« To Answer Brutality With Brutality... | Main | Peace Demonstration In Tel Aviv »
Sunday, August 06, 2006
Little Gay Footballs
I think Big Gay Al said it best:
Bombs are flying
People are dying
Children are crying
Politicians are lying too.Cancer is killing
Texaco's spilling
The whole world's gone to hell
But how are you?I'm super
Thanks for asking
All things considered
I couldn't be better I must sayI'm feeling super
No, nothing bugs me
Everything is super when you're
Don't you think I look cute in this hat
Yup, hundreds of people are dying in Israel and Lebanon, and the wingers are upset about a photo that shows 50% more smoke than there really was over Beirut. I'm sure they showed the same outrage when it was revealed that the Saddam statue event was staged. Well, at least Atlas' Juggs has her headlights on the prize...
ntodd
August 6, 2006 | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/25771/5609078
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Little Gay Footballs:
Comments
...don't make me follow a link to those Malkin-cooties!
Posted by: Darryl Pearce | Aug 6, 2006 6:21:22 PM
darn you, nt; linking to that freak without a warning is verboten, you hear: Verboten!
Posted by: Mike | Aug 6, 2006 7:56:02 PM
But didn't some Republican nutjob add smoke to a WTC pic for an ad, recently? I forget the name. It was during the time they all lost their minds over the coffins in the DLC ad, iirc.
Posted by: Ripley | Aug 6, 2006 7:56:27 PM
Bingo!
"The controversial video of the burning World Trade Center towers in a television campaign ad for Ohio Sen. Mike DeWine is doctored, U.S. News has learned."
Oops!
Posted by: Ripley | Aug 6, 2006 7:58:21 PM
Hey, one of those links went to The Malkin!
And yes, my fine senator had an add in which certain images were 'doctored' But it wasn't his fault, it was the ad agency's. Really.
I was impressed that Brown responded to that little brouhaha very quickly.
Posted by: Buckeye, Dealer of Rare Coins | Aug 6, 2006 8:48:52 PM
I would have preferred a happier, less bomb-filled day to wish a happy birthday to a Quaker (however profane and haphazardly dressed), but one goes to birthdays with the reality one has rather than the reality one might like to have.
Happy birthday, NTodd. May your 38th year find you happier, healthier and living in a more peaceful world than your 37th.
Posted by: jezebel | Aug 6, 2006 9:28:14 PM
Let's try this real slow for you big gay retards:
Is it no big deal that the media is distorting information rather than just reporting it?
And rational person would think so...but that obviously doesn't apply to this crowd.
If anything , this case was proven unlike say.......
Mrs. McClatchey's photo was included in the Smithsonian Institution's traveling exhibit, "Bearing Witness." And her personal story appears to fit seamlessly into the larger narrative of the Shanksvsille crash site and temporary memorial, when, dozens of times a day, volunteers such as Donna Schmucker tell Mrs. McClatchey's story and other witness accounts to the visitors who stream onto the site, holding up her photo in the laminated pocket of a binder for all to see.
But Mrs. McClatchey's fame has recently taken a sour turn. The real estate agent has recently become a target of bloggers calling themselves "9-11 researchers," who are seeking to prove that the U.S. government was complicit in the attacks that brought down the Twin Towers, pierced the Pentagon and crashed United Airlines Flight 93. "The End of Serenity" has turned out to be their smoking gun.
The smoke plume doesn't line up right, they say. It is too large in the frame. The smoke is characteristic of an ordnance blast, not a jet fuel fire, further evidence that the government shot down Flight 93. They analyze wind direction, debris patterns and camera trajectories, all in the service of the theory that the crash was faked.
They have visited Mrs. McClatchey's office and called her at home, posting satellite maps of her property and accusing her of digitally altering her photo to insert a fake smoke plume. The bloggers have picked apart her story, highlighting inconsistencies in different news accounts and questioning her motives. Others have described her as "surly," "hostile," "irate" and "defensive." People have called her at home, accusing her of being anti-American and of "holding the photo hostage."
On a simple Google search, Mrs. McClatchey's name now pops up in the same sentence as "total fraud."
"Val McClatchey has made it unmistakably clear to us that she intends to milk her 9-11 claim to fame for all it's worth, truth be damned," writes Lisa Guliani, of WingTV (World Independent News Group), who traveled to Stoystown to interview Mrs. McClatchey...........
