Old Glory proudly waves above the GWB on a previous Memorial Day. F LoBuono

I wrote this for Veteran's Day. It is certainly applicable to today, Memorial Day. I re-submit it in honor of ALL veterans; those living and those deceased.

This was originally published in The Nyack Villager:

They Were Giants

It seems to happen to me every Veterans Day. I’ll be watching a documentary on The History Channel of any one of the great battles of WWII. Riveted, it suddenly strikes me: “Oh my god, war is such a horrible thing. What a terrible price to pay – THEY paid”! I unabashedly shed a few tears. Whenever I am reminded of their sacrifice, I am overwhelmed with emotion. These men were GIANTS. I apply that moniker to all who served in that capacity but in particular to the so-called and so aptly named Greatest Generation – the men and women of WWII.

A large part of this connection lies within my family; both my father and his brother served in combat units in the European Theater. My father was an engineer with Patton’s Third Army and my uncle served on a tank with the 2^nd Armored Division. My father is gone 20 years now and my uncle, like so many of his comrades, just recently passed away. But their sense of duty, honor, commitment and pride in service has lived beyond them both.

One thing that strikes me so deeply is that, despite the enormity and importance of the task at hand, it so often came down to young, 18 and 19 year old boys who became men in the blink of an eye, the flash of a muzzle, or the blinding light of a fierce explosion. They became steel forged in the crucible of mortal combat. Yet, for me, it’s their humanity in the midst of such barbarity that affects me most. These men knew their mission was to survive by killing the enemy, destroying them and eliminating his ability to wage war. It was his JOB and he was going to do it! He also came to know that loyalty and commitment to his brother in arms was the key to his survival. This is such a powerful thing that it can even overcome the frightening might of a .50 caliber machine gun bullet. Giants, I say, Giants!

In the time after the violence of battle and they could reflect on what they experienced, they realized the terrible cost of war: so many young lives lost, the enormous human potential wasted. It is at these times of deep, inner reflection that the emotion, the compassion, the deep sense of humanity comes out in all of them. In the end, they, before all others, know we must choose humanity over brutality. It’s this legacy that, despite the obvious sadness for the loss of so many young lives, gives them tremendous inner strength, validated by their very presence.

There is a family legend about the two LoBuono brothers from Cliffside Park, N.J. – my father and his younger brother. Somewhere in eastern France, my father, the engineer, was building a pontoon bridge across a small river so that the US tanks could roll on. Well, sure enough, my uncle, the tanker, needed to get his tank across that very river. At some unknown intersection, in the middle of a great battle to save the world, two brothers had a chance meeting. It only lasted a few minutes but I can only imagine the deep pleasure it must have given them to finally see one another again. It had been two years since they last met. There was brief blurb of the encounter published in Stars and Stripes. “Brothers Meet in France” read the headline. My mother still carries that article, folded and graying, in her purse.

I recall that story every Veterans Day and think of my father and uncle. I think of all the veterans of all the wars. And I prefer to think of that story above all others because it’s one of reunion, family, and hope. Ultimately, they are the values that these men fought and died for in the first place.

Perhaps my father met his brother again. Somewhere. In some far away place. Like they did on that day in 1944. I’d like to think so. I’d like to think that veterans and all brothers in arms will once again be with one another - as they were in their youth.

Well, there I go again with the water works. I get softer as I get older. But I still don’t mind the tears. They were worth it. They were ALL so worth it.

Author’s note: I sincerely hope that, eventually, we will learn from their sacrifice and abolish war so that we will never have to memorialize the loss of so many again. Wishful thinking? Perhaps, but a worthy goal, don’t you think?

Brain Droppings: On the Perils of Riding

With the hog on a happier day. Photo: C LoBuono

A few weeks back I extolled the virtues of riding the hog in one of my blog entries. To my way of thinking, when it's right, it's pure, simple pleasure. However, like most things in life, if there's an upside then there is a down, too. And Cat and I experienced the down side this past Saturday evening. While riding home from dinner with a friend, on a beautiful country rode, a young guy (18) attempting to make a left-hand turn in front of us decided to try and beat us across the intersection. So, instead of coming into the intersection, waiting for us to pass, he cut the corner hard, in front of us, causing me to jam on my breaks and take evasive action. We barely missed "t-boning" him. However, the sudden breaking and subsequent swerving action of the bike caused us to dump!

The bike was not badly damaged and neither were we, although I have to admit that I'm sore as shit today! I took most of the weight of the bike and Catherine on my right side, causing some nasty "road rash" and bruising. Since Cat was buffered somewhat by me, she is a little less banged up then I am. In addition to the cuts and scrapes, the handle bar must have jammed into my right thigh as I have a deep bruise there. Kissing the asphalt at ANY speed is NEVER pleasant! Miraculously, the hog suffered minimal damage. In fact, it's a lot less scraped up than I am! Thank god for SMALL FAVORS. But the BIG FAVOR is that, ultimately WE came out of it all right.

The kid was mortified by what he caused and immediately came running back to help us. He stayed there for the cops and ambulance to arrive and was supportive throughout the ordeal. It turns out that lived only 2 blocks away from where the accident happened and he was rushing to get home. Cat said it best to him when she said sternly that "rushing nearly cost 2 people there lives"! Hopefully he got the message and he'll be a more careful driver!

