I'm in Russia. Not physically of course but between becoming a fan of Alyona Show on RT, Wild Russia, and Russia's Toughest Prisons I've got Russia on my mind.
Alyona has focused a lot of attention on the plight of a 12-year old American boy who is facing a life sentence in the US without the possibility of parole after being found guilty of murder. Watching Russia's Toughest prisons both on TV and reading the comments on YT I clicked on some related videos and came across this one, Torture Factory. It's entirely in Russian, not English voice over, no subtitles, and the text is cryllic (sp) so it's next to impossible to have a firm grasp. Though it's entirely in Russian the person who posted it took the time to post the title Torture Factory in English, perhaps hoping English speakers would watch it.
I scrolled through the comment section but everything is in Russia, but I don't think you have to know Russian. The English title and images speak volumes. From what I can grasp this torture factory is a Russian prison camp (I keep hearing the world colonia. You hear that word A LOT in these Russian prison documentaries. A lot).
I'm hoping the video was filmed before the fall of the Soviet Union but this seems relatively current and one of the comments includes "2008." If that is case, Russia is operating military-style concentration camps. The prisoners have presumably been tried and convicted but some of these image look like they were taken in a concentration camp. Jews were innocent. As for the date on of the pictures shows a boy standing behind the red, white and blue Russian Federation flag so the 2008 date could be correct. Torture Factory is posted in several parts.
The part that includes the beatings by guards or soldiers are horrific. Search and watch at your own risk. Again, since RT is focusing on American prisons I feel justified in posting this one. As a kid I saw Midnight Express and thought a Turkish prison was the absolute worst hell hole imaginable. Anywhere in the middle east. :( Like a lot of people I just assumed that Russia became "normal" after the fall of the Soviet Union, but apparently it hasn't been entirely purged from this barbarity.
The boys in the film are nearly emaciated and the injuries...horrible. Some are probably crime victims, but another part of the documentary shoves horrific beatings of prisoners in prison. Again, the prisoners are emaciated, pale, and from another video, I learned that Russian prisons are extremely overcrowded and TB is rampant.
So for the person who posted the video entirely in Russian except for the English title I am reposting it here. I think someone wanted this video to be watched by those outside of Russia, English speakers, so here it is:
Thursday, March 22, 2012
Tuesday, March 20, 2012
Appropriate for Journalism?
As a follow up to the previous post on HDR photography I found this article on CNN of all places. It's rather interesting:
"High-dynamic-range (HDR) photography -- the art of creating one image by combining multiple exposures -- has gained popularity along with some criticism in recent years. The result can transform an ordinary photograph into an image that looks like a painting.
"But critics complain that the result is over-processed and unrealistic. Traditionally, HDR images have been created by taking three photos of the same scene at different exposures -- regular, underexposed and overexposed -- and then combining them using a digital editing program. But photo editing programs and HDR apps for smartphones are automating the process for amateur photographers by making it possible to mimic those effects with a single photograph. Point, shoot and voila, you have an HDR image. HDR photography: Love it or hate it?
"High-dynamic-range (HDR) photography -- the art of creating one image by combining multiple exposures -- has gained popularity along with some criticism in recent years. The result can transform an ordinary photograph into an image that looks like a painting. But critics complain that the result is over-processed and unrealistic. Traditionally, HDR images have been created by taking three photos of the same scene at different exposures -- regular, underexposed and overexposed -- and then combining them using a digital editing program.
"But photo editing programs and HDR apps for smartphones are automating the process for amateur photographers by making it possible to mimic those effects with a single photograph. Point, shoot and voila, you have an HDR image. It may have started as a novelty, but HDR imagery has begun to be taken seriously as an art form. While the images are often likened to paintings, some enthusiasts say that the technique actually allows photographers to create images that are closer to what the eye really sees, and that it eliminates the need to delete "bad" photos that have been exposed too much or too little. They say it is potentially the end of dark, blurry shots and gives almost anyone the ability to create professional-level photographs. As Reporter Andrew Stowe puts it, "It is not the end-all, be-all of how to take great pictures. It's merely a different way of capturing a scene when the final intent is to achieve a maximum level of detail."
