Re: FW: Photos That will NEVER Make the News, unless they were released by major news organizations in the first place

————– Forwarded Message: ————–
Subject: FW: Photos That will NEVER Make the News
Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2004 14:11:57 +0000

—–Original Message—–
Subject: FW: Photos That will NEVER Make the News

—–Original Message—–
Subject: Photos That will NEVER Make the News

Please pass the pictures on. Sometimes in our everyday lives we tend to forget what’s going on elsewhere in the world and that the brave men and women of the service are just like you and I. They have family and friends back home who love them very much and are praying for their safe return.
PLEASE KEEP THIS GOING EVEN IF YOU HAVE PASSED IT ON BEFORE
When you receive this, please stop for a moment and say a prayer for our troops and the people in Afghanistan, Kuwait, Iraq, and all around the world. There is nothing attached……. This can be very powerful……Just send this to people in your address book. Do not stop the wheel, please….
Of all the gifts you could give to support peace, Prayer is the very best one…..

Not to be a wiseass, but did you notice “AP”, “Reuters” and “AFP” at the bottom of all but one of the photos? I suppose that the tiny text would be easy to miss, but it’s there, and it indicates that the photos all come from news agencies, so by definition they all made the news - they all had to be released by the news agencies at one point or another.

http://www.reuters.com/
http://www.ap.org/
http://www.afp.com/english/home/

If you would like to argue about the media, perhaps we could argue that the media isn’t showing enough images like these:
http://gallery.colofinder.net/casualties
http://gallery.colofinder.net/iraqwar2003-fisk

I have a strong stomach. Even though I believe strongly that the reasons that we went to Iraq were at best hasty and at worst outright lies, I understand that we are killing people for a reason.

When we deposed Saddam Hussein we removed a murderous, evil madman. Unfortunately for us, he did not have ties to Al Qaeda. He also didn’t have any weapons of mass destruction. Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. Iraq had little to do with Islamic terrorists. Iraq was a secular state. Muslims did not like Iraq’s leadership because they were not religious.

Now we have unleashed upon the world a country friendly to muslim extremists. Oh yeah, the top brass didn’t make “securing munitions” a high priority so now the extremists are armed. Thanks a lot.

Okay, maybe I was being a wiseass.

Leave a comment...

F911 Transcript

Part I:
http://www.redlinerants.com/index.php?subaction=showfull&id=1088491633

Part II: http://www.redlinerants.com/index.php?subaction=showfull&id=1088581422

Part III: http://www.redlinerants.com/index.php?subaction=showfull&id=1089705299

Just for the heck of it, remember that we did do some good in Iraq:
http://www.strategypage.com/respect/articles/military_2004628.asp

Leave a comment...

I told you it was shady

This blog entry in which I link to this government publication is prescient of this post which links to this other government document which says the same thing.

If you have any trouble with the links, I will reprint some of it here:

BUSH ON IRAQ & 9/11

From a State Department website:

In a March 18 letter to Congressional leaders, Bush said that his use of the Congressional authorization to wage war against Iraq is consistent with the international effort against terrorism, “including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.”

Read the whole letter. It's short. People keep saying that the Bush administration never linked Iraq to 9/11. It's not true.

Ben Wikler

will reprint the letter from the President of the United States (George W. Bush) also:

March 18, 2003

Dear Mr. Speaker: (Dear Mr. President:)

Consistent with section 3(b) of the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution of 2002 (Public Law 107-243), and based on information available to me, including that in the enclosed document, I determine that:

(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic and other peaceful means alone will neither (A) adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq nor (B) likely lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and

(2) acting pursuant to the Constitution and Public Law 107-243 is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

Sincerely,

GEORGE W. BUSH

(emphasis mine)

Leave a comment...

Fahrenheit 9/11

Melissa and I saw Fahrenheit 9/11 Saturday afternoon. The theater was packed for our showing, the showing before it, and the showing after it - probably every showing that they ran every half hour all day. I really liked the movie, even though there was very little new stuff in it compared to “Stupid White Men” and “Dude, Where's My Country”.

However, since Melissa hadn't read those books she picked up a lot, which I think is really the point of the movie - it's a fast, easy to digest mass of political information and opinion. Okay, some parts were hard to swallow, much less digest, like the crying grandmother in Iraq cursing the US and begging Allah for relief, or the American mother who had lost her son in the war breaking down into tears within sight of the White House.