This is the second time a young man has "blitzed" me on my machine when I completely had the right of way and was minding my own business. The first time landed me in the emergency room. This one was not as severe. Still, it left me with the feeling that maybe I getting TOO OLD FOR THIS SHIT! People have no respect for bikes and what it takes to operate them. So, they constantly challenge us by taking unnecessary chances and driving over aggressively. There were at least 2 other occasions this week alone where cars cut me off unnecessarily and aggressively.

Anyway, it'll take a few days to heal up and, hopefully, get back on the machine without fear. I won't know exactly how I feel until that time. But I have a few days, because the way I feel, I'm not going too far too fast - I TOO DAMNED SORE! :)

Pic of the Day: BIG RED

Here he is, BIG RED, doing one of his favorite things; lounging in a sun beam. Ain't life GRAND?! It certainly is for BIG RED. But he's earned it. He's been nothing but a joy to me for every single day since he came in through the bathroom window (yes, Paul, he really did) . Literally. 16 plus years ago. And he hasn't slowed down one iota since. But, then again, cats don't do ALL that much anyway - except hunt mice, birds, chipmunks, drive me crazy in between safaris - and nap! Still, to me, he's worth more than gold. GO BIG RED GO!

Today's DOTD: John Edwards

As I am occasional reminded by my good friend Patricia, my DOTD's can't be truly impartial if I can only find Republicans to wear the mantle. Certainly, some douche bags are Democrats. In response, I argue that, certainly lately, the Republicans have provided me with such easy targets! So easy in fact, that I have TRIED to avoid using them. Too obvious is too easy. But, in the interest of thorough journalism, I have given the people what they want (at least as I see it, and it's my blog, so I can!). Well, Pat, this one's for you: former candidate for President, running mate to John Kerry, US Senator, and darling of the the Democratic Party, John Edwards, has been named the Douche of the Day.

In fact, this one is as obvious as the recent Republican misfits who have been given the title of DOTD. John Edwards is the living embodiment of the saying, how far the mighty have fallen. If, as done in some dictionaries, certain pictures associated with certain words are shown next to that word, Edwards' photo would be next to that saying! Epic is, perhaps, not strong enough a word to describe his decline. Handsome, rich, smart, talented, well-liked, a self-made man, Edwards was a serious player on the National stage in 2004 when John Kerry picked him to be his running mate as Vice President. He was telegenic and he used that quality and his exposure from the '04 campaign to make a run at the Presidency in 2008.

Leading up to that campaign in '08, there were strong and persistent rumors that Edwards was having an affair and may have even fathered a child with his mistress. Despite his repeated denials of the affair, Edwards was eventually forced to admit the veracity of the rumors and acknowledge both the affair and the child. All the sordid details about the woman (a film maker shooting a documentary on the campaign), the sex tape they allegedly made together, and his relationship with his cancer-stricken and popular wife, Elizabeth, have been well documented. So, there's no need to rehash them here.

What is now being revealed, in addition to his legal woes (more on that later), is how Edwards changed after meeting his mistress, Reille Hunter, during the '08 Presidential Campaign. People close to Edwards claim that the too good to be true label hung on him early in his career was used more as a compliment than as an insult. He WAS THAT good. Honest, bright, engaging, he was not a huge success by accident. But then he changed. He became very aware of the trappings of success and the "glitz" that came with being a top tier Presidential candidate. Edwards became super aware of his appearance, insisting on only certain designer brands of clothing. He became more interested in the show rather then the go. That is to say he became obsessed with the trappings of the campaign rather the substance of it. In a sense, Edwards became very much a lesser man. He went from CNN sound bites to fodder for light night comedians.

How did this happen? It would be too easy, too simple, too Hollywood, to blame his precipitous decline solely on the affair he had with a gold digging, evil temptress. I was not there and, so, cannot know for sure. No one can walk in another's mind and know their true thoughts. However, did she contribute to his decline? Logic would dictate "yes". She had an affair and a child with a married man. That's a two-way street, honey! She's as complicit as he. But the details of why the affair happened and HER motivation are irrelevant to me. What is relevant is the fact that he, like many other DOTD's that I have documented, lied to the maximum effect and showed themselves to be at the height of hypocrisy! Can you say HUBRIS? It's the weakness of character that gets one to the lofty height of DOTD!

Now, The Justice Department is threatening to bring charges against Edwards for allegedly misusing campaign funds in an attempt to cover up his affair with Hunter. It is being reported that, in an effort to avoid indictment, Edwards and his lawyers are negotiating a plea deal with the Government. This is yet another effort to dodge responsibility for his abhorrent behavior.

At this point, it doesn't really matter to me if the Justice Department does bring charges against him or not. Of course, I want to see justice served. However, in the world of DOTD's this may not necessarily matter, for it can't change my incredibly poor opinion of him. It's a well earned Douche of The Day, John Edwards. Yes, Pat, Democrats can be douche bags too! :)

READ THIS!

WHY ISN'T ANYONE COMMENTING ON MY BLOG ENTRIES ANYMORE? IT'S STARTING TO MAKE ME ANGRY. AND YOU WOULDN'T LIKE ME WHEN I'M ANGRY.

ARGHHHH!!!!

