mcvideo

Here's Gehry's idea of a beauty pageant.

It's hard to tell from the photo, but, this former squid thinks that that the towers, or masts, support a phased array surface search radar. I could be wrong, after all, I worked on airplanes.

A cool idea, but something like this would be more fun.

I'm not a big fan of Christmas music, but, what's a Christmas without Spike Jones: Jingle Bells (in pig latin), My Birthday Comes on Christmas, Nuttin' For Christmas, and (I'm the) Angel in the Christmas Play But, my all time favorite is Stan Freberg's Green Christmas: "Deck the halls with advertising, Fa, la, la, la, la, la, la, la, la. 'Tis the time for merchandising, Fa, la, la, la, la, la, la, la, la. Profit never needs a reason, Fa, la, la, la, la, la, la, la, la. Get the money, it's the season, Fa, la, la, la, la, la, la, la, la."

While fooling around following links to see where they may lead, I came across this. New York Times crossword puzzles, no problem. Sudoku, no problem. For some reason, these types of puzzles stump me completely. Should you choose to accept this mission, good luck.

If you have cherished childhood memories that you don't want to get dashed to bits, don't watch this .

Have you tried consulting your alethiometer?

The machine gun in question appears to be a Soviet/Russian made PK general purpose machine gun. It is belt fed or can have a box magazine attached. The PK is fitted with a top mounted carrying handle. Though, in the Pulitzer photo, the gunner's hand position doesn't square with the orientation of the handle. Explanation? I dunno. The handle could be broken or modified. As for "air sitting," it's obvious to me that the gunner may have just fired a burst and is in the process of repositioning himself. Also, it's a bipod, not a tripod. I've done a fair amount of work with light and see nothing unusual about the shadows. The only unusual thing I see is white trouser guy's left hand. Again, I don't really know. There may be an explanation for it. The photo available at the Pulitzer site is too low a resolution to adequately address the other nitpicks at the Jawa Report. I'm not convinced that there's 'fauxtography' here. I would be interested in seeing a sequence of photos, if any, from that fire fight.

True story: A while back, a year or so, I was assigned, along with a reporter, to cover an awards ceremony held at Fort Carson, Colorado. A number of soldiers were being awarded with the Purple Heart for wounds sustained in Iraq. After the conclusion of the ceremony we were free to get interviews with the soldiers. Now, as it happens, this day also was the day that President Bush was to deliver a speech on Iraq. The reporter wanted to ask the soldiers about the upcoming speech. I said that was not why we were there: Me: "These guys are getting the Purple Heart. We should focus on that." Reporter: "Well, everyone (the other media present) else is asking about it (the President's speech)." Me: "Well, they're a**holes. (I wanted to say "I'm glad they're not jumping off a cliff.") Besides, These guys aren't going to say anything, good or bad, about the President." Reporter: "Hmph." Predictably, the soldiers we interviewed would not comment, when asked, on the upcoming speech. I did ask one soldier about the goings-on in Iraq and what wasn't being reported on. His reply was along the lines of the all happy children he saw (I don't remember what else he said). An interesting aside: A few days later during a disagreement (some would say argument) in the newsroom, the aforementioned reporter said that we (the station) should be reporting on some of the good things going on Iraq! I just rolled my eyes and walked away to find something to do.

Getting back to the wild animals for a moment. . . the Irwin tragedy reminds me of another incident back in '03. That is, the story of Timothy Treadwell, "The Grizzly Man." He spent 13 summers on a self-described mission to 'protect' the bears of Katmai National Park in Alaska. Without firearms, no less. His story is told in the documentary, "Grizzly Man" (2005), directed by Werner Herzog. During the pair's last moments, as described in the film, I doubt even a firearm would have saved them. Perhaps if both knew well how to use a gun, maybe one of them might have gotten out with severe injuries.

That would be Ouray, pronounced "YOO-ray." Not that I'm picking nits or anything .