Appropriate for journalism? Controversy again. This is an article I found on dpreview.com:
"
Are High Dynamic Range photos appropriate for illustrating news? That's the debate that's been started by the Washington Post's use of an HDR image on its front page in January. Sean Elliot, president of the National Press Photographers Association came down firmly against it, saying, 'HDR is not appropriate for documentary photojournalism.' John Omvik, Marketing VP with HDR software maker Unified Color understandably disagrees. He's written us a response arguing that what we see is closer to HDR than, say, a mono photo shot with Tri-X film.
John Omvik's statement:
"Recently, the Washington Post stirred up a healthy debate among amateur photographers and photojournalists when it published a photograph on its front page commemorating the 30th anniversary of the tragic crash of Air Florida Flight 90 (January 13, 2012). The photo in question shows the back-lit 14th St. Bridge shot at sunset with an airplane in the upper left corner of the frame. The controversy stems from the fact that staff photographer Bill O’Leary used High Dynamic Range (HDR) techniques to process this photo, a fact the Post mentioned in the photo’s caption.
I tend to agree with the criticisms of using HDR in journalism for the reasons cited here:
The caption ultimately led to some confusion by readers, many of whom took it to mean the paper was publishing a doctored photo, perhaps in order to achieve the emotional impact appropriate to the accompanying story. In a subsequent Ask the Post article online, Michel du Cille, the Post’s director of photography posted detailed information on the HDR process while making it clear that the publication did not and does not “manipulate” photos.
"The debate spread to the Poynter Institute’s blog, where Sean Elliot, president of the National Press Photographers Association (NPPA) is quoted as saying:
“HDR is not appropriate for documentary photojournalism.” Elliot points out that the NPPA’s code of ethics say photographers should respect the integrity of the digital moment, “and in that light an HDR photo is no different from any other digital manipulation.”
As vice president of Unified Color Technologies, a pioneer in the field of HDR imaging, I strongly disagree with Elliot and the NPPA’s viewpoint. When properly used, HDR does the most accurate job of reconstructing the dynamic range of the original scene at the time the photo was taken. In fact, if one really wants to split hairs about what is “real” and what isn’t, consider this; from the moment you open your eyes in the morning until the moment you close them at night, everything you see in the world around you is in HDR.
"There is no camera in existence, digital or film, which can accurately reproduce what the human vision system can capture and process in real time. While today’s digital cameras capture a much larger dynamic range in a single shot than any color transparency film ever could in the past, they still can't match the tonal range humans can see. And so, using HDR software and processing tools is the only method a photographer has to deliver precisely what he or she witnessed at the time of an image capture.
"In the case of Bill O’Leary, his color HDR image is clearly more realistic to the moment then had he used the old gold standard of photojournalism and newsprint: black and white Tri-X film.
Improper use of HDR can clearly create a misrepresentation of the photographic moment, but when HDR techniques are used as they should, they absolutely meet, and might, in fact, go above and beyond the standards of the NPPA’s code of ethics which state, in part:
"At the current rate of technology evolution, we’re likely to soon have cameras that can match the dynamic range of human vision in a single shot (though even then software tools will be required to tone map the image for printing.) Until that time, the HDR process is the best option for photographers seeking to convey a sense of realism. Simply mentioning the process in the caption, as the Post did here, is all the disclosure that ought to be necessary.
-John Omvik
Nah. I don't agree with Omvik, but as an art form I do like it, when done properly.
"High-dynamic-range (HDR) photography -- the art of creating one image by combining multiple exposures -- has gained popularity along with some criticism in recent years. The result can transform an ordinary photograph into an image that looks like a painting.
"But critics complain that the result is over-processed and unrealistic. Traditionally, HDR images have been created by taking three photos of the same scene at different exposures -- regular, underexposed and overexposed -- and then combining them using a digital editing program. But photo editing programs and HDR apps for smartphones are automating the process for amateur photographers by making it possible to mimic those effects with a single photograph. Point, shoot and voila, you have an HDR image. HDR photography: Love it or hate it?
"High-dynamic-range (HDR) photography -- the art of creating one image by combining multiple exposures -- has gained popularity along with some criticism in recent years. The result can transform an ordinary photograph into an image that looks like a painting. But critics complain that the result is over-processed and unrealistic. Traditionally, HDR images have been created by taking three photos of the same scene at different exposures -- regular, underexposed and overexposed -- and then combining them using a digital editing program.
