about all of the great things (capitalism, freedom) Amerika offers, but simply cannot grasp the hatred that those actions have provoked among the have-nots of the world who hear the speaches but end up on the receiving end of American bullets when they try and put those American ideals into practice in their own nations. It is sometimes very hard to be a patriotic American, and Fonda's actions have to be seen in that light.
Nobody "placed" him anywhere...he was really there (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Nobody "placed" him anywhere...he was really th (Score:4, Insightful)
You aren't voting for Edwards or Dean (both of whom would actually have a chance of winning) because the Republicans told you not to. They told you Kerry was winning, and that you should vote for him because of that, and you believed him.
Guess Democrats are just as stupid as the rest of the sheep, eh?
Re:Not a bad forgery..... (Score:5, Interesting)
Jane Fonda was also a prominent opponent of the Vietnam war. Some people think she went too far, to the point of actually supporting the North Vietnamese (I'll not go into whether this was actually the case, as I don't know or care). So by linking Kerry with Fonda as closely as possible, they try to say Kerry is a wacko like Fonda. All without going into the fact that Kerry made a principled stand against the war only after serving in that war with considerable distinction.
Frankly, I don't think this approach has much traction. The rabid Fonda-haters are all on the right-wing fringe anyway. I would hope that for most Americans, having opposed the Vietnam war in the considered way Kerry did makes you look smart. You'd have to be pretty out there to say that in retrospect the Vietnam war was still a good idea when Kerry came out against it. I think it just makes it obvious that his critics on this issue are fully in the "all independent thought is treason" camp.
Anyway, a lot of people opposed the Vietnam war, and at this point, most people probably think they were right to do so. The demographic that still thinks of Vietnam war protesters as hippie-commie-pinko-scum is pretty small now, and they're not voting for Kerry anyway, so I don't see this fake photo mattering much.
On the other hand, there are plenty of real pictures of current members of the Bush administration being all buddy-buddy with Saddam Hussein...
Re:Not a bad forgery..... (Score:5, Informative)
"very vocal", as in lying about the treatment of US POW's.
"very vocal", as in christening her son Troy after a Viet Cong hero, Nguyen Van Troi, who later tried to assassinate SecDef McNamara.
"very vocal", as in "I would think that if you understood what communism was you would hope, you would pray on your knees, that we would someday become communists." - Jane Fonda, MSU, 1970
Re:Not a bad forgery..... (Score:5, Funny)
Well, at least she got closer to the VietCong than George Bush.
Re:Evil, evil Jane (Score:5, Insightful)
Not so. Kerry didn't go to Hanoi, Kerry didn't broadcast speaches designed to harm soldier's moral, Kerry stayed here and worked within the law for what he believed in. I have no respect for Hanoi Jane, but I do for Kerry.
Volunteering (Score:5, Funny)
Wait a second... (Score:5, Interesting)
If the watermarks were removed, the DMCA won't be able to help much, they'll have a hard time figuring out who did the forgery...
I keep reading... (Score:5, Funny)
Who? (Score:5, Funny)
John.
Open-Source Watermarks? (Score:5, Interesting)
I like to take photos and post them on my site, but I would like to also have them watermarked in case someone takes the photo and starts making money of it.
I looked into the one that comes with Adobe products, but it was way to expensive. Something like $75 for 10 photos.
Just wondering what options are avalible...
Re:Open-Source Watermarks? (Score:5, Informative)
That might not get us down to what person did it, but it very certainly would narrow the number of suspects into a very tight group...
Far too many suspects right now... (Score:4, Insightful)
It's highly unlikely that this came from anybody's official campaign, but somebody who really doesn't want Kerry to win for whatever reason makes sense to them. It'd be nice if there's a digital watermark somewhere in the picture that can unmask whomever was involved...
Edwards? (Score:3, Insightful)
AG Ashcroft ... (Score:3, Funny)
On free speech and fair use (Score:5, Interesting)
In this case what was done was not obvious until the original photographer looked at the picture and said "that's not right" and even he had to look at his original to be sure. It's certainly a good enough photoshop that it would easily fool most people who will give this only a scant few seconds before concluding Kerry did associate with Fonda. Since it depicted him side by side with Jane Fonda, with no way for the public to readily know it was a forgery, the only intent has to be slander.
Re:On free speech and fair use (Score:3, Informative)
Copyright violation? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Copyright violation? (Score:3, Interesting)
Did you see the picture in question? It seems extremely unlikely that a reasonable person could take it as a parody because it is carefully created to appear original and was apparently presented as the genuine article. It was meant to be taken as an original work, not as a satirical offshoot of an original work.
I think I know who did it (Score:3, Informative)
These goomers need to relax and find another vendetta. Otherwise, Fark is going out of business.