Oh yeah, thank you Michael Moore for Britney Spears. She was the very definition of comic relief, and timely too - I was crumbling under the weight of all that horror. Bloody children and babies. Open wounds. Amputee veterans. Shock and awe? Mostly grief.

Anyway, I'm glad that I saw it. It won't be for everyone - but the ideas in it are worth sharing with anyone who has a stake in this country's future.

Fun links:

http://www.drivingvotes.org/bushfacts.shtml

http://www.thismodernworld.com/

Leave a comment...

I think we have a case!

US Constitution

Article II

Section 4.

The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.

Article III

Section 3.

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.

The Congress shall have power to declare the punishment of treason, but no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood, or forfeiture except during the life of the person attainted.

(emphasis mine)

Who do we know who has lied to us, started a war against us, and aided our enemies?

There were no weapons of mass desctruction. Iraq did not have ties to Al Qaeda. The Bush administration stoked the fires of war based on lies that took advantage of our continuing grief and fear.

I can pretty much guarantee you that the Bin Laden family are our enemies. This administration assisted their escape from the United States.

How much money does this administration stand to make based on this war? When does it stop being shrewd business strategy and start being criminal? At what point can we call this orgy of greed bribery?

Don't wait for the election. Impeach Bush. Impeach Cheney. Impeach Rumsfeld and all of the co-conspirators in the pillaging of America.

http://www.google.com/search?q=impeach+bush

Leave a comment...

It’s all Nader’s fault

No, it isn’t. I will leave the math to you, because the vote counts are public. The only states that Gore would have won if he got the votes from Nader were New Hampshire and Florida. New Hampshire only has four electoral votes. Sorry, New Hampshire, but you wouldn’t have been enough.

We all know that Florida was rigged, so that pretty much eliminates Nader as the root cause.

Besides, shouldn’t all of those Gore voters have voted for Nader anyway?

Leave a comment...

ABC, Easy as One Two Three

The war is an exceedingly complex set of issues. If only someone were to make a simple guide, that would be very helpful.

If you've never visited mikhaela.net but you have similar political leanings to me (or simply enjoy good, quality entertainment), I suggest that you peruse Mikhaela's terrific comics and maybe her blog, too. She's been referenced by Tom Tomorrow- in fact this comic is at the top of his blog as I write this. It's hard to imagine much higher praise than that, unless you don't like Tom Tomorrow, in which case, why are you reading my blog?

Thank goodness that I have my good friend Matt to boil down the internet and give me just the good stuff.

Leave a comment...

I want to be a war photographer.

I’d give MSNBC’s site an A+ for the war photography and the well-executed slideshows. Take a look for yourself.

However, much like rally photography, no matter how much you shoot, there are always stories that aren’t being told. I can shoot 200 photos in a day at a rally without feeling like I’m getting much beyond the surface. I would love to see a massive gallery of war photographs - uncensored and unrestricted. Dozens of reporters are spending every hour with troops in every part of Iraq, as well as with civilians and on their own. I want to see the rest of the coverage and hear the rest of the stories.

Maybe that’s just me.

Leave a comment...

The full text of the EW article, since they might take it online and turn into a pay service

Boo Who?

Michael Moore defends his Oscar speech. The political filmmaker tells EW.com why the only people who looked bad Sunday night were the ones who booed him

by Gillian Flynn

Calling Bush a “fictitious president” who's unleashed a “war for fictitious reasons” in Iraq, Michael Moore — newly minted Oscar winner for Best Documentary — let loose a sparky speech Sunday night that was promptly spiked with audience boos. Thus, the “Bowling for Columbine” director quickly (and predictably) became the most controversial figure of the 2003 Oscars. Here, Moore speaks with EW.com about the ensuing storm.