"But photo editing programs and HDR apps for smartphones are automating the process for amateur photographers by making it possible to mimic those effects with a single photograph. Point, shoot and voila, you have an HDR image. It may have started as a novelty, but HDR imagery has begun to be taken seriously as an art form. While the images are often likened to paintings, some enthusiasts say that the technique actually allows photographers to create images that are closer to what the eye really sees, and that it eliminates the need to delete "bad" photos that have been exposed too much or too little. They say it is potentially the end of dark, blurry shots and gives almost anyone the ability to create professional-level photographs. As Reporter Andrew Stowe puts it, "It is not the end-all, be-all of how to take great pictures. It's merely a different way of capturing a scene when the final intent is to achieve a maximum level of detail."
Appropriate for journalism? Controversy again. This is an article I found on dpreview.com:
"
Are High Dynamic Range photos appropriate for illustrating news? That's the debate that's been started by the Washington Post's use of an HDR image on its front page in January. Sean Elliot, president of the National Press Photographers Association came down firmly against it, saying, 'HDR is not appropriate for documentary photojournalism.' John Omvik, Marketing VP with HDR software maker Unified Color understandably disagrees. He's written us a response arguing that what we see is closer to HDR than, say, a mono photo shot with Tri-X film.
John Omvik's statement:
"Recently, the Washington Post stirred up a healthy debate among amateur photographers and photojournalists when it published a photograph on its front page commemorating the 30th anniversary of the tragic crash of Air Florida Flight 90 (January 13, 2012). The photo in question shows the back-lit 14th St. Bridge shot at sunset with an airplane in the upper left corner of the frame. The controversy stems from the fact that staff photographer Bill O’Leary used High Dynamic Range (HDR) techniques to process this photo, a fact the Post mentioned in the photo’s caption.
I tend to agree with the criticisms of using HDR in journalism for the reasons cited here:
The caption ultimately led to some confusion by readers, many of whom took it to mean the paper was publishing a doctored photo, perhaps in order to achieve the emotional impact appropriate to the accompanying story. In a subsequent Ask the Post article online, Michel du Cille, the Post’s director of photography posted detailed information on the HDR process while making it clear that the publication did not and does not “manipulate” photos.
"The debate spread to the Poynter Institute’s blog, where Sean Elliot, president of the National Press Photographers Association (NPPA) is quoted as saying:
“HDR is not appropriate for documentary photojournalism.” Elliot points out that the NPPA’s code of ethics say photographers should respect the integrity of the digital moment, “and in that light an HDR photo is no different from any other digital manipulation.”
As vice president of Unified Color Technologies, a pioneer in the field of HDR imaging, I strongly disagree with Elliot and the NPPA’s viewpoint. When properly used, HDR does the most accurate job of reconstructing the dynamic range of the original scene at the time the photo was taken. In fact, if one really wants to split hairs about what is “real” and what isn’t, consider this; from the moment you open your eyes in the morning until the moment you close them at night, everything you see in the world around you is in HDR.
"There is no camera in existence, digital or film, which can accurately reproduce what the human vision system can capture and process in real time. While today’s digital cameras capture a much larger dynamic range in a single shot than any color transparency film ever could in the past, they still can't match the tonal range humans can see. And so, using HDR software and processing tools is the only method a photographer has to deliver precisely what he or she witnessed at the time of an image capture.
"In the case of Bill O’Leary, his color HDR image is clearly more realistic to the moment then had he used the old gold standard of photojournalism and newsprint: black and white Tri-X film.
Improper use of HDR can clearly create a misrepresentation of the photographic moment, but when HDR techniques are used as they should, they absolutely meet, and might, in fact, go above and beyond the standards of the NPPA’s code of ethics which state, in part:
- Be accurate and comprehensive in the representation of subjects.
- Editing should maintain the integrity of the photographic images' content and context. Do not manipulate images or add or alter sound in any way that can mislead viewers or misrepresent subjects.
- Respect the integrity of the photographic moment.
"At the current rate of technology evolution, we’re likely to soon have cameras that can match the dynamic range of human vision in a single shot (though even then software tools will be required to tone map the image for printing.) Until that time, the HDR process is the best option for photographers seeking to convey a sense of realism. Simply mentioning the process in the caption, as the Post did here, is all the disclosure that ought to be necessary.
-John Omvik
Nah. I don't agree with Omvik, but as an art form I do like it, when done properly.
