Silent Crimes: The Dark Reality Behind the Façade of Project 2025

Current Issues / Personal / Politics / Social Commentary

Silent Crimes: The Dark Reality Behind the Façade of Project 2025

July 5, 2024

Word on the Street [2012 original with AI background]

Twenty-plus years ago, a woman walked into a nightclub wearing only a trench coat and high heels. She was well-known in the club. Several people knew what she did for a living. Those who knew her as a person knew her to be kind and engaging. I knew her to be shrewd, cautious, and calculating. She did nothing “on a whim” or by accident.

A man who I knew to be a close friend of my editor walked over and said, “I’ll give you an extra $100 if you can get a shot of her with that coat open.”

My stomach turned. “What makes you think I don’t already have it?” I asked.

He laughed and walked away. I went outside and sat on a bench on the front patio. It was late, well after 1:00 in the morning. I was tired. My feet hurt. I could leave and catch a quick nap, but I’d have to be back up by 6:00 to get the boys off to school. I was being paid to stay until at least 2:00, though. The club had a reputation for being the place for the after party after the after party and it was well known that a couple of hip-hop names were in town recording at Usher’s studio. Heaven forbid I miss that if it happened.

The club was all but empty, maybe 20 people scattered, milling around. I had just closed my eyes when I felt a kiss on the top of my head. She sat on the opposite end of the bench, crossed her legs, and lit a cigarette. “You can go on home,” she said. “I won’t tell.”

“I don’t want to miss that late-night action,” I said as I stifled a yawn.

She shook her head. “They’re not coming. Not tonight. I drove by and there were way too many cars at that studio. They’re not going to record a damn thing tonight with that crowd. You’re safe. They’re more likely to hit a Waffle House around 5:00.”

I watched as she took a long drag from her cigarette. “Then, what has you out on a Monday night?”

Another hit on the cigarette before she put it out on the cobblestone floor and lit another. “What do you think?”

“I think you’re being a tease,” I said. “You’ll hand out a few cards, sit here and make the drunks think they have a shot, and then leave just as alone as when you arrived.”

“You’ve been watching,” she said with a grin.

“You’re kind of hard to miss,” I replied, “especially when the club is this empty.”

Her cell phone rang. She pulled the brick from her coat pocket, looked at the number, then rolled her eyes and sent the call to voice mail. “You know, you may be the only one here who knows what’s under this coat.”

“A heart?” I asked.

She looked at her cigarette and flicked the ash off the end. “A human. Honest. Feminine. Probably too damn nurturing for my own good. People see the coat and they think they know what’s there: a high-priced hooker. A drug habit. A homewrecker. A menace to society. Even my clients think that. If they didn’t they wouldn’t be clients. They want a lie, they want something dirty because that’s who they are. They don’t give a shit who I am as long as I spread my legs, take their cash, and don’t tell their wives, board members, or constituents.”

She put out the second cigarette and lit a third. “By the way, that new guy running for mayor that the papers are buzzing about? Don’t bother. He’s dirty money. Feel free to pass that word along. He thinks he’s being shrewd but he’s got way too much laundry and sooner or later someone’s going to recognize his shit-stained tidy whities and his campaign will be over. Month tops, I promise.”

I pulled out some paper from my camera bag and made a note. “Wasn’t he standing next to a preacher just yesterday morning?”

She laughed. “You know as well as I do that every church with more than 300 members is on the take. Hell, you want to know where the bodies are buried? Most of them are in the foundations of those megachurches they keep building. But they want to tell folks that I’m the problem.”

The club’s owner walked by and tapped my shoulder. “Vice is about to hit that new club on the strip. You probably want to get out of the neighborhood before they have all the roads blocked.”

“Do I want to know how you know that?” I asked.

“Just word on the street,” he chuckled. “You know how Republicans are. They want to make sure you see them ‘cleaning things up,’ but not the bribe they took to take down an honest business. Third one this month. He’ll lose his liquor license. The club will close for a week and then come back with ‘new owners.’ It’s all a game.”

“I should probably become invisible, too,” she said as she put out the cigarette.

She walked away as I gathered my gear. “Boss isn’t going to be thrilled. Not a damn thing tonight we can use,” I said as the owner watched her leave.

“Someone told me her daddy was a preacher,” he said as the front door shut behind her.