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/06218/711239-85.stm
Posted by: Headmistress SondraK | Aug 6, 2006 9:30:53 PM
Seems to me that Reuters was more upset than the 'wingers' as you call them. They removed the picture and fired the reporter. Saddam statue staged; damn right! That statue represented a "beast" of a human being who slaughtered hundreds of thousands of humans, just like you, in horrible ways, starved even more while living in 13 palaces and thumbing his nose at the entire world. After a brilliant 2 week campaign to end his savageness we earned the right to pull that statue down.
You and yours can comfortably critique whatever turns you on. Because of professional men like me. I take those risks that bug you as you view them stupidly thru heavy lenses. You can be non-violent right up til a violent savage comes at you and then you can be dead! Islam killers want you gone and they could care less about volleyball. They have been killing your fellow Americans since 1979. They speak their intentions every day to kill all non-muslims everywhere.
You are denying that reality at your own peril.
What would you do that is different?
Posted by: Colonel Jerry USMC(ret.) | Aug 6, 2006 11:39:15 PM
First of all, even without a war, even one who has ever been to the Middle East or Med will tell you that that you had better be prepared for smoke, because everyone and everything generates smoke. Cigarettes, vehicles, street vendors, restaurants, bakeries, etc. all generate smoke and fumes. Add in a few burning oil depots and the amount and type of smoke is dependent on the wind.
OT: if you haven't seen this, NTodd, check out high dynamic range, or HDR, photography.
Posted by: Bryan | Aug 6, 2006 11:44:21 PM
I took a chance and looked at the photo. Scanner skip on the top that repeats a strip a half dozen times.
Colonel, I'm surprised that a Marine would forget the Barbary Wars starting in 1801. They are part of the Marine hymn. You probably forgot about the 34 members of the Naval Security Group who were killed by the Israelis in an unprovoked attack on the USS Liberty in 1967.
For the record, Christians started it in 1095 with the First Crusade.
Sorry about not being non-violent: USAF 1966-74 AM w/6OLC, VSM, AFEM, 3500 combat/combat support hours. Been there, done that, and it didn't solve anything.
As far 1979, Muslims were trying to blow up my barracks at Rhein-Main AB, Germany in 1970-72, so read a little history before you spout off. Does the Munich Olympics ring a bell?
Posted by: Bryan | Aug 7, 2006 12:08:23 AM
I read a little history Bryan and could care less what happened 1000 years ago. Did my serice a few mile south of you in Augsburg. The Liberty attack was a huge error, but I don't hold it against Israel because all her neighbors attacked her. She was right to be paranoid. The Munich Olympics do ring a bell. That was when terrorists slaughtered some Israeli atheletes for no crime other than their nationality.
Posted by: Dawnsblood | Aug 7, 2006 12:29:34 AM
I take it no one's going to address the point here.
Sloooooooooweeeeeeeeeeeeeeeer for ya:
Is. it. no. big. deal. that. the. media. is. distorting. information. rather. than. just. reporting. it.?
Posted by: SondraK | Aug 7, 2006 1:10:33 AM
Bryan-spouting off? Try to pay attention you arrogant fuck. No one said the other muslim screwups didn't happen, but focus for more than a blink of an eye and you might note the point of discussion is not about you or your opinion but REUTERS. FYI-That's a news agency. It lies as habit, practice and a matter of course. Should responsible news agencies deceive the people of the world intentionally?
WE as marines did not nor do not forget the past, present or future, up to and including all sources of dumb asses. Stay on topic or piss off. They got their hands in the Kooky jar again and have been called on it. Ally with them or denounce this kind of sabotage.
Posted by: forest hunter | Aug 7, 2006 4:02:20 AM
The media didn't distort. It took a picture unquestioningly, when it was pointed out that it was a rather shitty photoshop job, it was removed and the photog canned. End of story.
But you guys keep looking for nasty intent on the part of Reuters--then you can put another meaningless feather in your tinfoil hats.
And still no response about the media distorting what happened in Baghdad on 4/9/2003? Odd, that...
Posted by: NTodd | Aug 7, 2006 8:39:44 AM
Seems to me that Reuters was more upset than the 'wingers' as you call them. They removed the picture and fired the reporter. Saddam statue staged; damn right! That statue represented a "beast" of a human being who slaughtered hundreds of thousands of humans, just like you
Either I've killed hundreds of thousands when I wasn't paying attention, or you might want to work on your English composition skills a skosh.