Experimenting With the Camera
I've also been experimenting with black & white expressionalism photography. Obviously I have a lot of work to do but it's fun and interesting. My attempt at it last week as fog moved into the city. The entrance to the parking lot of my apartment building:
I'm trying to understand the diffrence between Impressionism and Expressionism. I have a small grasp of it and why Expressionalism is different.
Another picture not nearly as nice. Taken from the bike path:
Another picture not nearly as nice. Taken from the bike path:
Deleted Times Three/Breaking the Fourth Wall
Too selfish too stupid too lazy.
I've deleted the past three posts since I feel people will get an entirely wrong impression of who I am and what I believe. First and foremost I do not believe, support, or find anything redeeming about Communism. My interest in certain television programs and networks. It simply means that I am curious and secure enough in my beliefs and how much I abhor being pigeon holed into either Right or Left. I tend to avoid events, especially public events, especially politically/activist ones because I have never been keen on playing follow the leader/leaders. I am a proud American. I love my country and generally tend to vote Republican.
I am not as incoherent and confused in my writing offline as I am on my blog. The problem stems from over a decade of straight reporting and a commitment to leaving my views out of what I write. I don't have that freedom and to frank I'm not sure I want it offline. Online is different. It's a safe and comfortable place to explore what I can't offline and to vent and explore. The Internet and now cable allow me to view various points of view. They are not threatening to me in the least since I basically do know what I believe and feel and it can't be shaken. I am somewhat all over the place politically partially due to a lack of knowledge of history and a disdain for politics. But for whatever reason exposure to various views through different media has engaged me in important issues, call it breaking the fourth wall or something along those lines. Fourth Wall? Go to You Tube and watch the Dave Meslin videos on the subject. It's actually quite interesting. Never mind--I'll post it here.
He basically discusses civics 101. I can relate to his beliefs when it comes to barriers to public participation in the political process. A few years ago I covered a public meeting. A city Councilman had been working with a born-again pastor who tried to reform himself after serving jail time for vehicular manslaughter by operating rehabilitation housing for ex-cons. His project on the East Side of Buffalo was an utter disaster with even some of the criminals on parole asking to go back to prison to serve the remainder of their sentences. It was that bad.
Enter the councilman who decided to rehabilitate an old factory in Northwest Buffalo by allowing this ex-con pastor to open a rehab apartment for level 3 sex offenders. The councilman at a public meeting on the matter seeking "input" from the public responded to criticism by trying to smooth things out and achieve a compromise with the pastor since the council could give him the zoning variance. Long story short, the council had agreed to the project and claimed he changed his mind once he released how many parolees and ex-cons would be in the community.
A second and much larger public meeting was held. Residents from the opposite side of the city came in protest of two issues--the pastor's disastrous project on the East Side and the city's failure to post notices of such meetings in community newspapers rather than in tiny font fine print in the large daily. The people from P.U.S.H. Buffalo made their presence known and walked out, a journalist friend of mine walking out with them in protest.
I stayed. I needed to cover the meeting since I was able to do so objectively. But I lost out on an opportunity to become involved and educated in civics and important issues impacting the community. Objective journalism is a double-edged sword for a journalist. Trust me, it is.
Sigh. I'm just trying to become more involved and aware, the source of the awareness that engages me isn't necessarily important but this is a tow the line world, and sadly why I haven't been able to read Arutz Sheva since last August after being denounced as anti-Semitic, anti-Israel and one who would have remained silent during the Shoah. Why the attack? I respected but suspected the motives and tactics of one of the Republican party's media darling.
Anti-Semitic and anti-Israel when just last week I received an enthusiastic "f*** you" from a fledgling Neo Nazi as I took pictures on a bike path where I had previously brought public exposure to the problem, which had resulted in online death threats to me, which were actually forwarded to a federal agency that investigates gangs and drugs. Yeah, you know, one of those three letter spook agencies. Oh, and the death threat also came with an online offer of money to kill me by a member of an extremely violent street gang.
They haven't forgiven and I haven't forgotten.
But I'm anti-Israel for the crime of thinking and forming an opinion about a media figure.
Picture: I was on the rocks here, the guy who shouted "f*** you" was on the other side of this polluted creek above a bridge.