HAVE A NICE DAY :)

Social Commentary: On Women and Islam

Muslim Woman, Istanbul F LoBuono

In response to a posting on this blog critical of the implicit support of too many Muslims for terrorism committed in the name of Islam, a colleague wrote in opposition of my POV, basically claiming that I paint with too broad a brush. He argued that an entire community cannot be held accountable for the violent acts of a few. My response (and rebuttal) was twofold: first, my original approach with the posting was as much an inquiry as it was an "accusation". I readily admitted that I am not a scholar of any religion in general and Islam in particular. However, I am versed enough to form an educated opinion and curious enough to ask "why". Is there something within Islam that somehow not only tolerates such shocking violence, but actually encourages it? The only responses I received were from those (including an Israeli) who gave me passages from the Koran that could be interpreted as encouraging violence committed on the part of the believers against the infidels. Second, anyone, ANYONE, in any COMMUNITY who does not speak out and ACTIVELY CONDEMN acts of senseless violence, is complicit in that violent act. This includes any group throughout the world. It just happens that, at this moment in time, the great majority of acts of brutality in the world are being committed in the name of Islam. I say again, where is the outrage in the Muslim community?

The US is certainly not blameless. Unmanned Predator drone strikes have killed many innocent civilians in Afghanistan and Pakistan. This can be, and IS, interpreted by many Muslims as terrorism. In a certain sense, they are right. However, that's a separate discussion for another entry! But, in my POV, there is a subtle but very important difference. Radical Islam calculates these acts to have the maximum destructive effective, regardless of (and sometimes INTENTIONALLY) the cost in civilian lives. Their AIM is to create terror. The goal of the US military, I believe, is different. The drone strikes are used solely on military targets. At least that is their impetus. I do believe that a good deal of care is normally given to prevent civilian casualties. However, as is the nature of war, civilian casualties are inevitable. It's one of the reasons, I have been outspoken in the need to abolish war. In the end, there are NO winners. However, this too is a conversation for another day.

I continued to be both inquisitive AND critical in my writing on Islam. I was (and still AM) encouraged by the movement within the Arab world, led by the remarkable events in Egypt, that appear to be throwing off the yoke of tyranny - only to be greatly disappointed by Pakistan's support for an assassin who murdered a moderate politician. It seemed that for every advance in finding peace, their were five setbacks in the Muslim world.

In my research, I discovered the continued inequities in Islam's Sharia Law, particular as it concerns Muslim women. For example, under Sharia Law, the penalty for infidelity is stoning. The convicted is placed in a full body sack and buried in the ground where their fellow Muslims will hurl stones at them, presumadely until they are dead. Now, here's a key component. If you can extricate yourself, you may go free. Pretty decent, don't you think? At least you have a chance. Well, at least MEN do! You see, men are only buried up to their waists. Women are buried up to their chins!

It's actually pretty easy to go on and on concerning (and get REALLY pissed off by!) the inequities between men and women in Islamic culture. It's evident everywhere you go. How many times have you seen a Muslim couple on the street: the man dresses anyway he wants and the women wears a "uniform" which usually covers most of her body in a sack-like garment! If they are not REQUIRED to wear a burqua then it's the hagib. If not the hagib, it's a veil. And I've heard Muslim women call this liberating. WTF?! What's liberating about acknowledging that you are your husband's property by being told by the mullahs (ALL MEN) that this is what you MUST wear. Liberating? Please.

Now this: Tuesday (5/24/11), the NY Times reported that the Saudi Arabian government was taking strong moves to quell a budding women's movement which is attempting to gain more civil liberties for women. One of their demands is to remove the country's ban on women drivers (no bad jokes here!). Manal al Sharif, 32, one of the movement's organizers was arrested Sunday in Damman, Saudi Arabia, for disturbing public order and inciting public opinion. She incurred such serious charges by having the audacity to drive publicly - twice - in her effort to publicize this cause (among others) of giving women the right to drive. Holly shit! Are you kidding me?! Is it 2011 or 1011?!

In fairness, Saudi Arabia is the only country that bars women from driving. It also prohibits them from voting, or working without their husbands' or fathers' permission. And Saudi Arabia is one of our biggest allies?! What a joke. Advocates of the ban see it as defiance in the face of growing Western influence and decline of traditional Muslim family values (see some parallels here?).

I don't want to hear this bullshit about respecting other cultures - not when it's at the expense of the most basic of human rights. And I'm not talking about driving per se. I'm talking about freedom. The freedom to drive. The freedom to think. The freedom to act. The freedom to dress how you feel. The freedom to vote. The freedom to be free.

Wake up Muslim women. Don't take this bull shit lying down! Cast off your burkas, your hagibs, and your veils. Cast off the yoke of religious tyranny. DRIVE down to the local mosque and tell the Imam that your mad as hell and your not going to take it any more and so your support for your REAL sisters in Saudi Arabia and around the world.

Social Commentary: Jury Duty

Photo: SCOTUS F. LoBuono

To serve or not to serve. That is the question.

Shakespeare . . . Ed Shakespeare

The dreaded notification came on my birthday, April 26th, of all days! "Dear Juror" was the salutation. Followed by; "You have been selected for jury duty, welcome". It went on to explain how my participation was essential in preserving one of our most important guarantees as a citizen; the right to trial by one's peers. It continued to soothe the shock of the impending commitment by recognizing that "jury service can be burdensome" and may interrupt our personal and business lives. This introductory statement was signed by the Rockland County Commissioner of Jurors, Patricia A. Zippilli.

