What’s missing from the photo above that ran in the ultra-orthodox Jewish newspaper HaMevaser, or The Announcer?
No, the answer isn’t “any Americans,” though that would be correct too.
Why, it’s all the women! German Chancellor Angela Merkel, Danish PM Helle Thorning-Schmidt, Paris Mayor Ann Hidalgo and the High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy Federica Mogherini were all photoshopped out of the Israeli newspaper.
When you have to have to alter the facts to fit your ideology and world view, this is supposed to trigger an ethics alarm that alerts you to the unpleasant truth that the problem is with you and your biases, conclusions and beliefs, not the facts.
Making people disappear from photos is the most grotesque of such self-indicting strategies, but there are many less spectacular but equally unethical examples, and right at home, right now. Can you name some?
I’ll get you started with my personal “favorite”:
And to answer your question: I’ll stop harping on this one when I stop hearing Ferguson and Mike Brown routinely mentioned as examples of excessive police force and racism.
________________________
Spark and Pointer: Rick Jones
Ethics Alarms 
I haven’t read the behind the scenes rationalizations. What was their reason? That women shouldn’t be around non relatives or that women shouldn’t be leaders?
I don’t know. I presume its the latter. If Bill Clinton had been in the crowd, it might have been for their own safety…
What about Golda Meir?
Was she photoshopped out too??? Wow–Obama couldn’t bother to make it, and Golda came from beyond the grave. Now THAT’S commitment!
Funny, I was referring to Tex’s comment about women leaders. I don’t think they have that problem.
One thing I did find was that the both images were staged events well beyond the rally. Is it possible that multiple photos were taken that did not include the women? Has the newspaper acknowledged the image was Photoshopped? Probably not but probably wouldn’t even if it had.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/paris-march-tv-wide-shots-reveal-a-different-perspective-on-world-leaders-at-largest-demonstration-in-frances-history-9972895.html
It came through as a comment to me, but I would have made the same cheap joke anyway.
But it doesn’t address my comment. This type of ultra-ultra-orthodox don’t form an election changing percentage…
I don’t think it has anything to do with the photography, Tex – it may only be the ultra orthodox proscription against men and women touching — at all — unless closely blood-related (is there a hint of excusing abuse here?) or in “touching” professions (with supervision?) such as medicine, hair-dressing, etc. … Apparently, sometimes even women’s names are excluded or cut out. You might not care quite as much about this, though: The New York-based paper Di Tzeitung decided in 2011 to erase then-U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton from the image showing American leaders during the raid on Osama bin Laden’s compound.
Can’t find anything else to explain why they do this other than women being seen as objects to be pushed around by their male relatives under the umbrella of “keeper of the religion.”
Which brings me an item I almost ran yesterday re the specious anti-free-speech posts some people were making and/or agreeing with. I thought Beth had pretty much covered the subject but … no.
As (self-confessed) Christian writer and psychiatrist M. Scott Peck – Lt. Col. who served as the U.S. Army’s Assistant Chief Psychiatry and Neurology Consultant to the Surgeon General of the Army – explained, “(T)there are different stages of spiritual maturity. Fundamentalism – whether it be Muslim, Christian, Jewish or Hindu fundamentalism – is an immature stage of development.
“Indeed, a Christian fundamentalist who kills others in the name of religion is much more similar to a Muslim – or Jewish, Hindu or Buddhist – fundamentalist who kills others in the name of his religion than to a Christian who peacefully fights for justice and truth, helps the poor, or serves to bring hope to the downtrodden.”
If we can’t agree to differentiating fundamentalists (extremists by definition) from (comparatively) rational folks, we will continue to have straw man arguments that lump every one together under a label that is useless for discussion.
p.s. There are even instances of Buddhist violence perpetrated by Buddhist fundamentalists.
“it may only be the ultra orthodox proscription against men and women touching — at all — unless closely blood-related”
Yes that is my suspicion as well. I merely asked in case someone knew for sure.
Fundamentalism v Militancy
“Which brings me an item I almost ran yesterday re the specious anti-free-speech posts some people were making and/or agreeing with. I thought Beth had pretty much covered the subject but … no.
