Looks like some previously classified medical X-rays of Pres. Bush have been leaked. Somehow, the results aren’t very surprising.
(Via Tom Tomorrow)
Enthusiastically Ambiverted Hopepunk
Looks like some previously classified medical X-rays of Pres. Bush have been leaked. Somehow, the results aren’t very surprising.
(Via Tom Tomorrow)
Getting shot at wasn’t really that bad. It was the getting shot part that sucked.
— Staff Sgt. Jamie Villafane, recuperating from a shrapnel wound after single-handedly capturing four Iraqis.
(Via Tom Brown)
Noted independent journalist Robert Fisk got to see some unedited videotape shot by Al-Djazaira of Basra, which is supposedly captured and held by British forces.
It is also proof that Basra — reportedly “captured” and “secured” by British troops last week — is indeed under the control of Saddam Hussein’s forces. Despite claims by British officers that some form of uprising has broken out in Basra, cars and buses continue to move through the streets while Iraqis queue patiently for gas bottles as they are unloaded from a government truck. A remarkable part of the tape shows fireballs blooming over western Basra and the explosion of incoming — and presumably British — shells. The short sequence of the dead British soldiers for the public showing of which Tony Blair expressed such horror yesterday is little different from dozens of similar clips of dead Iraqi soldiers shown on British television over the past 12 years, pictures which never drew any expressions of condemnation from the British prime minister. The two Britons, still in uniform, are lying on a roadway, arms and legs apart, one of them apparently hit in the head, the other shot in the chest and abdomen.
The rest of the article is extremely disturbing, as he describes the scenes of warfare caputured on the tape — scenes that not only would definitely not be broadcast in the U.S., but would most likely not even be talked about either. But then, it’s also the reality of what is happening on the other side of the world. Not the video-game-on-tv shots of explosions mushrooming up from miles away, but the street-level violence of urban warfare that we now find ourselves in as our armies penetrate further into Iraq.
From Dave Winer:
Presidential candidate Howard Dean gave a talk at Harvard last night. He asked an interesting question. Next year, how will we feel when China invades Taiwan because they think they have weapons of mass destruction? Has the new Bush Doctrine, pre-emptive wars, unleashed a philosophy of world power that we may not be so comfortable with?
Not a happy thought, is it? My guess, if a situation like this were to happen while Bush was in power, would be that we would then start rattling our sabres at China for “invading a soverign nation”. You see, as we’ve amply demonstrated in the past few weeks, when anyone else in the world attacks another country, it’s invasion. When we do it, it’s liberation.
Of course, it’s been pointed out by many people that many of the same arguments used to justify the attack on Iraq could be applied to the U.S. We have a leader in power who was not elected by the popular vote. We have weapons of mass destruction that we’re not willing to destroy. We have chemical weapons (hell, we sold Iraq theirs). We are denying (some of) our citizens their constitutional rights (especially if they’re of middle eastern heritage). So why aren’t we facing U.N. sanctions or a coalition of countries using military force to liberate the American people?
Who knows — maybe we will at some point in the future. As Dean is pointing out, Bush has just made that an acceptable foreign policy for the nations of the world to take.
Chad just called me to tell me he’s picking up tickets for a concert next month.
April 15^th^ at the Catwalk Club: Pigface and My Life With the Thrill Kill Kult (along with two bands I’ve not heard of, Zeromancer and Bile)!
I’m doing all sorts of happydances right now…
Ever been unsure about the distinction between ‘an historic’ and ‘a historic’? The question came up in a thread here recently and I did some investigating.
Okay, forget about worrying whether or not the media is biased — we’ll have a hard enough time trying to figure out if they’re actually telling the truth or not that we won’t have to worry about bias.
On February 14, a Florida Appeals court ruled there is absolutely nothing illegal about lying, concealing or distorting information by a major press organization. The court reversed the \$425,000 jury verdict in favor of journalist Jane Akre who charged she was pressured by Fox Television management and lawyers to air what she knew and documented to be false information. The ruling basically declares it is technically not against any law, rule, or regulation to deliberately lie or distort the news on a television broadcast.
I can kind of understand the court not wanting to get in the middle of this by actually declaring it illegal for a news broadcast to knowingly transmit false information — the accountability should be a responsibility of the news organization, otherwise what accountability do they have? What disgusts me is that Fox’s lawyers “argued the First Amendment gives broadcasters the right to lie or deliberately distort news reports on the public airwaves.” Just disgusting.
Bearing that in mind, though, I now have absolutely no desire to pay any attention to any news report coming from Fox Television. Pretty hard to trust an organization that would do this.
Gary Trudeau has been doing this for years and he can still make me laugh with his take on situations.
While I wasn’t really around for much of the Vietnam era (being born in ’73, I was techically “around” for some of it, but I can’t say that my memories of the time are all too clear), many of my impressions of those years stem from the hours I spent as a kid devouring my dad’s collection of Doonesbury books. Trudeau, along with Breathed (until his retirement), has continued to give me many laughs through the years as I’ve grown and kept reading. That pefect blend of cynicism, satire, and a keen eye for seeing the humor amidst the tragedy is all too rare. It’s harder for me to keep up with him these days, as I tend to eschew print media for the web, and don’t always remember to check in to his site daily, but I do try to keep an eye on what he’s doing when I remember.
He hasn’t let me down yet — here’s hoping he’s got many years worth of cartoons still in him.
Well, here’s something that shouldn’t be a surprise to anyone with a modicum of intelligence — spell- and grammar-checking software doesn’t always help, and can often hinder good writing.
How might you drag a good writer’s work down to the level of a lesser scribe? Try the spell-check button.
A study at the University of Pittsburgh indicates spell-check software may level the playing field between people with differing levels of language skills, hampering the work of writers and editors who place too much trust in the software.
I’ve been ranting about this for years — most recently, back in September. Software checkers can only do so much, and there’s no substitute for a well-educated mind.