I must say that it was well written, informative, and empathetic. It certainly helped to ease the initial shock of getting the summons. But just when I was feeling all gushy inside about my civic duty, I went to the back page of the summons to find, in bold letters, all capitals, ATTENTION JURORS: THERE ARE NO EXEMPTIONS FROM JURY SERVICE. Wow. That was pretty direct! You may have one postponement but must serve after that. Since I had already used one postponement and THERE ARE NO EXCEPTIONS, I read the directions of what I must do to serve on my assigned day, Monday, May 23rd.

I arrived at the Rockland County Court house about 15 minutes before the report-in time of 9:30. Just for a change, it was raining (ha, ha!). I waited on a fairly long line to pass through the security magnetometer only to discover I forgot the book I planned on reading in the car. Well, too late for that. I'd have to pass the down time there was bound to be in deep thought.

When I entered the large, 2nd floor jury room, it was already filled with people. What I noticed was interesting AND reassuring; there were people of every imaginable size, shape, color, ethnicity, and economic make-up in the room. And they were all waiting to ultimately see what their fate would be. Would they be called to serve? Or would they be dismissed with little inconvenience? The only other time that I was called to serve on a jury, I experienced the latter. I reported to the marshaling area but was not even called as a possible juror. I was only there for a few hours and was then sent home, free of any obligation.

Despite the obvious inconvenience of being there when you could very easily be somewhere else, doing something important to you, I must admit that I was kind of excited to be there. It IS an important service and, like voting, involves personal involvement in the democratic process. If I would be lucky enough, perhaps, it would be an involved case with intricate and challenging details. Besides, I am always looking for new challenges and experiences and this was one that I had never had before. I was also hoping that because I don't start my regular work shift until 4 p.m., I would be able to serve without major disruption of my work schedule. This was of major importance because as a freelancer, NO WORK - NO PAY. But, hell, I was READY to do my patriotic duty!!

Commissioner Zippilli was on hand to welcome everyone and give instruction as to how we would be processed. She was a petite woman with a "little girls" voice to match. But she had a bright and acerbic wit that she used to keep the process moving along. While she collected the forms we filled out upon entering the room, a video explaining the importance of jury service and what we might expect if we were actually called upon to serve was playing on a large screen in front of the rooom. It was interesting and informative. I only had one issue with it: one of hosts was Ed Bradley, formerly of "60 Minutes". He's been dead for years now. The other host was Diane Sawyer from her days with CBS. She's been with ABC for years. Ah, let's get with the program!

After the video, I was called along with about 40 others into a separate room where the final selection process would take place. We would be interviewed for our suitability by the lawyers who would be arguing their case before 8 jurors of their choosing. Before this final process, we were once again thanked for our attendance by a judge and the lawyers for the defendant and the plaintiff. The basic process was again explained and importance of the service emphasized. It was all very civilized. The first 8 perspective jurors were chosen by having their names picked out of a rolling "cage" (like a game of Bingo). The rest of us waited patiently and followed the process.

The case itself was a civil one involving medical malpractice. The plaintiff, the family of a young man who died of cancer, was suing the 2 doctors who treated him for medical negligence that led to his death prematurely. Each set of lawyers would look for people who could not only be fair (as they explained over and over again!) but without any preconceived prejudices for or against the medical profession. Obviously, it would be an emotional case involving the death of a 47 year-old man, his family, and the doctors who claim to have done their best to treat him.

The lawyers' questioned each person in a way as to weed out those they felt were not best to sit in judgement of this particular case. At first the questions were obvious: "Do you know anyone involved in the case. Have you ever been involved in a malpractice law suit", etc. They also gave people the option to discuss sensitive issues with them out of the room and in a more private setting. These issues may have included a bad experience with a doctor in the past that would lead them to have an issue with doctors in general. I would never really know because all of the consultations were done in private! :)

Anyway, what I do know is that after the first few people were dismissed after these private consolations and were replaced by others from the jury pool, more and more people were requesting these private consultations. And after everyone of them, that person was dismissed. They may have said that "they don't like vanilla ice cream" for all I know as an excuse! All I do know was that they were dismissed, never to have to come back (or for 4 years anyway)! It became painfully obvious that this was the way to get dismissed and get your life back.

There were more consultations, more names selected, and more rejections. Lunch came and went. Still they could get no more than 6 people deemed as suitable. The afternoon was no different. They kept spinning the wheel of fortune and people kept asking for a private consultation. Eventually, by 3 p.m., there were only 3 of us who had not been called and they still needed 2 more jurors. Much to my amazement, they called the other two people. I had not been this lucky in a lottery since I was assigned #258 in the draft lottery of '73! I was free and clear until, you guessed it; both asked for, and received, private consultations! Bingo!! Dismissed!

Well, that left yours truly as their last, best hope. It was my moment of truth. To serve, or not to serve. I was so ambivalent. I wanted to do my duty and the case itself sounded so interesting. But I was also disgusted by what I had seen. It became obvious to me that people intentionally made up these petty situations so they could be dismissed. There was also the factor that we were told the trial would last 2 weeks, with me potentially losing that much work. I decided to compromise: I would ask for a private consultation, too, tell them the truth as I see it, and then let the chips fall were they may.