As (self-confessed) Christian writer and psychiatrist M. Scott Peck – Lt. Col. who served as the U.S. Army’s Assistant Chief Psychiatry and Neurology Consultant to the Surgeon General of the Army – explained, “(T)there are different stages of spiritual maturity. Fundamentalism – whether it be Muslim, Christian, Jewish or Hindu fundamentalism – is an immature stage of development.
“Indeed, a Christian fundamentalist who kills others in the name of religion is much more similar to a Muslim – or Jewish, Hindu or Buddhist – fundamentalist who kills others in the name of his religion than to a Christian who peacefully fights for justice and truth, helps the poor, or serves to bring hope to the downtrodden.”
If we can’t agree to differentiating fundamentalists (extremists by definition) from (comparatively) rational folks, we will continue to have straw man arguments that lump every one together under a label that is useless for discussion.”
I’ve read some of Peck’s works. Pretty good. But I think he’s inaccurate on the characterization of “Fundamentalism”. He’s fallen for the same trap in mislabelling that the main stream media uses. Certainly spiritual immaturity involves a great deal of emotionalism, which typically manifests in anger, when a person’s beliefs are challenged. Anger, which can lead to violence, is best described as “Militancy”, not “Fundamentalism”.
If religion A says “at the bare bones you must believe”:
1) Never touch a weapon
2) Be peaceful with everyone
3) Oppose studying earthquakes
And a practitioner of religion A picked up a gun and blew away the first seismologist they found, they couldn’t rightly be called a “Fundamentalist” in their religion, because they clearly violated the fundamentals. They are more aptly described as a Militant practitioner of religion A and clearly break their own religion’s rules.
If religion B says “at the bare bones you must believe”:
1) Only tolerate people who are like you
2) Kill people who disagree with you
3) Oppose studying earthquakes
Then Practitioner B, when he picks up a gun and blows away seismologists, is not only a “Militant” practitioner, but can rightly be called a “Fundamentalist” for following his religion’s key tenets. Which would also lead to the identification that “Militancy” is also *enshrined* in his religion.
This is the major flaw in Islam v Christianity comparisons. The poo-pooers like to say “Well Christians were really violent in the name of their religion also”*. Sure, those Christians who did that were definitively WRONG to do it, but at least they can’t find anywhere in the New Testament to advocated their violence…so they were not “Fundamental” AT ALL. Just Militant asses. When Muslims engage in violence, they can refer to a plethora of textual backing to support their violence… they ARE being “Fundamental” when they are militant. Peck is correct that it is spiritual immaturity, he’s just wrong labelling it Fundamentalism. It’s time to acknowledge that Islam has encoded, not just a lack of ethics in it’s belief system, but an actively counter-ethical system.
*“Well Christians were really violent in the name of their religion also”:
I’m not sure why this objection is even raised. Do you?
1) Are we supposed to let Muslims do this because Christians did it also? *rationalization*
2) Are we supposed to condemn Christianity now also?
3) Are we supposed to just assume this is a growing pain in Islam and let it ride, turning a blind eye because Europe was a very violent place at one time also?
I’ve never figured out the objection…
Islamophobia
Probably time to address the poo-pooers concerns about “Islamophobia”. Anytime a rational person identifies the inherent flaws in Islam that seem to inculcate and forgive the very disgusting behaviors engaged in, some bleeding heart demands we acknowledge “Well, not ALL Muslims are like that”. This required caveat, which the rational person already understands, seems to be the only thing the bleeding hearts care about. I strongly suspect that if no one pointed out militant Islam, then the prevailing notion amongst the group in question would be that ALL Muslims are bleary-eyed peace loving down to earth people who only want good for all…
Thank God for the rational people.
Here’s where is sits- envision 2 continuums (continua?).
The first Continuum will be “Islamism”. At point 0, you have a guy who was born to Muslim parents but after that never practiced the religion in his life. At point 100, you have the guy who follows Islam to the absolute letter of the Koran and Hadiths and is one step away from blowing himself and a handful of
Jewskafiri to smithereens. Along that continuum you have anywhere from the secular Muslim who occasionally prays, to the daily prayer, to the Sufis, to the Shias, down the line to the quiet supporters of the terrrorists who would never do such themselves, to the guys who verbally suppor the terrorist but wouldn’t do it themselves to the Wahabbists, to the Salafists, then to the Takfirists, etc. On that continuum you have every shade of active practice of the religion.The second Continuum will be “Islamophobia”. At point 0, you have the guy who sees the news and thinks “hey that dude who cheered the 9-11 attacks and the Charlie Hebdo attacks is probably a bad guy” but then gets on about his day. At point 100, you have the guy who says “WHUT?! His name has ibn or bin in it??? KILL HIM!” Similarly along that contiuum, you have every shade of individual who worries about Islam’s effect on it’s believers and the likelihood that it fosters militant behavior.