Did you know what you were going to say when you got up to the podium?
I felt I had to say something about Bush and the war; it wasn't out of place because that's what my film deals with — the American culture of violence and why we're such a violent people. It's about why and how our government manipulates us with fear. Specifically, the film [deals with] the Bush Administration manipulating people with fear to enact their agenda and to get money for war. So I thought whatever I'd say if I won would be along those lines because it was appropriate to the theme of the movie.
You got a standing ovation as you walked up, then you began your speech and promptly got booed. Were you surprised?
It was two different groups of people. You can look at a tape of the show — there's nobody booing on the main floor. Do you think they're that flaky in Hollywood that I was the first award they stood for — the first standing ovation — and within 10 seconds they decided to change their minds? The same people who'd voted for this film?
So where were the boos coming from?
The first shouts were “No, no!” and it was almost like the person was miked. It was so loud. But it was so weird because I was looking at the audience, and they were all either sitting there nodding, smiling, applauding, or just listening. I have friends and family who were in the balcony, and they said the first sounds didn't come up from up there, it came through the amplified loud-speaker system in the auditorium. The L.A. Times said stagehands joined in.
Is that what it sounded like to you — an amplification?
It was so loud my wife, who was standing next to me, couldn't hear what I was saying. One of my buddies who worked on the film and was up on the top balcony said there was a pocket of people there, and I hadn't finished my first sentence and, like, on cue, they just started [booing] up there. First the “No! No!” going through the sound system and then the [booing] up there. Then the people in the balcony who were supportive of what I was saying started booing the booers. They were shouting at them to shut up! So now it's a cacophony of booing, making it sound much worse than it was.
Looking at the main level, which had given you that standing ovation, they were stock-still once your speech and the booing began.
I think they wanted to hear what I was saying. In the cutaways — I've watched it now — you see Martin Scorsese starting to applaud, Ed Harris is applauding, a number of them are actually applauding.
A few. Overall you were kind of left hanging.
I think they were [all] kind of stunned by the moment. I don't expect them as actors, as celebrities, to get up there and [make a statement]. It often seems awkward, even to me.
But because you're a political filmmaker you can?
That's what I do for a living. I make political documentaries. If I was upset about anything it was that the band drowned out my last line there.
Which was?
Which was: Any time you've got the Pope and the Dixie Chicks against you, you're not long for the White House.
What do you think of the people who booed you?

Isn't that why this is such a great country? Everyone can speak their mind. It's a little disconcerting that I get 45 seconds to have my piece and there are those who would try to deny me my right to speak. The only people who looked bad here are the people who want to deny someone 45 seconds of free speech. The director of the show had told all the nominees those were our 45 seconds and it was completely up to us what we want to say and do. We were not threatened in any way to stick to any kind of a script.
Did you consider an alternate version?
The other road I would have gone down is: “We've taught the children of Columbine an important lesson this week — that violence is an acceptable method to resolve a conflict.” That really bothers me. Sometimes violence is unfortunately necessary in self-defense, but what do you call this invasion of Iraq? [If you were to] randomly ask people, “Do you believe Saddam Hussein is going to kill you this month?” [would they say, “Yes”?] Most people were raised with a certain set of Judeo-Christian values that say you don't have the right to take another person's life unless it's in self-defense. I have very strong personal beliefs about this, and how can I stop being that person because I walk into the Kodak Theatre? On the other hand, I'm very respectful when I'm a guest in someone's house — that's the way I was raised. So I put a tux on, I didn't wear a baseball cap, I said what my conscience told me to say and it related in an appropriate way to the message of my film. How wrong would it have been if I'd stood up there and thanked my agent and my lawyer and the designer who gave me the tuxedo? And how could I live with myself?
What are you doing next?
A film tentatively titled “Fahrenheit 9/11.” It's about the country since 9/11 and how I believe that event is being used as a cover for the Bush Administration to enact policies that aren't in the best interests of the American people. It's about what led to 9/11 and what's happened since. I live in New York City, so we've all been affected by this and I'm not over it either. We knew somebody on one of the flights who died, and the firemen on our block. So I don't want whatever the important lessons are that we need to learn from this to fade away. I certainly don't like those who died that day being dishonored and being used to pass laws so they can force librarians to give up their reading lists.

(Posted:03/26/03)

Leave a comment...

Okay, one more from Matt

I told you that he should blog for me. It would certainly have a lot more interesting links.


Boo Who?

Michael Moore defends his Oscar speech

Leave a comment...

RSS

People I Know

Random Stuff

Recently Listened

40 queries. 3.563 seconds.

Technorati Profile