“Yep, his deacons were her first customers,” I said, “when she was 14. They had to leave town when one of their wives found out. Same thing in the new town, though, and the one after that. She even went to a Bible college on a ‘special’ scholarship. Her dad committed suicide a couple of years ago after a whole human trafficking ring was uncovered. They were using the church to get women into the country illegally.”

“That’s sick,” he said. “What about her mom? Was she in on it?”

I shrugged. “I don’t know. She doesn’t talk about her.”

He turned and looked at me. “So, how do you know her so well?”

“We used to go to the same church,” I said.

Why am I sharing this story? Because I was reading over Project 2025 and the same people who are behind that were the people in her Dad’s church, and the college, and the police department. They’re still there, in the churches, city halls, state legislatures, and all the little places where they can wield big power and hide their crimes.

They must be stopped. I have too many stories like hers.

Photography / PotD

Philosophies Of Photography

May 10, 2016

There is no need for temples, no need for complicated philosophies. My brain and my heart are my temples; my philosophy is kindness. —Dalai Lama

Why a photographer takes a picture is sometimes more important than what is being photographed.

I learned a long time ago that I can’t please everyone. There are a few people, fewer than five, who seem frustrated that I don’t write more about photography since that is mostly what I do. I suppose I could do that, but I’ve always operated under the premise that if one is reading about photography one is not doing photography and the only real way to improve is to do, not read. When I do write about photography, I want it to be something that is genuinely helpful.

What I’ve noticed, though, is that in those moments when I consider doing something crazy like writing a book, the outline itself seems sufficient instruction. If I were to title a chapter with something like, “Understanding Depth of Field,” what else is there to say except that the larger the aperture, the smaller the number, and the shorter the depth of field. There, done with that chapter. You’re welcome.

Okay, so I can BS my way through a thousand or so words on just about any topic, but is that really helpful when, if you want to improve your photography, you have to get out and shoot; that’s the only way anyone gets better. You can read all the damn books by all the “experts” in the world, but if your camera is not in your hand, if you’re not snapping regularly, if you’re not taking risks and trying things out differently, you’re not going to improve.

I’m no longer shooting anywhere near as often as I did four or five years ago and while I’m still not exactly “okay” with that, I’ve come to terms with the reality that my body hates me. We have a working relationship in that my body doesn’t especially like me working and lets me know when I’ve gone too far. Actually, if I could get more shoots in between 4-6 AM, we might be more productive, but there aren’t many people willing to shoot at that hour. Having plenty of time to step back and think, though, has allowed me to re-asses my philosophy of photography and make some changes.

Philosophies come and go and none of them are ever iron-clad; they’re circumstantial at best. Philosophies are based on a specific perspective to a specific reality and as both the perspectives and the realities change, so do the philosophies. As a result, philosophies held by other people are of limited value. Their perspective isn’t going to be the same as yours. The reality is not going to be identical to yours, even though you might share significant portions. Philosophies are valuable to other people only as guides in helping them establish their own.

I’ve held enough different philosophies of photography to fill a terabyte hard drive. Could I talk about each point at length? Yes, but I’m not sure what purpose that would serve. If you want how-to articles, there are plenty of those spanning different topics at Peta Pixel and PDN. Neither link is an endorsement, mind you, just two obvious resources. All I’m giving you are bullet points. Use the contact form if you have questions or hit me up on Facebook.