****
Regarding my post on the demise of the West Side of Buffalo. It breaks my heart. Taking a bus through the old neighborhood is surreal. Not quite a dissociative state but more of dream-like one. Was the wonderful West Side real or just a dream? The street signs were recognizable and little else. Buffalo isn't a segregated community but each part of the city tended to be populated by specific ethnicities. People knew where to go for the best pizza in town etc. They knew where to go for the best Polish food etc. You get the point:)
That's all changed. There's no longer an Italian Festival on the West Side but an "International Festival."
And everyone knows that once an ethnic community here has lost its identity the community has been lost forever and become crime ridden, a shell of its former glory. All that is left are vague deja vu experiences and little else:(
Gone forever. Forever lost from all of us...
So no, I am not a Communist, not in danger of being sucked into Leftist beliefs, but engaged enough to understand them more. The source of this education and awareness shouldn't be an issue. I'm merely trying to break through the fourth wall.
Long and short of it is, I am not as dense or ignorant as my posts and thoughts online are.
****
Entirely Off Topic but I've been experimenting with HDR photography, rather photo editing, lately via photo editing. It's interesting but difficult. Done properly it should give a more rich three dimenstional look. Done poorly it looks animated and difficult to tell if it's a painting or a photograph. In other words, it looks like a cartoon.
Painting or photograph...which represents reality better? Each has its pros and cons but share a common flaw. Focus too closely and objectivity and perspective is lost. Focus too broadly and you can't see the forest from the trees.
Failed attempt at HDR photography and photo editing,probably too small to see the animation:
Monday, March 5, 2012
Justice or Human Rights Violations?
RT's motto is Question More and Explore Russia. For whatever reason, American television is exploring Russia. The Russian arctic episode of Wild Russia was beautiful and effectively debunked global warming. Wild Russia airs on Animal Planet and features rare animals that can only be found in Russia. National Geographic is also exploring Russia with Russia's Toughest Prisons. Three Russian prisons are featured--Black Dolphin, Vladimir Central (Stalin's son was a prisoner there) and another prison, Prison Camp 17 (KK-17). Vladimir Central seems like an extreme example of any tough prison in the United States. Black Dolphin and Prison Camp 17 are more disturning for differnt reasons. It is a supermax prison, which seems to violate basic human rights. It makes Gitmo look like a five-star hotel. Black Dolphin houses the most vile of prisoners. This portion of the show should have definitely come with one of those "this program may be unsettling for sensitive viewers.
Viewer discrection is advised." Inspite of the horrendous crimes the prisoners have been tried and convicted of I found them sympathetic compared to the Lt. Guard Denis Avsyuk (sp). Two prisoners are confined to a cell within a cell. Cells with three metal doors. Each cell is 50-square feet, slightly larger than my bathroom. Prisoners can't sit on their beds at all for 16 hours a day from 6 a.m. There is no prison yard. They're allowed to pace like caged lions for one hour a day. The "yards" are indoors and inmates can't even look at the sky. Inmates sentenced to life terms can't use the dinning hall, and are fed either soup or barley and bread. When guards move them from their cells to the prison "yard" they are blind folded and put in a stressed position. Does this sound like Gitmo? Yes and no. The inmates at Gitmo have not been tried or sentenced. Extreme isolation, the stress positions etc (basically torure) are used to extract information. This is not the case at Black Dolphin.
Human rights activist have blasted Gitmo for torture. Is it torture to treat the tried and sentenced prisoners this way, yet we never hear about it in the media.
Prison Camp 17--right in the heart of Siberia. The horror stories about being sentenced to a prison in Siberia looks ghastly. Not so much for the prison conditions but for the types of people sentenced to the prison camp. Dmitry, 21, was sentenced on a drug-related charge. Though he is 21 years old, he looks like a 15 or 16-year old. Why sentence this sweet boy, who carries a small photo album of his family around and which can be seen in virtually every scene he is in. He seems like such a sweet kid. He describes his best friend as George, a fellow inmate also sentenced for drugs. George and Dmitry "live together, work together and do everything together. George describes his greatest fear--being alone. Dmitry's family can't visit him because the prison camp is a three-day trip away.
Three thoughts--presentencing investigation. Both young men come from stable families. They have committed non-violent crimes. Yet they're sentenced to years in a maximum security prison in Siberia. It made me sick. In the US a presentencing investigation would have most likely sentenced them to probation. First time offenders.
The narrator says explains that there is a lack of cheap labor in Siberia. Is the Russian prison system sentencing young, first time offenders to prison as slave labor? Sentencing kids to prison just to provide cheap labor?