You can be non-violent right up til a violent savage comes at you and then you can be dead! Islam killers want you gone and they could care less about volleyball.
Or maybe not, seeing as that last sentence is obviously not English, given that it, you know, doesn't make any sense.
Posted by: Pere Ubu | Aug 7, 2006 10:09:24 AM
The vast majority of people realized the toppleiing of the Saddam statue was a staged event if not why even bother knocking it over. It spoke for it's self. This is not the only photo doctored and published by Reuter's they are finding more and more. Reuters had to know these were doctored photos they just printed them because it helped foster there biased position and defense of the monsters that relentlessly engage in terror attacks aimed at civilians women and children. those are the targets of choice for these killers. There is no morale equivlence. Anyone not able to understand the difference is ethicaly compromised.Reuters has engaged in this kind of crap so much they should be shunned. I suspect next they will start detonating bombs under nuseries to get a good picture.
Posted by: Jack Hamilton | Aug 7, 2006 10:15:23 AM
..as you, friend Jack, are grammatically compromised. (sometimes it is so very hard to resist an "ad hominem" response) :-)
Posted by: NTodd's Pa | Aug 7, 2006 10:56:31 AM
That's the best you can do, attack a man's spelling? Relieves you of the tedious task of having to think up a response doesn't it?
I'm rather surprised, that when a major news outlet hires stringers and photographers from the area, without checking their background or potential biases, you somehow don't think it compremises their credibility. Imagine a doctored photo on FOX, and then imagine your displeasure and rage. Just giving this a pass, because it happens to support your views isn't very ethical.
No, instead, you focus on our anger at it, as if it simply didn't matter that a media source is letting itself be used. How dare we be upset?
I take it then, you have never had any reason to be angry at what you saw as blatant propaganda? Because if you were, after your tirade on this, it makes you look a bit hyopcritical. For the record, I was in the Air Force as well, and force does indeed resolve issues. Or are we still fighting near Berlin?
Force is a tool, a messy nasty necessary tool. To take it off the table, is to give bad people who wish you harm, a free license to do as they wish. I was raised an Adventist, pacificism is the choice of submission, surrender. You can deny it, but I've seen the results of turning the other cheek, it just invites more brutality.
Bullies don't care if you think violence doesn't work, it does for them. Or they wouldn't always use it to spread their hate around the world.
And the Liberty bombing, you aren't one of those, I hate Israel because types, are you?
Sondrak's quite right, you completely missed the point in your rush to throw rocks.
Posted by: puggs | Aug 7, 2006 12:23:14 PM
It's say my piece or make my peace.
Sometime's it IS really hard to give a shit about blog comment boxes where folks spell first as FRIST!!!!!!!!....
Mr. WeeTodd...I FOUND you in the FRIST!!! place from reading your asenine misspelled poorly constructed comments elsewhere, BTW.
The fact that you have no self control with respect to pointing out typos or someone's writing style to make yourself feeeeeeeeel a little better about the message says allot about you.
Perhaps that is why you have trouble reading between the lines.
You're not fit to be Jack's turd swirling down the bowl.
WeeTodd...there are about 6 instinces so far just lately of photo manipulation being investigated and they just keep coming so while "letting go" would be the pacifist way some people like to find complete resolution before moving on.
And sice all those numbers of "the dead" keep changing, too....I'd think you might be reluctant to use them in any point of reference until That Green Helmet Guy's done emptying out his morgue truck.
Posted by: WeeTodd's Babysitter | Aug 7, 2006 12:28:39 PM
The photo I saw looked like it had been just darkened rather than extra smoke put it. Was it truly shopped?
Reuters did right in firing the photographer if there was tampering. The truth is horrible enough without tweaking for effect.
Posted by: ellroon | Aug 7, 2006 12:29:40 PM
During his address to the Arab diplomats, Mr. Siniora announced that 40 civilians had died in an Israeli airstrike on the border village of Houla, in what he called “a horrible massacre, a deliberate massacre.’’
Later, however, he said that only one person had been found dead and that more than 50 people had been pulled from rubble in the village.
Posted by: WeeTodd's Babysitter | Aug 7, 2006 12:55:53 PM
My, my, my...SondraK doesn't seem to be able to check her spelling, either. :)
BTW, friend Puggs, it is not NTodd, but his Pa who is concerned with grammar. My teaching background comes through: I can understand one or two errors, but twelve or more leads me to believe a deeper misunderstanding may be at play.