The lawyers and I went into the hallway next to the room where I told them how I felt about doctors and hospitals: I hate doctors and hospitals. It's a self serving industry that over-prescribes and over-medicates far too frequently. My father died in the care of a hospital that, in fact, DIDN'T care. I haven't even been to a doctor in over 10 years. I eat well. Exercise, and have good genes. I don't need no sticking doctors (or something like that). The lawyers looked at me, jaws agape and, after composing themselves, said, "thank you Mr. LoBuono, your services as a juror will not be needed".

One of the court clerks then took my form back and handed me a note of service, basically saying that I had done my duty for King and Country and that I would not be needed for another 4 years. It was 3 p.m. and I made my shift in NYC. I guess discretion IS the better part of valor.

Brain Droppings: On Mary Hart

A cameraman's perspective as Mary Hart prepares with Jane Seymor on the set of ET in London
The ever up Mary Hart
The ET producers on the Buckingham Palace Set, London

(all photos F. LoBuono)

After 29 years, Mary Hart is stepping down as host of the nightly entertainment news program, Entertainment Tonight or ET. Hart propelled the show to become a ratings power house and the well spring for a myriad of other entertainment news programs. She became synonymous with Hollywood. She, and ET, flourished in that environment. She is to be congratulated on an enormously successful career.

I recently had some extensive professional dealings with her during the coverage of The Royal Wedding in London. ET was one of our clients and used our production facilities to produce and broadcast their show. Of course, since Hart is the main host of the program, I had a lot of exposure to her and the crew. I didn't have a great deal of direct dealings with Ms. Hart, but I was close enough to make inside observations about how she, her co-host Jane Seymor, and their producers got the show done.

First, let me say, they ALL worked especially long and difficult hours. They do a great deal of location shooting and have to fill an entire half hour EVERY night. Considering the time difference between London and LA (8 hrs.), the crew was worked to the max! They also worked with a HUGE budget. Their production manager complained about the budget, but who else would have the money to spend on 6 men just to hold a screen to filter sun light above the hosts' heads (as ET did)? Certainly not a news organization!

ET was by far our biggest client (i.e. spending the most money). This gave them clout and with it, a sense of entitlement that was less than ingratiating. All clients can be demanding but ET was particularly so; often just because they could be! And, because of their place in the entertainment market, they came across with an air of arrogance and self-importance. They could be nice and often thanked us for our efforts. However, it always came across as insincere. I personally call it the Hollywood Syndrome. It's a way of being nice, not because you feel like being nice but, rather, because you need to look like it.

Now, I get it: Big clients get Big attention. And we gave them plenty of that. But I also keep things in perspective. This is not life or death television! I have been in some situation that were. So, somethings I'm going to get excited about, and somethings I'm not. ET is in the latter category.

As for Mary Hart, she was what, if you watch ET, you might expect. A good deal of make-up, hair, and attention gets her ready to be on camera. This is no surprise, virtually all of them take great measures to control their appearance. And, after 29 years, Ms. Hart takes full advantage of the skills of those provided for her assistance. She is very professional, coming to work on-time and fully prepared. Once taping began, she stepped right into her role as the "energetic", "thoughtful" and still "glamorous" host with the inside track to the biggest stories and names in Hollywood. My co-technician and I got a good laugh watching her "come alive" when taping began. It was almost robotic. It was as if someone flipped a switch and Mary Hart - Professional Host appeared. Her voice changed its tenor from conversational to what I call the announcers voice; emphasis and accents were added at certain, key moments to make the statements sound more colorful. Even when she turned from one angle to another, it appeared stiff and overly rehearsed. Instead of just quickly turning her head to address a different camera angle, she would slowly turn her whole body. We figured that it was so her hair wouldn't collapse if she turned her head too quickly!

I found it almost laughable. The whole idea of people working so hard on something so trite was strange to me. But that's just me! I've never been Joe Hollywood. As one news producer put it to me, "Frank, you're not their demographic". Man, was he right! But, still, I have to give Mary and them credit. For what they do, they do it well, and they have for a long time. Congrats, Mary!

Brain Droppings: On The Perp Walk

Photo: F LoBuono, Arles, Provence, France.

The French often get a bad rap in this country. They are often seen as aloof and arrogant. They have pissed off some Americans to the point of renaming french fries as freedom fries. Personally, I think much of it is unfounded. I have not traveled extensively in France but have enough to say that I find the French to be warm, friendly, and highly cultured. Sure, they have a way about them, but it's their way. There IS a certain protocol when dealing with the French. They expect you to understand it and exercise it. They expect you to have a certain level of politeness and respect when dealing with them. And, if you give them their due, they meet you more than half way. That's when you feel the warmth and consideration. If you don't, then they will give you the stereotypical aloof, cold, persona.

With this in mind, I have to agree with them on their disdain for our so-called perp walks, i.e. parading a suspect around in handcuffs before the press and the public. They were outraged when this happened recently with IMF and potential candidate for the French Presidency, Dominique Strauss-Kahn. Now, let me make this perfectly clear: I AM NOT defending Strauss-Kahn. What he is accused of is absolutely heinous. If found guilty, he should be punished to the maximum extent of the law. However, this leads directly to my point. In this country, we are INNOCENT until PROVEN guilty. So, theoretically, we are parading around an "innocent" man in handcuffs to be degraded in front of the world's media.

