I am guessing that you (and others,) are making the assumption that because the photographer owned the camera he owns the photo. Why would that be the case? The photo in question is an image created through an organic automated process. No human input was used, no one composed or designed the shot, no one even initiated the shot. No Human (or other "legal" entity) was involved. How can there be ownership?
I am looking for an actual (factual) answer please.
I do not intend that point as an anti-racism argument. A person's genetic ethnicity is WHOLLY IRRELEVANT. There are many cultural and societal differences among people, such as religious or financial background, access to education or relative learning ability (etc.), that may have strong bearing on a given situation. But to say that any of those cultural or societal differences are the strict result that a person is a member of any general genetic grouping is patently false.
"It's not the color of a man's skin it's the man inside that you must know." -- Someone Said
"the voting habits of congress shows they are probably being controlled"
I think this statement is just a bit paranoid and conspiratory. I do agree that congress members behavior is highly influenced, but that influence is money. And it is largely self-inflicted influence. It may be possible to influence your representative with financial stimulus, but it is FAR easier to find out what they're looking for and use that.
Put another way, it is easier to influence someone who is looking to be influenced!
If you truly want to expose the conspiracy follow the money.
I completely agree with your comments here. Your statements are concise and well presented. I would very much like for SOMEONE to present the counter to your arguments (whether that presenter believes that position or not.) I know that They seem to be incapable of making a rational counter argument, They keep trying to use "talking points" as an argument, and They seem to have the opinion that they should not need to defend themselves.
The implication that the value of one person's speech is made greater simply by spending a greater number of dollars is a nasty falsehood perpetuated by insecure small people who found they can bully others with their money. It is the same argument as saying that the person who's voice is loudest is right. I'm not saying it doesn't work I'm saying it is wrong and immoral. True "free speech" is minted in a coin of equal value wielded by any person who can speak with string character and integrity. Qualities that are severely lacking on our society.
Except that everyone who trots out Rand's Objectivist philosophy conveniently omits the fact that the companies in that "reality" would be a vehemently opposed to laws favoring a given business model as they would any regulatory oversight.
I know the game of politics is to cherry-pick the "facts", but that doesn't make them factual!
From Google: pseuˇdo ˈso͞odō/ adjective adjective: pseudo
1. not genuine; sham. "we are talking about real journalists and not the pseudo kind" synonyms: bogus, sham, phony, artificial, mock, ersatz, quasi-, fake, false, spurious, deceptive, misleading, assumed, contrived, affected, insincere; More informalpretend, put-on "her 'diamonds' are so pseudo" antonyms: genuine
Origin More late Middle English: independent use of pseudo-.
While I want to agree with your comment completely I can't. Nothing, and I mean nothing, ever unfolds as it is foreseen. It is never quite as good or bad as any given prognosticator describes it.
Why can't we all work fewer hours? Why are some people compelled or forced to work 60+ hours per week while others can not get any work?
The system we are forging will not work without some fundamental changes in how societies function. I am not endorsing handouts and I am not suggesting we "return to the old ways." I am hoping more people will see the dysfunction of the path we are on.
You mean that some bad actors will act badly even if they know their actions are known to all.
Probably true. However I think that number would still be lower than if people feel that they might "get away with it" due to anonymity or their belief that they are anonymous, even if eventual forensics eventually "outs" them and their bad actions.
Don't take this to mean I am willing to throw out my ability to be anonymous. I simply want to "see more of the picture."