Check out the photo of Condoleezza Rice that was published by USA Today last week:

http://images.usatoday.com/news/_photos/2005/10/19/RICE-inside.jpg

Notice anything peculiar about her eyes?  No, Condi isn't possessed; the photo was manipulated.

This news comes courtesy of From The Pen, which found a pre-doctored version of the Associated Press photo on Yahoo! España:

http://www.drudgereport.com/realcondi.jpg

Link: http://michellemalkin.com/archives/003780.htm

--USA Today has now issued a lame excuse.

Yes, I can definitely see a difference in the eyes between the two photos. The top one does look pretty scary. :o

I just read the editor's note too.

She's eqaully ugly in both pictures from where I'm standing.

She's eqaully ugly in both pictures from where I'm standing.



I was thinking the same thing.




Cat

As if she needs demonizing.  All you have to do is listen to her.  Her testimony in front of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee last week was embarrassing.

She's eqaully ugly in both pictures from where I'm standing.


Yet another insult?

You're not allowed to insult posters.  So if she joins the forum, everybody has to be nice to her.  Anybody want to invite her?

Physically I think she's rather nice looking, its her politics and ideas that are ugly.

At least they came clean after being caught:

Editor's note: The photo of Condoleezza Rice that originally accompanied this story was altered in a manner that did not meet USA TODAY's editorial standards. The photo has been replaced by a properly adjusted copy. Photos published online are routinely cropped for size and adjusted for brightness and sharpness to optimize their appearance. In this case, after sharpening the photo for clarity, the editor brightened a portion of Rice's face, giving her eyes an unnatural appearance. This resulted in a distortion of the original not in keeping with our editorial standards.

Although after looking at both pics, only the eyes seem different between the two.  That is very selective "sharpening".

At least they came clean after being caught:

Although after looking at both pics, only the eyes seem different between the two.  That is very selective "sharpening".


I guess I see it differently.  Look at her mouth, eyebrows, earings etc.  The redone photo is much sharper.  And why would USA Today want to demonize poor little Condi?  To paraphrase Steve Martin "She was born a poor white girl..."

You're not allowed to insult posters.


http://www.ctgilles.net/images/pictars/master_obvious.jpg

the Mug-shot of O.J. Simpson on the cover of Time was also manipulated .

Yet another insult?


Yet another episode of "GW the Hall Monitor?" You think I didn't totally foresee your reaction? Just an example of how little I care, I guess.

the Mug-shot of O.J. Simpson on the cover of Time was also manipulated .


Yes, and at the time I complained about that as well.

The only time I find something like that acceptable is when the intent is obviously "satire".  When it is intended as a serious report, then it is inappropriate.

There was also a case of MJ a few months ago that I thought was inappropriate.

You think I didn't totally foresee your reaction?


Yes.

Just an example of how little I care....

The feelings mutual.

Yes.


Yeah, because we're all familiar with your reputation as the most spontaneous and unpredictable member of the board. Sometimes, I'm just utterly shocked at your ability to not toe the party line, always staying 100% authentic in your response to any situation... 

;D

Sorry, but that's just plain comic: it's not as though it isn't obvious that the top pic's been doctored... are people really getting worked up about it over there?

Physically I think she's rather nice looking, its her politics and ideas that are ugly.

Bingo!  I confess to Condi dominatrix fantasies passing through my mind!
:-U.S.A. Toady to doctor the photos?  I've never heard that publication reputed to be a leftie attack rag.  I mean, maybe Brent Bozzel and clods who think anybody to the left of Fred Barnes is a flaming red think U.S.A. Toady is a stealth version of Ramparts....
::)

http://www.ctgilles.net/images/pictars/master_obvious.jpg


That's not the kind of poster I meant.  I mean somebody who posts on the messageboard.  Why would I care about some silly movie poster?  ???

That's not the kind of poster I meant.  I mean somebody who posts on the messageboard.  Why would I care about some silly movie poster?  ???

Are you sure he's not just d*cking around with you?
;D

Yeah, because we're all familiar with your reputation as the most spontaneous and unpredictable member of the board. Sometimes, I'm just utterly shocked at your ability to not toe the party line, always staying 100% authentic in your response to any situation... 


This shows a lot.  I tow the party line?  After complaining multiple times about CAFTA, spending, immigration and Harriet Miers?  I've complained many times on some Bush policy or some republican party policy.  This post falls under grasping at straws.

Now then I'll start a thread about any old subject, say what's your opinion of the republican party in general, and see how predictable some on here are.

I guess being consistent and predictable is an insult in this crazy world!

Instead of being 'predictable', does it makes more sense, for example, to support a party that often claims to advocate "less government" but then at the same time encourages the government to:

RESTRICT women's right to terminate early pregnancies
RESTRICT people's right to seek damages for malpractice and corporate misdeeds
RESTRICT businesses' and universities' ability to diversify their environments in the manner they've determined is appropriate
RESTRICT and REGULATE content on the airwaves
RESTRICT and REGULATE marriage, the most intimate of all interpersonal relationships...


That doesn't sound much like "less government" to me!

I'm fairly conservative (small 'c') in many ways, and I believe that in order to have a viable, healthy society, much of this should be restricted and regulated too. But that just shows how meaningless the mantra of "less government" is. Many 'Conservatives' try to make out that 'Liberals' are the ones looking to disrupt the good and 'natural order of things' by imposing government where it doesn't belong. This is not a sensible idea. We need good government, we need to have efficient, effective structures and mechanisms in place to make sure the principles we say we believe in actually mean something in the real world.

What would the motivation for U.S.A. Toady to doctor the photos?


I do not think it was "USA Today", as much as one of their staff members.  It is not unusual for reporters to occasionally try and turn "news" into "commentary".  I do not blame the newspaper myself in this incident.


Bingo!  I confess to Condi dominatrix fantasies passing through my mind!


Uhhh, I think that is just a little to much information there, Max!

Now I gotta get the image of Max hog-tied wearing leather out of my mind.

:P

Bingo!  I confess to Condi dominatrix fantasies passing through my mind!
:-[

Yeah, because we're all familiar with your reputation as the most spontaneous and unpredictable member of the board. Sometimes, I'm just utterly shocked at your ability to not toe the party line, always staying 100% authentic in your response to any situation... 
;D


http://www.junknugget.com/forum/images/smiles/catharsh.jpg

good one!

There was also a case of MJ a few months ago that I thought was inappropriate.


Michael's actual face is inappropriate.  :o