While I'll neither confirm nor deny the presence of 'body art' on my person, I generally have no problem with tattoos. Having, at one time, been in the Navy, I've seen some quite stunning designs on the shoulders of former and present military men. To me, they are expressions of pride in one's country and profession. Plus, I admire the skill of the artisan who applied the tattoo (though there are many tattoos that are applied from a template, much like using tracing paper). When it comes to women, I find that visible tattoos, no matter how artistic, are big turn-off for reasons I'll have to think about. The tattoos, on both men and women, that really annoy me are those that appear to be primitive designs that spread across shoulders or wrapped around arms, ankles, etc. The return of the primitive, I suppose. Finally, a discrete mark that may be a symbol of something significant to the bearer, man or woman, can be shared, like a secret, with that special someone. Cheers.

Awww, you beat me to it. Here's a link to some info about the pledge and its author. From Bellamy's "Address on Columbus Day (1892):" "To-day America's fifth century begins. The world's twentieth century will soon be here. To the 13,000,000 now in the American schools the command of the coming years belongs. We, the youth of America, who to-day unite to march as one army under the sacred flag, understand our duty. We pledge ourselves that the flag shall not be stained; and that America shall mean equal opportunity and justice for every citizen, and brotherhood for the world." (emphasis added) This speech was given about a month after the publication of Bellamy's Pledge of Allegiance in the September 8, 1892 edition of "the Youth's Companion." More here and here on the Pledge. I didn't see any sources cited in the former, so, I don't know how reliable the info is. Even though Curry is a Libertarian, he did post an improved Pledge (intended for government officials): "I pledge allegiance to individual rights in the United States of America, and to all private persons under whom I serve, one nation, of individuals, under any Gods or none, with liberty and justice for each." Anyway, I prefer Matt Groening's version from "Life in Hell:" "I plead alignment, to the flakes of the untitled snakes of a merry cow, and to the Republicans, for which they scam, one nacho, underpants, with licorice and jugs of wine for owls"

Spot on. I'm sooooo glad I'm not in the news business anymore.

I'm inclined to agree that this crime is not 'terrorism,' per se. It seems more like a peace loving muslim out on his own personal jihad (recall the incident at the El Al airlines counter at LAX a few years ago). I do have to applaud the Seattle Times and Post-Intelligencer for making the identification of the alleged shooter as a muslim.

I did not mean to imply that I'm still in the military. My apologies for any misunderstanding.

(Inspired by the "How not to thank the military" thread) Back in 2000, I was preparing to deploy to Saudi Arabia. An acquaintance of mine, when told I was going, said to me: "Thanks for what you're doing." I was taken aback. Now, I didn't doubt his sincerity, but, after about 13 years of active duty and reserve service, no one had ever thanked me for my service. I didn't know what to think and I don't recall my response. A lot people blather on about 'sacrifice' this, 'sacrifice' that. I sacrificed nothing. During my days in uniform, I learned a hell of a lot, travelled around the world and worked with some really terrific people. I gained more of an appreciation for the USA and the truly monumental achievement she is. Incidentally, I first read Ayn Rand while on active duty. I certainly gained a lot. For that I don't need to be thanked. I'm grateful for having had the opportunity to have served. I realize that "freedom is not free." A lot of blood was spilled to bring us the Constitution, the Emancipation Proclamation, the destruction of tyrannies and dictatorships. We have Memorial Day to honor those who fell in battle. It is too late to say anything to these warriors. Do current servicemembers, retirees and veterans deserve to be vilified, demonized or otherwise disparaged for choosing to put on the uniform of their country? Certainly not. Please realize that I'm not trying to be mean spirited or condescending. Is saying "thank you" to a servicemember (active duty, reserve, retired or veteran) really necessary? I can only speak for myself, you really don't need to thank me. Thoughts, anyone?

My apologies for not responding to all the replies sooner. Thank you all for your thoughts. It looks like I'll have to re-evaluate my position. Thanks again.

Not that I'm defending this "collective mind" idea, but, I do find it interesting that a school of fish seems to react simultaneously to whatever is happening around them.