Photography is a means of communication. When you take a picture, you are saying something. When you share a photo, you are broadcasting a message. Think before you talk.
Photography is a visual language and just as we don’t all speak English we don’t all take photographs the same way. That’s good. Diversity opens all our minds.
Sometimes we have a lot of pictures to serve as our vocabulary, but we don’t always know how to put them together into cohesive communication. Learning to curate our photos before sharing them is important.
Just because someone else did it doesn’t mean you can, or should. Find your own distinct look and play to that.
Any camera that takes pictures is a good camera.
Every once in a while, stop what you’re doing and shoot dirt. Choose a common element, such as a tree or a dandelion, and find a way to make it interesting. Keep the creative juices flowing.
Don’t over-think any situation. Details can distract you from the creativity and artistry of the shot. Focus on the major elements and then shoot.
Shooting nudes is to photography what figure drawing is to a traditional art education: fundamental. To not study the human body is to be unprepared for shooting a clothed one.
Protecting the rights of photographers to shoot without interference is your responsibility, even if you never leave your own studio.
Beauty is built upon flaws. There is no such thing as the perfect photograph. Play to the quirks, the oddities, and the imperfections of a subject.
The world sees photography as a commodity. The only way to change their mind is to take pictures that are not common.
Photography has the ability to tell a harsh truth and that scares people. Don’t be afraid to take those pictures. Sometimes people need to be scared.
Censoring photography is like putting a gag in someone’s mouth. Just because someone doesn’t like the message doesn’t mean they have a right to control it.
Photographers own the rights to their pictures just like a speaker owns the rights to the words coming from their mouths. Limiting the rights to a photograph because of who is in it is like limiting the rights to a novel because of the words the author used. Stepping in front of a camera does not give anyone rights to that image.
Giving up rights to a photograph is a weakness.
Neither taking a photograph nor being in a photograph gives either side the right to bully the other.
Think with your eyes, see with your camera.
Criticizing photographs is a waste of time. When examining a photograph, there are but two questions: Did you capture what you wanted? What would you do differently? Everything else is a matter of one’s creative taste.
Saying one understands the whole of photography is like saying one understands every language in the world: you don’t. Photography is too broad, too complex, and too individual in its details to be consumed as a whole.
One doesn’t need friends who limit one’s work. One needs friends who will stand/sit/lie naked in front of your camera while one searches for an angle.
The value of a photograph is not in the subject but in the photographer’s ability to tell the story of that subject in a single frame.
Just as mountains are millions of years old, there are an equal number of ways in which they can be photographed.
Light introduces us to a subject; shadows tell the story.
Morality in a photograph lies not in its content but only in the mind of the person viewing it.
To be jealous of someone else’s photography is to demonstrate the need for one’s own improvement.
Displaying a photograph in both color and black and white is like telling a story from two different perspectives; one is the three little pigs, the other is the wolf.
Technology and digital camera works open the field of photography to a whole new realm of exploration which we’ve not yet begun to understand.
Never share a picture that didn’t first make you feel something.

I’m going to stop there. I’ve probably already exceeded the point of interest for the vast majority of people. Philosophies become boring the longer one is forced to stare at them. Consider what your philosophy might be. You don’t need to write it down, just think about it then pick up the camera and start shooting.

Philosophies don’t take pictures. Photographers do.

Current Issues / Mythology / PotD

Take Your Boycott And Shove It

April 24, 2016

I can say unequivocally that the boycott does not work. It’s never complete enough to have impact unless it’s backed by force, and I don’t think anybody in America seriously proposes that. —Helen Suzman

charles i. letbetter - take your boycott and shove it

There are literally hundreds of boycotts going on right now and none of them matter because, by and large, they don’t work.

There is a very real chance that I am going to offend some people today, and, according to comic Ricky Gervais, that’s not a bad thing. The man who has made the better part of his living off hurling insults at people and making them feel bad thinks we all should stop trying to be so damned politically correct and speak our minds. Of course, the danger in such a statement is that not everyone’s mind is running on all cylinders which could end up being a dangerous thing that ultimately leads to this stupid thing called a boycott.

I follow trends pretty closely, not because I want to adapt them, but from both fashion and advertising perspectives they are important in taking the temperature of a given society or specific demographic group. The latter part of this week I’ve seen a trend emerging quietly, among white people primarily, folks who aren’t necessarily inclined to be terribly upset by Prince’s death, that makes me ill. Some people want to boycott Target stores because they are willing to allow transgender people to use the restroom facilities of the gender with which they identify. Another incredibly insane movement wants to boycott the twenty dollar bill because they oppose the Department of Treasury’s decision to put Harriet Tubman on the currency, replacing one of our worst presidents ever, Andrew Jackson.

Let me state, unequivocally, that if you support either one of these boycotts you are a fucking idiot. The Target boycott won’t work because its based on an unrealistic fear that no intelligent person believes. The twenty dollar bill boycott won’t work because it’s just plain stupid and fueled by ignorance and racism. More than both those factors, though, boycotts don’t work because they’re ineffective and the sooner we stop throwing the word around as though it were some magic tool for getting our way, the better.

Do you have any idea how many different groups are attempting pointless boycotts right now? The website ethicalconsumer.org, which I neither support nor endorse, keeps a list of ongoing consumer boycotts that is about as complete as any. The list is ridiculously long and includes a number of companies that always seem to have someone boycotting them, such as Coca-Cola, Wal-Mart, Ben & Jerry’s, H&M, Kellogs, and that company everyone loves to hate: Monsanto. Guess what: NONE OF THE BOYCOTTS ARE WORKING! They won’t. They never will.