This, indeed, offends the French sense of justice. As it does mine. I understand the need for security. Suspects must be secured in a way that protects the public and prevents the chance for escape. And I know that suspects must, from time to time, be transported from one venue to another. However, when the police need to, for security or other reasons, they can transport suspects away from the prying eyes of the media and the public. Why don't they do that all of the time? If, and when, a suspect is CONVICTED, then you can make a spectacle of him with a publicly shaming perp walk.

When confronted by the French's disdain for the so-called perp walk, New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg responded by saying "if you don't want to do the walk, then don't do the crime". Well, the problem with that is WE DON'T KNOW FOR SURE YET IF HE ACTUALLY DID THE CRIME! The Constitution is quite clear on the law: we are INNOCENT until proven guilty - not too hard to interpret.

It all reminds me of my recent trip to the Tower of London. Most of you know that the Tower is the place where many of England's political prisoners where held and eventually beheaded. What I learned during the tour was that 2 different type of executions were actually held there. One type, as was used to execute 3 of Henry VIII's wives, took place in private within the walls of the Tower. The other (and much more common) was very public where victims were marched from the Tower and paraded before rabid, screaming crowds awaiting them on Tower Hill. These were designed to add, if you will, insult to injury. But at least it was done AFTER you were condemned.

Here, because of the perp walk, we are condemned in the court of public opinion long before we are in a court of law. The French find it gauche and, quite frankly, so do I.

Douche of the Day: Arnold Schwarzenneger

With much the same sentiment as expressed by Al Pacino's Michael Corleone in The Godfather, Part III: "Just when I thought I was out they pull me back in", I offer the Douche of The Day: Arnold Schwarzenneger. The explanation for my ambivalence is: First, I was feeling a little guilty that, perhaps, the blog was becoming a bit too negative. After all, one it's most popular features is titled Douche of The Day! And it ain't about the saints among us. Second, as I explained in my introduction to yesterday's DOTD, Glenn Beck, my goal is to select those douche bags whose callous approach to life is worthy of discredit, and do so in less obvious ways. However, if I stuck solely to that approach, I would be remiss in my duties as a journalist; that is to report and comment (at least on THIS blog) on those who affect us the most. So, as was the case with yesterday's DOTD, we must yield to the obvious and name Arnold Schwarzenneger as Douche of the Day.

The Govenator's latest revelation of infidelity of the highest order comes as no surprise to me (and to many others). Rumors accusing him of inappropriate behavior with women persisted throughout his bodybuilding, acting, business, and political careers. In fact, a joint lawsuit by 16 women accusing him of lecherous behavior was brought during his first campaign for California governor. Look, I understand that famous people are often the subject of rumor and innuendo that usually proves unfounded. However, it can also be said that where there is smoke, there is fire. And thick smoke always surrounded Arnold's behavior.

Still, I am not hear to judge his weak moral character. That is something for him, his wife, his children, and his family to deal with. No. He was named DOTD for the lying hypocrite and cheat that he has ALWAYS been. He lied when he took steroids to become the youngest Mr. Universe winner. He lied by denying having used them until he was confronted with indisputable proof to the contrary. And he lived a lie of a the idyllic Republican marriage fostered by so many so-called social conservatives.

Look, I'll spare us the details of his sordid affair. We've all read the latest accounts. But this is just the icing on a rotten cake, at least for me. Like most people, early on, I was most impressed with the young Arnold Schwarzenneger; the so-called Austrian Oak. Just as impressive as his massive, muscular physique was his equally over sized personality. He was easily to like. This comes up clearly in George Butler's documentary on the early Mr. Universe contests, Pumping Iron. It made Arnold an international star. He moved to California and the rest, as they say, is Hollywood history.

But if you look between the lines in Pumping Iron, you see the early signs of a personality that is interested in three main things: self promotion, self aggrandisement, and self indulgence. It was obvious that he was driven to success and that he would do almost anything to get it. And, if that included cheating, than so be it. And Arnold began controlling his image so that he could control that lie. As outgoing as he appeared to be in public, Arnold was ALWAYS in control of how his image would be disseminated and, therefore, interpreted.

This became very clear to me during an incident that at the time received very little attention in the media. It really hasn't since either. But it left a lasting impression and soured me on Schwarzenneger as a professional and a person. PBS was doing an investigative report on the use of steroids, particularly in bodybuilding. I do not remember the exact program or who the correspondent was. What I do remember is that Schwarzenneger had just recently been named as the head of the President's Council on Physical Fitness. As part of the PBS program, the correspondent attended a press conference staged by Schwarzenneger to discuss his new position. The reporter raised his hand and asked the following question (paraphrasing): "do you think that as an admitted steroid user it is appropriate that you should be at the head of the President's Council on Physical Fitness"? Schwarzenneger never acknowledged the reporter any further and immediately his goons where all over the man, escorting him out of the building. I was outraged! That's a legitimate question that should have been answered with grace and honesty - if Schwarzenneger actually had any.

Eventually, as Schwarzenneger's movie career grew, so did his huge ego and, subsequently, so did his desire to control everything about his image. He became the epitome of everything that can be wrong in Hollywood; the line between reality and fantasy becomes completely blurred. This is the lifestyle that he not only embraced but became master of - the sham!