An unbelievably crappy day, but, thanks for the kind wishes.

At the risk of being flippant, I was going to post this under the thread "Death." Still, this may not be the most appropriate place for this post. Anyway, one of the joys of my job is that I get to go to many interesting places, meet interesting people and in the process, learn something. The most fascinating experience, to date, was at the Denver Museum of Nature and Science. Today's adventure had to do with the opening of the Body Worlds 2 exhibit. When I first read about this some time ago, I was a little creeped out. It didn't take long to get over it. This display is as much art as it is anatomy. There are the usual individual organs, both healthy and diseased shown. The best part, though, is the 'plastinates.' Whole body specimens in athletic poses. Figure skaters, a ballet dancer, a soccer player. Everything is presented in the context of understanding the human body as a whole and how the parts operate together. Dr. Gunther von Hagens, the inventor of the plastination process, is quite a character. He grew up in the former East Germany, was jailed briefly for attempting to escape to the west. As an interesting aside: At the press conference, Dr. von Hagens commented on why he always wears a black hat. He said, and I'm quoting from memory, "it's a sign of individuality and America is all about individuality." If you happen to live near one of the exhibit locations, do check it out.

USA1, USA2. . . makes no difference at all. For a democratic government to "own" a corporation is a violation of the rights of the citizens (and taxpayers) of that country. If I disagreed with the goals of any government corporation, I'm out of luck. There's no stock for me to sell as a show of my withdrawl of sanction. This is not to say that I approve of any government corporation. There's a saying: "When one accepts government money, one must, inevitably, accept government control." Let's say that USA1 made some sort of investment in USA2. USA2 makes some sort of policy that irks USA1. USA1 can then 1) withdraw its 'investment' thereby causing financial losses for USA2 citizens involved, or, more likely 2) threaten to withdraw its 'investment' in order to effect a change in USA2 policy (cf. post 3 of this thread). Either way, rights are being violated. The worst case being the policies of one country being dictated by a foreign government and not by the home legislative and executive bodies.

That's what I was referring to in my clumsily worded statement. It's just that I haven't found an independent verification of that fact through an official source such as a Dubai government website. What I did find at the Dubai Port Authority website is the statement that DP World is a "privately owned business." So, I'm a little confused at the moment.

G'day mate, I would highly recommend Perth, Western Australia. The view from Kings Park across the Swan River of the city skyline is fantastic. A vibrant city, lotsa fun. Also fun is Fremantle. Possibly the best beach I've ever been to would be on the Northwest Cape. Warm, clear water and soft white sand. The only thing missing from the time I was there were lots of girls in bikinis. Oh, and, glass bottom boat tours of the Ningaloo reef.

While not explicitly mentioned by tommyedison, I'm going to assume he is referring to the impending takeover of six US ports by Dubai Ports World (DPW). Supporters of this plan say that port security will still be the domain of the US Coast Guard. Fine. I'll leave this argument aside except to note that a potential terrorist wishing to smuggle something naughty into the country simply has the odds on his side already. However, having a friend or two in the shipping business will practically guarantee the system could be gamed so that terrorists or WMD's could be successfully smuggled into the USA. Now, as readers of this forum surely know, government has the exclusive right to the use of force. I've read that DPW is owned by the government of Dubai in the United Arab Emirates (I haven't yet found anything conclusive to that effect. If any readers could point me in the appropriate direction, that would be greatly appreciated). Assuming DPW is a government entity, homeland security would be the least of our concerns. Let's say that the ruler of Dubai, Sheik Mohammed Bin Rashid Al Maktoum, decides that US support for Israel can no longer be tolerated. At a minimum, he could order that any goods destined for or coming from Israel will not be handled by any of the US ports under his control. Or he could just simply shut down operations altogether. I haven't tallied any numbers, but, a complete shutdown of these ports. . . yikes! For a foreign government to dictate whom we trade or not trade with. . . that's just not right. So, in answer to the quoted question: No to the first part and yes to the second.