counter stats
Space Jam
Does this headline:

Astronauts Forced to Improvise in Space

Make anyone else think of this:



Props to Google Image Search and the Magnetic Lasso Tool for making this a five minute project. Honorable mention to Quickmask Mode for stepping up when things got tricky.
Iran Letter
Hey, everyone should read this: |--------------------IMPORTANT DOCUMENT--------------------|
This is the first letter between leaders of Iran and the US since 1979. It's being grossly misrepresented in the media. Read it for yourself. It's important.
Hey, check this out. It looks like Japan, famous for, among other things, continuing to whale despite 40 years of international pressure, has managed to take control of the International Whaling Commission, the body that, you know, tells everyone not to whale. Meaning? Get ready to super-size your bacon double whale burger. Spoiler alert: ************************ Whale is kinda tasty, but not that tasty.

Solid Gold
Again,'s headline editor wins the day.

The sportsman
Comedians often introduce a piece of hard-to-nelieve news with, "you can't make this up." Well, I've never really understood that line as well as I do today:

Cheney shot an eighty year old man with a shotgun.
Oh, well...Good then. You stay on that.
Ok, so I just checked, and there's no Pulitzer category for headlines (but there is one for poetry. I figure it would get really annoying to explain to everyone, "well, it was published in a newspaper...").
Anyway, If there was a Pulitzer for headlines, the Sunday afternoon editor of would totally deserve one for this. Also, the president deserves a pat on the head and a glass of warm milk.
Picture 1
God Bless Our Horrendous Leaders
Here's a good exchange from today's White House Press Briefing. The topic being discussed was the CIA's practice of rendering terror suspects to countries outside the United States to conduct interrogations (which lead, basically, to that whole Eastern Europe secret prison thing).

Q What is the purpose of rendition, other than, if it is not, in fact, to subject detainees to a degree of interrogation somewhat more difficult than that which they would be subjected to in the United States? And that being the case, what definition of torture does the United States understand and accept?
MR. McCLELLAN: The ones that are defined in our law and our international treaty obligations. We have laws --
Q If that's the case, then why bother to render anybody?
MR. McCLELLAN: We have laws that prohibit torture. We have treaty obligations that we adhere to. And the Convention Against Torture is a treaty obligation that we take seriously and we adhere to. And in that treaty, it -- those treaties and laws, it defines torture. And --
Q Then what's the purpose of rendition?
MR. McCLELLAN: -- so we adhere to our laws and our treaty obligations, and our values. That's very important as we move forward in conducting the war on terrorism.
But what this is about is how we conduct the war on terrorism, how we protect our people, our citizens. And each country's highest responsibility is the safety and security of their citizens. And we all must work together to prevail in this different kind of war. And intelligence helps save lives. And we have an obligation when people are picked up on the battlefield -- unlawful enemy combatants -- to do our part to question them and learn information that can help us prevent attacks from happening in the first place. And we work very closely with countries throughout the world to make sure that we are doing all we can to protect our citizens -- but we do so in a lawful way.
Q But if we are committed to international conventions against torture, what, then, is the purpose of rendition?
MR. McCLELLAN: Again, I'm not going to get into talking about specific intelligence matters that help prevent attacks from happening and help save lives. As Secretary Rice indicated yesterday, the steps we have taken have helped save lives in America and in European countries. We will continue to work with --
Q But you seem to be suggesting that --
MR. McCLELLAN: No, you're --
Q -- there's more to be gained by interrogating these people outside the United States than there is inside.
MR. McCLELLAN: It depends. It's a case-by-case basis, Bill, and in some cases they're rendered to their home country of origin. You cited two examples of past renditions yesterday, one individual that was involved in the attack on the World Trade Center in 1993; another individual that is one of the most notorious terrorists of all time.
Q But how do we know they weren't tortured? They claim they were.
MR. McCLELLAN: I'm sorry?
Q How do we know they weren't tortured?
MR. McCLELLAN: Well, we know that our enemy likes to make claims like that.
Q I want to go back to David's question about whether or not the administration is looking into any new ways of monitoring rendition activities in other countries that --
MR. McCLELLAN: I answered his question and I'm not going to --
Q You didn't answer that question, Scott.
MR. McCLELLAN: I'm not going to talk any further about it.
Q You didn't say anything about whether or not -- you said we receive assurances from other countries. You never did say anything about whether or not we, then, go further and make sure that nothing is occurring. Is the White House --
MR. McCLELLAN: Secretary Rice talked about it yesterday. And I talked about it today. And we're not going to comment further than that when it comes to intelligence matters that are helping us to prevent attacks from happening and helping us to learn important intelligence that saves lives.
Q So there's no monitoring -- so there's no mechanisms, no monitoring after --
MR. McCLELLAN: You're asking me to talk about intelligence matters that I'm just not --
Q We're not asking you to talk -- we're asking you whether there's a procedure in place --
Q To make sure --
MR. McCLELLAN: You've had your question, I've responded to it and this what I'm going to say.
Q I had my question; you haven't responded to it.
MR. McCLELLAN: Well, I've told you why. I have responded to it and I've told you the reason why. And I think the American people understand the importance of protecting sources and methods and not compromising ongoing efforts in the war on terrorism, and that's why I'm just not going to talk about it further.
Q I'm not asking you about an individual case. We're asking whether there is a procedure in the U.S. government to make sure that the system you tell us will not result in torture, in fact, doesn't.
MR. McCLELLAN: A couple of things. One, again, I'm not going to talk further about intelligence matters of this nature. So let me make that clear, again.
Q We're not asking on an intelligence matter.
MR. McCLELLAN: No, this is relating to intelligence matters; it absolutely is, David. And because of the nature of the enemy we face and the different kind of war that we're engaged in, these are matters I think the American people can understand that we're not going to talk further about because of the sensitivity and because of the fact that they could compromise our ongoing efforts.
We need to prevail in this war on terrorism. We've got to do everything we can within the law to protect our citizens, and we need to work with other countries to help save lives, and that's what we're doing.
Q The question you're currently evading is not about an intelligence matter.
MR. McCLELLAN: You've had my response, Bill.
For those of you that don't read the White House Press Briefing, it's a good bit of lunchtime fun.
New Blog! Come see!
So, I guess it's time to start blogging. Please note that my log from South East Asia is still available, here, or on the sidebar to the right. In the mean time, check out my flickr page, and maybe join my new flickr group, Sticks! Here's a preview of one of the great shots you'll see there.