Two Kerry photos, one real, one fake (Score:5, Interesting)
Fake [snopes.com]
Interesting Corbis info (Score:3, Informative)
Founded by Bill Gates in 1989, Corbis is headquartered in Seattle, with offices in New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, London, Paris, Dusseldorf, Vienna, Hong Kong, Kuala Lumpur, and Tokyo.
Just throwing out that tidbit of info for the tin foil hat crowd.
Belgian hacker found responsible... (Score:4, Funny)
Here's the guy who did it. (Score:5, Interesting)
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1075317/p osts [freerepublic.com]
(Scroll down to post 47.) The original link was at:
http://members.aol.com/registered/private/freep/ke rryfonda.jpg [aol.com]
though it's gone now. "Registered" admits elsewhere on the board to creating the photo.
Apropos posting. (Score:5, Funny)
Just wondering...
Bill Gates.. (Score:3, Offtopic)
Not gonna RTFA, but.... (Score:4, Interesting)
At what point does construct of stupidity, layed on a ground of venal greed, to a philosophy of deniability become a solid doctrine to manage society by/with ?
I should have been born wealthy, or too stupid to appreciate the difference...
Here's a dillema - (Score:5, Insightful)
If you view the Vietnam War as one big massacre, you have a moral obligation to do what you can to stop it. That view is one reasonable people could hold. The U.S. dropped more tonnage of bombs on agricultural N. Vietnam than on Nazi Germany and Japan. The B52 crews Hanoi Jane was hoping would be shot down were following lawful orders and yet perpetrating massacres. It's a problem.
I have a lot of respect for the troops. I have no respect for the current CIC. If my own brother were shooting civilians, I'd stop him if I had the chance. Would you stand by just because of the uniform?
Re:Could it be? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Could it be? (Score:3, Informative)
Background On Photo from Guardian (Score:5, Informative)
That would seem ironic, considering it's apparent origins:
From the Guardian [guardian.co.uk]
Where the blame should lay... (Score:3, Insightful)
What about the National Enquirer? OJ Simpson case (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Interesting (Score:5, Informative)
And if you RTFA (I know, this is Slashdot) it's Corbis going after them for copyright violations, not Kerry.
Re:Interesting (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Interesting (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:An awful lie by right-wing nuts! (Score:5, Insightful)
I attended a Republican convention once. One of the many speakers was Pat Robertson. By your logic, I therefore believe everything that Pat Robertson believes. Pete DuPont spoke at the same rally. By your logic, Pete DuPont and Pat Robertson therefore have no differences.
Re:An awful lie by right-wing nuts! (Score:3, Insightful)
I hardly see the difference this makes, I don't post on here with my account, for my own reasons. I've had max karma ever since the karma kap came into effect.
Signing your name isn't half as important as being right. I post AC all the time on here & I'm regularly modded up. I don't have to justify my existance to another 'coward' but I will, because I believe in anonymous posting.
Yours truly,
chickenshit
Re:An awful lie by right-wing nuts! (Score:3, Interesting)
2. At the time that Fonda went over there, Kerry publicly decried her actions.
3. There is no evidence that they really knew each other personally other than as passing acquantainces.
Re:An awful lie by right-wing nuts! (Score:3, Insightful)
There's no reason that Kerry should change his mind or disassociate himself from Jane Fonda. He came back from service in Vietnam convinced that the war was wrong and became prominent in the anti-war movement. There's nothing wrong with that. I too opposed the war then, as did, eventually, a majority of Americans. Nothing has happened to change my mind, and I see no reason that Kerry should change his. But whatever one's take on the Vietnam war, Kerry never did anything in any way improper. Even if you don
Re:Veterans Protesting Against A War? Of course! (Score:5, Insightful)
It's a lot different then the action movies you've grown up on. In fact, when I was serving in Somalia, the situation was closer to "Blackhawk Down" than "Stripes".
---Well that's nice. I was serving in SWA/Kuwait a few years prior to your stint. When Bush Sr. realized that going into Baghdad would result in a dangerous power vacuum that could lead to a fundamentalist Islamic state. Not to mention civlian casualties and general chaos.
I'm pro-military. I'm vehemently against the current debacle launched in Iraq. And I can definitely see where a Vietnam vet coming home just might have something to say about how pointless that war was.
So again there, Mr. Somalia: What makes you think one cannot simultaneously be pro-military and yet still protest against a war?
Re:one real (Score:3, Informative)
If anyone reads anything into that pic, they're really reaching.
Of course the guy's at a peace rally. Unlike the majority of the people there, Kerry had an actual understanding of war, and actual combat expiriences that led him to protest the war after his return.
The realness of the other photo in no way discredits Kerry as a candidate, or as veteran. He was one of many Viet Nam veterans [vvaw.org] who had the balls to speak out against the war [virginia.edu] w