Why? Because the boycott as an economic tool is fundamentally flawed and even in cases where it might appear that a boycott worked, it was other external factors that likely led to any significant change.

I was impressed by a report done by Stephen J. Dubner over at Freakonomics this past January. The report, originally done for radio, takes a look at one of the most famous boycotts of modern times: The Montgomery Bus Boycott. If ever there were a boycott that seemed to work, that would be it, right? That one would appear to be a shining example of what can happen when a group of people exerts their economic force onto a situation. But Daniel Diermeier, dean of the Harris School of Public Policy at the University of Chicago, doesn’t think it was necessarily the boycott that led to the desegregation of buses. He states:

Being able to identify the actual causal impact of the Montgomery boycott is very difficult, probably impossible. There are some people that argue, at the end of the day, it was really the legal strategy of the NAACP that really was the decisive component. And it’s difficult to disentangle that. I think most scholars that have looked at this particular case would argue that the boycott became a symbolic event that triggered an entire social movement.

As historians have broken down the event, we come to understand that Rosa Parks was no random bus rider, that Montgomery was no random location, and the boycott was no random activity hastily slapped together by a preacher from Atlanta. Rather, the event was but a part of a longer-term strategy to effect a chance in the civil rights laws across the country. The boycott put a face on a burgeoning movement but it was the strategy of the movement, not the boycott itself, that resulted in change.

The same applies to any other boycott we see that one might consider successful. There has to be an over-arching strategy and organizing force capable of widespread support and influence that understands how boycotting is a very specific tool and, like trying to use a hammer to thread a needle, doesn’t work when applied incorrectly. The vast majority of announced boycotts don’t even come close to having the reason and authority behind them to be successful.

Too often, boycotts such as the ones announced this past week amount to nothing more than an attempt at moral bullying. The same organization that announced the boycott of Target has also tried boycotting Disney multiple times for a variety of reasons. I’m sure you’ve noticed how well that boycott is going [insert sarcastic eye roll here]. Their entire purpose behind the boycott is to force Target into changing their policy for no reason other than to match up with the organization’s right-wing religious-based morality. What they’re doing is nothing more than an attempted “might makes right” tactic that is doomed to failure.

If anything, this week’s boycotts are likely to backfire. Even when the cause is a good one, and neither of these are, boycotts often end up having the reverse effect. Why? No one likes to be told what to do. We especially don’t like to be told where to shop, what to eat, or what to wear. Boycotts that attempt to affect those industries are doomed before they even start.

For boycotts to work, they have to appeal to a matter of conscience that exceeds our commitment to our buying habits. Interestingly enough, there is one form of boycott that might actually have an impact. Note what is happening in the move against North Carolina’s HB2 law, aka the bathroom bill, which prohibits people from using any other restroom facility than the one determined by the gender identified on their birth certificate. This has to be one of the most stupid laws on the planet and people are responding appropriately by leaving the state of North Carolina to wallow in their own ignorance. Not only have a number of entertainers canceled performances in the state, but major corporations that had been planning expansions there have decided to move their operations elsewhere. While not officially an organized boycott, at least, not as far as we can tell at this point, the movement has gained so much momentum that the United Kingdom has warned LGBT tourists against traveling to either North Carolina or Mississippi because of their anti-gay laws. This movement is still developing, though, so we’ll see what it takes to actually get the laws overturned, which is the only acceptable outcome.

Generally speaking, though, and in overwhelming proportion, announcing a boycott is rather like saying you don’t like pea soup because of the way it dribbles down your great-grandmother’s chin. You’re being a stupid, ignorant bully and the rest of the world would kindly thank you to shut-the-fuck-up. Boycotts don’t work. If that offends you, tough. Deal with it.

Photography / PotD

I Can’t Show You That

February 17, 2016

charles i. letbetter - I can't show you taht

You have to show violence the way it is. If you don’t show it realistically, then that’s immoral and harmful. If you don’t upset people, then that’s obscenity.—Roman Polanski

charles i. letbetter - I can't show you that

The biggest problem with censorship of any kind is that it gives someone else the power to determine your morality

In a small town about 40 miles East of Indianapolis resides a woman who is convinced that everything I do is pornography. I don’t know this person at all. We’ve never met. Yet, because she doesn’t like what I do, she is of the opinion that no one else should, either, and has made lives miserable for people who disagree with her. I’ve actually not heard anything from her in a while, but I’m sure she’s still there.