Despite the rhetoric surrounding it, I find the following paragraph interesting and, of course, debatable:
>>>Force is a tool, a messy nasty necessary tool. To take it off the table, is to give bad people who wish you harm, a free license to do as they wish. I was raised an Adventist, pacificism is the choice of submission, surrender. You can deny it, but I've seen the results of turning the other cheek, it just invites more brutality. <<<
I disagree that pacifism is necessarily the choice of submission, just as I disagree that force is necessary, IF by force you mean killing other human beings. Ghandi and M.L. King would not be on your side. Please provide examples that could prove your last statement.
Thanks!
Posted by: NTodd's Pa | Aug 7, 2006 2:02:42 PM
If by force you mean killing other human beings. Ghandi and M.L. King would not be on your side.
Well, something must be understood here about Ghandi and MLK's path of civil disobedience. They only work when your oppressor still has some sense of civility about them. A group that can still feel shame. When that sense of shame is gone civil disobedience will work about as well as pacifism against a hungry lion.
At that point violence becomes a question of morality rather than one of practicality. Do you fight the lion or march to your own death?
You asked for examples of the following: "You can deny it, but I've seen the results of turning the other cheek, it just invites more brutality."
The Holocaust springs to mind. To the best of my knowledge violent uprisings among the German Jews were few and far between. They were just going along with the program.
You may believe civil disobedience would have worked against the Nazi machine. I don't... nor do I wish to argue about it.
I also don't believe that any form of civil disobedience would have worked in Cambodia, northern Iraq (the Kurds), Tiananmen Square, etc.
Posted by: Justin Buist | Aug 7, 2006 2:57:58 PM
Anyone not able to understand the difference is ethicaly compromised.
No, see, the "point" Sandra and others have made is that it's "all about media distortion" and not "a partisan issue". Well, is it? The statue scene was PsyOps/PR/whatever you want to call it. Yet you justify the distorted view. Shocking.
It's say my piece or make my peace.
It's a pun, fuckwit.
so while "letting go" would be the pacifist way
I'm not a pacifist. Neither was Gandhi. "Letting go" and being passive is anathema to non-violent ACTION. We engage in conflict.
Well, something must be understood here about Ghandi and MLK's path of civil disobedience. They only work when your oppressor still has some sense of civility about them.
Incorrect. Educate yourself.
Posted by: NTodd | Aug 7, 2006 3:56:28 PM
Mr. WeeTodd...I FOUND you in the FRIST!!! place from reading your asenine misspelled poorly constructed comments elsewhere, BTW.
Where, exactly, did I make an asenine [sic] comment that was misspelled and poorly constructed (in contrast to your erudite, wholly correct post)?
Posted by: NTodd | Aug 7, 2006 3:58:19 PM
Mr. WeeTodd...I FOUND you in the FRIST!!! place from reading your asenine misspelled poorly constructed comments elsewhere, BTW.
That's awesome.
Posted by: Thers | Aug 7, 2006 10:18:24 PM
Incorrect. Educate yourself.
The first link in your post points to successful NV actions in the Nazi regime.
Forgive me, and all my biases, when is say that perhaps they were less than successful in their endeavors.
There's about 7 million dead Jews that might disagree on NV tactics.
Posted by: Justin Buist | Aug 8, 2006 12:39:54 AM
Violent tactics did not save those 7 million, either.
Posted by: NTodd's Pa | Aug 9, 2006 4:36:56 PM
Forgive me, and all my biases, when is say that perhaps they were less than successful in their endeavors.
Way to miss the point, Justin. Consider if more people actually engaged in NV action. More than 7 million might still be alive.
Think of Schindler. Think of Wallenberg. And think of Rosenstrasse. You said you didn't think NV could work against the Nazis. It can and it did. Not without pain, death or other losses. But it works.
These are simply a few examples of how it can work--after millenia of violence, I could hardly expect you to easily accept what has only been demonstrated for a century. And as Dad said, those 7 million weren't saved by your approach. I encourage you to examine why you think escalating violence in the 20th and now 21st century is a solution, rather than the proven real power of non-violence.
Posted by: NTodd | Aug 9, 2006 4:57:40 PM
Buy me stuff off my 
