Few privacy concerns regarding photographs of the Haitian dead

The United States has fiercely resisted allowing photographs of dead U.S. soldiers, allegedly because of "privacy concerns" regarding the families of the deceased. In February, 2009, the military finally lifted an 18-year old ban on taking photos of only the coffins of deceased U.S. soldiers. In October, 2009, The U.S. military banned photos of troops killed in action in Afghanistan. Amy Goodman has argued (correctly, in my opinion), that the Middle Eastern wars currently being fought by the U.S. would quickly be ended if only the public were allowed to see the devastating effects of these wars on U.S. troops and on the civilian populations. How believable is the excuse given by the U.S. and by many members of the U.S. media for severely limiting photos of our dead soldiers? Is it really out of respect for the grieving families? Are "privacy" concerns the real the reason the media acquiesces in this policy of showing only a highly sterilized version of the ongoing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan? I don't believe so. Why are the U.S. media so willing to freely discuss the horror of the Haitian deaths and to show graphic photos of Haitian people who have been severely injured or killed in the Haitian Earthquakes? And see here and here and here. There doesn't seem to be much concern about the "privacy" of the Haitian victims and their families. It seems that the decision to show (or not show) photos of injured and dead people has much more to do with politics than with privacy.

Continue ReadingFew privacy concerns regarding photographs of the Haitian dead

The craving for beer as the cause of civilization

According to archaeologist Patrick McGovern, the craving for beer might have caused people to decide to start farming. Humans turned from hunting and gathering to agriculture because of "our ancestors’ simple urge for alcoholic beverages." He points to evidence that humans were making beer as far back as 9,000 years ago.

Continue ReadingThe craving for beer as the cause of civilization

Avatar

Okay, so I contributed to the James Cameron Self Love Fund and saw AVATAR. Yesterday we went to the 3-D showing (no way I would spend money on the normal view, I can wait for the DVD the way I do with 99% of the movies I see anymore). I’ve had a day to think about it now and I’ve come to some conclusions, which are hardly profound, but I think worth saying. Let me say up front that I wasn’t bored. Visually, this is a stunning achievement. But that’s what everyone is saying. It is, in fact, the best 3-D I’ve ever seen. Often in the past the effect is minimal and the cost in headache high. This was neither. And it fully supported the visuals rather than masking mundane or poor image elements. Pandora, the planet involved, is magnificently realized. Cool stuff. Real gosh wow. The biology is problematic. You have a wide mix of lifeforms analogous to Earth. Some big lumbering critters like hippos or rhinoceri that also have features of a dinosaur, and some small things that are clearly wolves, and one big nasty cat-like thing that’s like a sabertooth tiger. It’s unclear if any of these creatures are mammalian, but it doesn’t matter much. Dinosaur analogs. Most of them apparently four-legged. But the “horses” the natives ride are six-legged, reminiscent of Edgar Rice Burroughs’ thoats. How does that play out in evolutionary terms? Well, maybe that’s a quibble. How then do you evolve humanoids out of this? Well, maybe that’s a quibble, too. This film is not about science on any level, regardless of the few bits of dialogue suggesting there are, you know, scientists, and that there is a studyable cause to any of this. Because the story, basically, is hackneyed, cynical, and cliched. [more . . . ]

Continue ReadingAvatar

FOX commentator struggles to not understand the First Amendment

In this February, 2009 video, FOX commentator Megyn Kelly worked hard to claim that she didn't understand the First Amendment. Michael Newdow, who filed a suit challenging a school that required his child to say the Pledge (including the phrase "one nation under God") showed considerable patience with Kelly, but the outcome was pre-ordained. Kelly showed the same closed tortucan mind as the U.S. Supreme Court which strained mightily to through out his suit on a technicality rather than face the music. Emotions generated by the compulsion to force students to say the pledge has often caused massive distortion to legal logic.

Continue ReadingFOX commentator struggles to not understand the First Amendment