(Click on the logo to return to the main blog.)
Image of the Day
11/11/2002
Anybody who's taken even a basic art history class that dealt at all with religious painting will spot the significance of today's picture of the day:
(via Instapundit via Corsair)
Posted by Justin Katz @ 10:11 AM EST
10 comments
GWB is a good guy and I'm glad that we have him as oppossed to the other guy, BUT he is NO SAINT!
Dale @ 11/11/2002 12:16 PM EST
NICE PICTURE! :) WHO KNOWS? IT MIGHT BE DIVINE PROVIDENCE WORKING!
DREW @ 11/11/2002 03:56 PM EST
The picture looks faked to me. The Presidential seal looks as if it is floating, rather than attached to something - a wall, or a partition behind Mr. Bush. And the boundary between his head and the seal is too fuzzy to be real. I suspect that we will soon learn that it was made up.
Henry @ 11/11/2002 10:57 PM EST
Henry,
I guess it could be, but I tend to doubt that Reuters would fake a picture... especially in such a way.
Justin Katz @ 11/11/2002 11:01 PM EST
Nah-- it's real. Several similar wire-service photos appeared, with slight positional variations.
RC @ 11/12/2002 12:45 AM EST
Looks real to me. The background is just out of focus, that's all -- guy was probably using a telephoto lens to shoot it.
Was it intentional? Who knows. My question is, are we going to be seeing more of this, like we did with Ashcroft framed by Lady Justice's breasts during those press conferences?
Pontifex @ 11/12/2002 10:14 PM EST
GWB is no saint, yet over the past year and then some he has had the patientce of one.
Edward @ 11/13/2002 12:02 AM EST
To the offensive and anonymous person whose comment I have deleted: find somewhere else to play, bub.
Justin Katz @ 11/13/2002 12:28 AM EST
Who are you Justin to delete offensive comments? This picture is vile enough without a yaya editing out things he doesn't like. Oh grow up.
Elizabeth @ 11/13/2002 11:22 AM EST
Ummm... Elizabeth, I'm the (private) owner of this Web site. Three factors came together leading to my deletion of the comment: offense, no real statement except the offense, and anonymity.
Of course, if the comment hadn't been offensive, there wouldn't be any reason to delete it. If it had made some sort of argument, then I'd have answered it. And because the writer didn't even have enough conviction in his or her opinion to use a real name and/or provide an address via which to receive responses, I don't see why I should be obligated to provide a forum for him or her to voice it. (But even so, I took the decision seriously enough to announce that I had made it.)
Any one of these problems being absent would have tipped the balance, as it did for your post. You've insulted (the "yaya" comment really proves you to be the rational party), and you might as well be anonymous (with your unlinked first-name-only identification). However, you made a point, and now I've made my rebuttal.
Justin Katz @ 11/13/2002 11:52 AM EST