I don’t know why there’s a debate raging in the USA over whether Obama called the embassy attacks in Libya “terrorist attacks” or not. The fact is, the word “terrorist” is largely meaningless and is thrown around by politicians and the media so much that it has lost its signifying quality. The word “terrorist” does not connote anything when it is applied to almost every act of violence committed in the Middle East. 

Realistically, there is no such thing as a “terrorist”. You should call the people what they really are: murderers. That’s a better word. And so long as you can agree that these people were murderers, you can move on and talk about real issues like security. Semiotics should not be a political issue. 

“What we can do to help young women and women of all ages is to have a strong economy, so strong that employers that are looking to find good employees and bringing them into their workforce and adapting to a flexible work schedule that gives women opportunities that they would otherwise not be able to afford.”

- Mitt Romney.

Is it just me or did Romney, in the Presidential Debate, imply that employers don’t want to hire women? And that the only way to get them hired is to have an economy so strong that they will only then start looking to hire women? And that women aren’t hired because employers don’t want to adapt to their ‘flexible needs’? 

Political commentators are right when they say Obama has it tough. He’s spent four years dealing with a sluggish economy after it took a hit from a massive recession and he’s done an alright job restoring things to (basically) how they were in 2008. Romney’s got an easier job because all he has to do is criticise - any political commentator can tell you it’s easier to point out faults and win an election with a negative campaign. Running a positive campaign is much harder.

To be honest, I don’t know if Obama’s pushed a positive campaign message enough. Attacking Romney is largely pointless because there is little detail to hang your criticisms on. Running a positive campaign and emphasising the need to look at issues long-term, and with a rational mind, would have been a better way to go for Obama. Jobs have been steadily retained, recurring bank crises avoided and some stability achieve - those are things that should have been the central focus (not to mention important changes to health care and credit consumer legislation). 

As an outsider (from New Zealand) looking in, America could have been in a much worse-off position. But it’s stuck in there and it’s heading back up. Also as an outsider looking in, the choice between Romney and Obama seems relatively straightforward to me. Americans have a choice between realism and delusion. Obama is realistic and has some specific plans to try and achieve realistic goals. Romney is proposing a 20% flat tax cut that will devastate America right to its very core. His proposals are fundamentally unrealistic. 

Anyway, that’s just the way I see it.

It would be interesting to see a comparison of Republican donations by so-called ‘Christians’ to Mitt Romney versus their donations to the poor. When you’re donating over $250,000 to a campaign, you’ve got some serious interests at stake…but what are your priorities? Mitt Romney or the starving poor? 

Instagram is interesting. I still prefer doing my own editing though. Seems a bit lazy just instagramming everything. It takes the skill and hard work out of things.

I guess that issue’s already been debated all over the internet, however. I prefer to stay out of big debates about social movements because there never is one answer to the debate.

Some say “It’s a good thing that everyone can take photos and make them into instant works of art” while others say “It’s not really art when an application is doing all the work for you.” 

Personally, in light of it all, I think modern technology is both good and bad for photographers and the photography profession. On one hand, it’s easier to take photos. Because cameras are digital and more portable, you can take snapshots almost anywhere at any time and capture some amazing stuff. It connects people and opens up more opportunities to get unique shots. On the other hand, the ubiquity of cameras makes it almost impossible to become a professional photographer and get decent pay for your photos.