Still with me? Now, I think rational people, without having to caveat a comment about Islam or militant Muslims, understands that, on the 1st continuum, the Vast majority fall in the “don’t worry about these guys” zone. I think the bleeding-hearts believe everytime someone makes a comment observing the reality of the world, they think the commenter believes EVERY SINGLE MUSLIM is at point 100 on the 1st continuum and therefore they quietly believe that every person making an anti-Islamic observation must lean towards being an Islamophobic extremist.
Here’s the concern that the poo-pooers don’t seem to realize or give appropriate gravity to- I think there are VASTLY MORE people on the “worrisome” end of the 1st continuum than there are on the “worrisome” end of the 2nd continuum. And it is also concerning that the bleeding hearts don’t seem to think that the “worrisome” end of the 1st continuum is nearly that big of a threat and are more concerned with not mislabelling the “non-worrisome” Muslims than they are with handling the troublesome ones…
It was photo shopped, as pointed out by another Israeli source:
http://judaism.walla.co.il/item/2819142
They just squeezed Merkel out, while the Mayor of Paris was replaced with someone else. I don’t read Hebrew, but would be curious to know if the alterations are disclosed somewhere in the text.
Correction: mayor of Paris was also squeezed, though one of her gloves remains.
http://www.mediaite.com/online/ultra-orthodox-jewish-newspaper-edits-female-world-leaders-out-of-charlie-hebdo-march/
We have seen quite a few shops in our time, but this photo manipulation is pretty sloppy, if you know what to look for. Here are five clear giveaways:
1: Discoloration of man’s face
2: World leader wearing a leather glove on one hand and no glove on the other hand
3: Mysterious hand of Federica Mogherini
4: Blurry face of man standing behind where Merkel used to be
Sorry, going too fast. Everything is in the link; the commentary was supposed to accompany the photo – which, of course, wouldn’t transfer here.
Not a photo but what about the media not batting an eye at using the reference to “white supremacist” groups routinely while simultaneously denying we should not paint an entire religion by referring to jihadist terrorists as “radical Islamists”.
Well, they can’t even do that anymore apparently. The president said he is going to apply pressure to the press to make sure they don’t run any anti-terrorism articles. They don’t want to upset Muslims because it might cause them to launch another not-terrorism and definitely not from true-Islam attack. It makes you really question if Obama stayed away from Paris because of an oversight or because he does not support Charlie Hebdo and freedom of the press.
http://news.yahoo.com/video/white-house-obama-fight-media-124405904.html
This is infuriating. It would be like President Roosevelt applying pressure to the press to refuse to publish anti-Nazi articles (such as an article reporting on the Holocaust) that may cause a Nazi attack against American troops.
The difference there is that Roosevelt at least knew Naziism antithesis to America. Obama not so in regards to radical Islam (or at least he doesn’t recognize the scope of radical Islam). But otherwise, apt analogy.
What’s wrong with the image?
Don’t you take comfort knowing a mature gathering of level headed men in charge of our world are free from the inherent chaos of a bunch of emotional women running around like hens with their heads cut off?
I’m wondering if this might involve issues similar to the airliner seating post of a few days ago.
It is similar; in fact, it is identical.
Nah, not at all, it’s got be all about the natural stability of a world led by men unencumbered by the emotionally-laden decisions of women leaders.
It’s not about what is…it’s about what should be.
I would think that Jews, of all people, would be particularly sensitive about making people disappear, even symbolically.
Hell, they made the whole march disappear. The photo-op came before the photoshop. The world leaders were not “leading” anyone:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/paris-march-tv-wide-shots-reveal-a-different-perspective-on-world-leaders-at-largest-demonstration-in-frances-history-9972895.html
See! So Obama decided it would unethical to partake in “pretending” to join the protest if they weren’t going to be with the main group of people.
Voila! Solved.