Watch the video. Tell me if you think this is the case and if these young men deserved to be sentenced to a maximum security prison. First time offenders for non-violent crimes. It seems like Russia is sentencing kids to prison. Shipped off to Siberia as slave labor?
Is Black Dolphin worse than Gitmo in that the prisoners are not terrorist and the cruelty is not used to extract information? The video is about an hour long, but worth watching. Decide for yourself if this is simply another country's criminal justice system or abusive.
Dmitry explains how a kid in a Russian village can be sentenced to prison for half a year just for stealing a sack of potatoes. In the US a first time offender for such a crime would result in an ACD (adjournment in contemplation of dismissal). Keep your nose clean for six months and the charges are totally dismissed.
Is it really possible that Russia is sentencing these kids to prison in Siberia just as a form of cheap labor? Remember, non-violent crimes, first time offenders.
Sunday, March 4, 2012
Battle of th Blue Collar
After years of disdain for all things political I’ve come to a conclusion. It’s not all politics I object to, but American politics. To quote Ray Bradbury: “I hate that Roman named Status Quo.” I see little difference between the Right and Left. Each are two sides of the coin.
Further, I find American politics utterly boring.
I’m not engaged in it all. Some say the presidential elections are the battle for the blue collar. What exactly is blue collar? People willing to get their finger nails dirty? People working in factories who have placed themselves are a pedestal? Taking the bus to work because we can’t afford cars, but unwilling to put ourselves in debt just to get one? I can’t relate to the self-glorified middle and upper middle class.
I come from and remain lower middle class, which means neither of the political parties represent me.
What’s the difference between the middle/upper middle class and the working class? Why are we sandwiched between these classes and the poor? It’s not so much a matter of having values but of having virtues. Unlike the poor, we work. Unlike the middle class we know the dangers of living beyond our means. That means not maxing out our credit cards, saving up to buy things. Credit cards are set aside for emergencies lonely--emergency meaning something like a broken furnace. At least that’s how it was in my family. It meant saving up for something, the old fashioned layaway.
I couldn’t afford cable for many years so I went without it. Now I can afford it and have it for two months now.
The middle and upper middle class are represented by the Republicans. The poor have the Democrats. Who represents the working class who simply have more important things to do than camp out in the cold with the Occupy movements and the Tea Party? I’ve yet to find a single candidate that represents the working class.
Not a single one.
So riddle me this--who represents the working/lower middle class? It’s certainly not the Tea Party. I don’t care what people think--Many (not all) of them view anyone who is not middle class as leeches. The same goes for the Occupy crowd who see us as an oppressed people clinging to a Communist-like to be taken care of and controlled.
Nope.
In the battle of the blue collar we are simply left out of the equation.
Further, I find American politics utterly boring.
I’m not engaged in it all. Some say the presidential elections are the battle for the blue collar. What exactly is blue collar? People willing to get their finger nails dirty? People working in factories who have placed themselves are a pedestal? Taking the bus to work because we can’t afford cars, but unwilling to put ourselves in debt just to get one? I can’t relate to the self-glorified middle and upper middle class.
I come from and remain lower middle class, which means neither of the political parties represent me.
What’s the difference between the middle/upper middle class and the working class? Why are we sandwiched between these classes and the poor? It’s not so much a matter of having values but of having virtues. Unlike the poor, we work. Unlike the middle class we know the dangers of living beyond our means. That means not maxing out our credit cards, saving up to buy things. Credit cards are set aside for emergencies lonely--emergency meaning something like a broken furnace. At least that’s how it was in my family. It meant saving up for something, the old fashioned layaway.
I couldn’t afford cable for many years so I went without it. Now I can afford it and have it for two months now.
The middle and upper middle class are represented by the Republicans. The poor have the Democrats. Who represents the working class who simply have more important things to do than camp out in the cold with the Occupy movements and the Tea Party? I’ve yet to find a single candidate that represents the working class.
Not a single one.
So riddle me this--who represents the working/lower middle class? It’s certainly not the Tea Party. I don’t care what people think--Many (not all) of them view anyone who is not middle class as leeches. The same goes for the Occupy crowd who see us as an oppressed people clinging to a Communist-like to be taken care of and controlled.
Nope.
In the battle of the blue collar we are simply left out of the equation.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)