Now he's fessing up and trying to make amends with his family. He is also asking the press to respect his privacy during these trying times. This is the standard line of shit. Well, my friend, you can't have it both ways. You can't help to build the machine and than beg to switch it off when it turns in your direction.

So, Arnold Schwarzenneger, has been living the lie for years. I always knew it. Now, so does everybody else. As I often say, once a douche, always a douche.

Today's DOTD: Glenn Beck - again!

When I first came up with the concept of Douche of the Day, I was hoping that I could select from a field of candidates that were less than obvious. I wanted to be challenged to find someone who met the criteria of unbounded selfishness, self-promotion, general disregard for any rational thought or human decency and still flew under the so-called radar. I still strive to achieve that goal but, sometimes, the obvious can just not be ignored. So, once again, Glenn Beck has achieved the lofty status of DOTD.

His latest crusade is to get thousands of people to gather in Jerusalem for a Restore Courage to Israel rally, similar to the sham he organized at the Lincoln Memorial in D.C. on the anniversary of MLK's famous speech there. WTF?! Israel?!

First, let's get one thing straight: the only reason Beck, or any other fundamentalist Christian, has any interest in Israel and it's people has nothing to do with some form of Christian altruism. It is to fulfill the Biblical prophesy on the return of Jesus Christ to earth. It basically says that Christ can only return when the land of Israel is the hands of the Jews. I won't get into specific detail here but you can look it up. It's common knowledge in those circles. So, Beck, a born-again Mormon, needs to have Israel in Jewish hands for him to realize his own religious fantasies about how the world will end with the 2nd coming of Christ and he will be called to heaven as a reward for his faith and perseverance with the other faithful during the rapture. Yeah, him, Rush, Newt, Arnold, Sarah, Mitt, Michele, and the other hypocritical, Tea Party Ass-kissing sycophants can compare notes on how many people they screwed to get to heaven!

Second, he delivers his message in such a whinny, wimpy way that I get visibly upset whenever I watch it (which is not often - just enough to see what the moron is up too). The other day he launched into this tear-filled, falsely sincere, rant about how the world is going to hell (literally) and how god was compelling him to do something about it. And he'd have to do it where it all began; in Israel. Give me a freakin' break! I almost lost my lunch right there in front of the TV. Yet, thousands, no MILLIONS, of people actually buy his shit. I understand the appeal at first; he sounds so sincere, so intense, so thoughtful, so American. Well, folks, let me say this about that - he so full of shit. It's just an act that he uses to line his pockets with YOUR money. And, perhaps, the saddest thing of all is that Beck has become so delusional that he's starting believe his own shit!! :)

So, I apologize for being so obvious, but I couldn't help myself. Glenn Beck is, once again, DOTD!

PS: Speaking of OBVIOUS, how about that Arnold. The Republicans just keep getting better and better! :) :) :)

Pic of the Day: Stella!!!!!!

OK. Who has a mom cooler than this? At 87? I don't think so!!

STELLA !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Brain Droppings: On Photography and Privacy

A candid shot I made of a Muslim woman outside a Mosque in Istanbul.

A fine line is tread by all photographers, professionals and non alike, when it comes to making a photograph of a stranger or private moment. All of us who make pictures on a regular basis have been confronted with the moral dilemma of to shoot or not to shoot at any given moment, especially when a scene inspires us to capture it and freeze it in THAT MOMENT. After all, it's why most of make photographs in the first place: to capture a singular, special moment in time.

Now, I'm not talking about a posed photograph of a subject who is expecting and willing to allow you into their world. What I'd like to discuss is that unexpected moment; the one when you turn a corner and there, right in front of you, is a scene that cries out, "take my picture, PLEASE"! However, if it involves a stranger, or even a friend but in a private moment, are you invading their space, i.e. their privacy?

This happens often to me in both my professional and private work and with both moving and still images. As a news photographer/videographer, I am often called upon to capture images of intensely private moments and, often, of total strangers. The most common example is after some breaking news tragedy. My JOB is to capture the images that best portray the scene AS IT IS HAPPENING. This often involves showing people at their most grief stricken. Some may see this is as heartless and insensitive. It certainly is an invasion of privacy. However, I see it as not only my job, but as my MISSION to have my images convey the true meaning of what is transpiring. I am not an aggressive person by nature, and considering the situation, I certainly feel awkward at moments doing it. However, I always approach the subjects with great sensitivity. If someone is truly upset by my presence and my camera, I WILL NOT shoot them -EVER.

I also know that capturing that gut-wrenching image may, in the long run, have a lasting, positive effect by bringing light to that particular situation. It may also, quite frankly, bring you fame and fortune. These things certainly enter your mind when confronted by these assignments. However, I also wind up thinking about the humanity of it by asking this question: "will the image I've created be more beneficial over time than the pain I've caused by making it in the first place"? If the answer is "no" then I won't make the picture.