Why do I care? What she’s doing doesn’t hurt me, personally. I’m okay with what I do, obviously. My friends are okay with what I do. Most importantly, the people who care about me the most, and whom I care about, consider my work quite fantastic and wonderful. Okay, so they’re a bit biased. Still, if there are people who like my work, why be bothered with those who don’t?

Because those who are like this woman enjoy imposing their morality on everyone else. We’ve seen it in every issue: women’s rights, welfare, voting rights, abortion, gay rights, healthcare, and marriage rights. There are always those people who not only are sure they know better than the rest of us, they insist they should have the power to stop us.

Now would be the point at which my closest friends ask what has me on my censorship soapbox so early this morning. The answer is an article in Business Insider about a UK initiative to force websites hosting pornography to verify user’s ages. I know, it doesn’t sound like such a harmful idea at all. In fact, pornography’s most popular website, PornHub, actually supports the measure, which I found, at the very least, interesting (in reality, I think they’re hoping it will filter out some of the competition). Protect the dear children and all that bunk, right?

I have two significant problems with what the UK is proposing.

First is the matter of who gets to decide what is pornography? No one has yet created a definition that stands up to legal scrutiny, for there are always artistic exceptions that would be deemed protected means of expression. Exactly what constitutes pornography? If sites that show belly buttons is pornography, then swimwear and fitness websites are pornographers. If sites that show nipples are pornography, then practically every major fashion magazine is guilty and one would have to be 18 to view the stream of a fashion show. If sites that detail reproductive processes are pornography, then medical and healthcare sites need to be taken down.

The article also raises the fact that elements of porn can be found just about everywhere, despite user guidelines prohibiting such. Porn can be found on Twitter. So, does everyone need to verify their age when they log onto the social media site? Porn can easily be found on Tumblr. Some of the things they show there even frighten me. But if one doesn’t follow those accounts, one doesn’t see that material, do Tumblr users need to show proof of age?

Underlying all those questions is the central fact that censorship allows someone else to determine your moral code. You may not agree with their moral code, but they insist that you abide by it. This philosophy is the kind embraced by narcissists and despots alike. They insist that they are always right and you are always wrong, therefore, they must tell you what to do. They would tell you what to eat (consider the GMO vs. non-GMO debates), what clothes to wear (school uniforms, anyone?), what church or synagogue to attend (everyone’s religion is wrong except mine), and even what vehicle to drive (those using fossil fuels are bad). People in power who embrace such a philosophy would soon enslave everyone in order to enforce compliance to their way of thinking. Most all the terrorist activity we see today is the result of exactly this type of thinking.

Second, to censor sexual acts, most of which are natural, beautiful, and necessary for the species to prosper, while not censoring violence, which is not natural, not beautiful, and would bring an end to the species, is the height of hypocrisy. If one is so terribly concerned about what children are watching, then why can any child turn on Netflix and watch Kill Bill, or Pulp Fiction, or any of hundreds of grotesquely violent films. Are you really going to try and convince me, with absolutely no scientific evidence in support of your insanity, that allowing a child to watch realistic violence is less harmful than seeing a nipple like the one that gave him/her sustenance when they were infants?

I’m not going to take the time to show all the studies that detail the dangers of viewing violence in media. I just don’t have the time and you’d grow bored at the length of the list. We have known for decades that violence, not sex, is the greatest threat to children, but we refuse to do anything to stop movies, or television shows, or anything else that feels it is somehow more truthful to show violence than censor it.

I would agree that there are some things children shouldn’t see. However, the way to handle that is through responsible parenting, not censorship. Filtering software is available for every Internet-connected device made. If you have children and allow them to use such a device, the responsibility is that of their parents, and only their parents, to lock down that content, and not only control what they see at any given age, but also how much time they spend on those devices. Studies now show connections between the amount of time a child spends online and an increase in attention deficit disorders. Even the most sanguine of programming can be dangerous in high quantities. Parents, not the government, not the UN, and certainly not any other organization, should control what their child sees and to which media and messages they are exposed.

Even well-intended censorship is still an imposition of one’s moral code over another, it is an indirect attempt to control behavior, which ultimately leads to tyranny and slavery. I don’t think we really want to go down that road. At least, I don’t. You make your own choice.