Moments of tragedy are the extreme example but the "privacy dilemma" also occurs in more benign situations as well. In fact, it just happened to my good friend and outstanding photographer David Nieves. He posted on FB a wonderful, candid shot of a man sitting on a park bench, reading a newspaper. Next to him on the bench is his dog, disinterested in his owner and doing his own "thing". It is a wonderful "slice of life" photograph that's natural and spontaneous. Someone asked if he used a long lens to get the shot without the man's awareness. David said "no" and that he had to get fairly close to him to get all the detail. David made it seem that he was shooting something else when he actually focused his camera quickly on the man and made the shot. In this way, he could get a candid shot and not ruin the spontaneity by asking for permission to shoot. But he felt that he was invading this man's privacy. He experienced the same angst that I do when in similar situations. David was left wondering that if told the man about the photo would the guy "sue or ask for an 8 X 10"! It's a judgement call.

The best photograph that I never made was because of this very fine line between art and the respect for other's privacy. I was making a documentary in China in the early 90's and traveled there with another producer who happened to be an Orthodox Jew. As part of his religious observance, he prayed or "dovend" (sp) every day at sunrise and sunset. Well, one evening I was in his hotel room at the Crown Plaza in Beijing. Because it was sunset, he covered his head with his prayer shawl and began to pray in front of the large picture window. In the background the sun was setting behind the awesome Forbidden City of the Chinese emperors. It provide an amazing juxtaposition of two, 5,000 year-old cultures. And it was right in front of me! However, I felt that the noise of me tripping my shutter would have been an invasion of his privacy, especially during such a private moment. I raised the camera to my eye but never tripped the shutter. It's the ONE that got away.

In a response to David on his FB page, a photographer named Paul Tuzzolino probably gave the best advice in such situations. It came to him from another photographer he had worked for: "it's OK to to have to ask for forgiveness every once in a while but not to ask for permission all of the time".

I wish I would have heard that many years ago!

Westminster Abbey. One of the world's greatest structures.

Different looks at the ancient and awesome Westminster Abbey. They were taken over the period of one week and at varies times of the day, evening, and night.

From the "Cesspool of Worthless Knowledge": Why are the English often called "Limeys"?

In keeping with my current theme of London, here's today's swimming lesson: The slang term used for an Englishman, Limey, comes to us from the Royal Navy. At a time when Britannia ruled the waves, English ships and men sailed all the oceans of the earth. This meant that British sailors often spent years at sea. With no means of refrigeration, keeping a steady supply of fresh food, particularly fruits and vegetables, was always a great challenge. Meat could be salted or cured for longer storage. But fresh fruits and vegetables were another matter. And no fruit, no vitamin C. No vitamin C and you get a disease known as scurvy. Scurvy attacks the connective tissue in the body causing internal bleeding. This is why British Sailors are often depicted in movies as having bleeding gums. It became as deadly as any canon ball. To combat scurvy, it was found that limes would do the trick; they are small and, so, can easily be stowed. They last a long time before spoiling. And they are very high in vitamin C. So, the sailors were encouraged to suck on limes while they went about their on-deck chores.

Whenever sailors from other countries encountered a British ship, many of the British sailors were smiling those green smiles we tend to do when we have a slice of lime in our mouths! :) Hence, they became known as limeys and it stuck in referring to all Englishmen.

Look for my thoughts on London, the Royal family and The Royal Wedding. Coming soon. On TalkFrank.

Brain Droppings: On the Joy of Riding

They were just ahead. In the left lane. Four young women in a late model Ford Mustang convertible; long hair, loose and flowing with the wind. I was coming up hard from the right and behind. Heavy metal thunder. As I closed the gap, I could smell their perfume and hear their laughter. I smiled as I went by. I don't think that they noticed. And then, with a twist of the throttle, I was gone.

Frank LoBuono

Low 70's, bright sunshine - yeah, baby, I'll be riding into work today! :)

Photos of London: Final Edition

Even though I have hundreds more, I'll spare everyone with this final installment of my exclusive photos from the Royal Wedding in London. I hope to have my written account on the blog within a few days.

I found out that the "Union Jack" is the flag of Great Britain. It includes Scotland, Wales, and Ireland. The flag of England is a simple cross on a white background.
A traditional English pub.
A typical London Street.
The Central Methodist Hall across from the Abbey where we had a roof-top shooting position. The Hall had a magnificent rotunda, 3 story pipe organ, and an incredible entrance. More below.
The Bell Tower of Big Ben.
The sun setting on Parliament.

This now peaceful place inside the fearsome Tower of London held the scaffolding where many nobles, including 3 wives of Henry VIII were beheaded.The White Tower of the Citadel. It is the oldest part of the structure and dates back to William the Conqueror in @1070 AD.
The whole city of London is a wonderful combination of new and old as shown by this shot taken from the Tower walls and looking back into the modern city.
One of the apartments that held noble prisoners. This one held Sir Walter Raleigh.
A Royal Marine guards the Crown Jewels on display at the Tower.
2 views of the fearsome Tower of London as you approach it from the Thames River. For many, it was their last view of freedom.

The modern city of London.
One of it's ancient streets.
Two views of the magnificent foyer at the Methodist Center.

The 3 story pipe organ inside the Methodist Center.
The roof tops of London.
An ancient city and STILL a busy one. Traffic whizzes by the Abbey.
The Guard leaves Buckingham Palace
Alon Salzman attending to Sharon Osborne inside the Palace studio.

Just some of the 7,000 journalists who were in the city covering the wedding.

The "Today Show" studio at Buckingham Palace.