Art Machine
Just another former infatuation junkie

We’ve heard it all before. If you don’t support the war, you’re un-American. If you don’t support the war, then you hate the troops. And all of that other crap.

So why is it that trying to pay respect to the fallen is being considered un-American? Soldiers who die overseas are transported respectfully and with the greatest care to their homeland for burial – where the media is not allowed to greet them and their families are discouraged from coming to meet the body. Some say that it’s out of respect for the privacy of the families, but there’s no respect for the privacy of the troops who return home alive – whose every move is diligently videotaped and sent off to the newsmedia, regardless of how they feel about America watching them break down and cry as they’re reunited with their families. The soldiers who come home dead deserve a welcome befitting their sacrifice – they deserve to have respect paid to them.

And now some stations are refusing to play an episode of Nightline where Ted Koppel will read the names of those who have fallen in Iraq.

The ABC Television network announced on Tuesday that the Friday, April 30th edition of �Nightline� will consist entirely of Ted Koppel reading aloud the names of U.S. servicemen and women killed in action in Iraq. Despite the denials by a spokeswoman for the show the action appears to be motivated by a political agenda designed to undermine the efforts of the United States in Iraq.

While the Sinclair Broadcast Group honors the memory of the brave members of the military who have sacrificed their lives in the service of our country, we do not believe such political statements should be disguised as news content.�As a result, we have decided to preempt the broadcast of �Nightline� this Friday on each of our stations which air ABC programming.

I’m trying to figure this out, myself. Reading the names of the troops will undermine our status in Iraq? I’d think that we would be more undermined by, say, diverting funds from potable water projects to security. Or by handing out multi-million dollar contracts to multi-billion dollar companies. Or by heading into Iraq when we not only don’t have the support of the world, but most of the world has actually asked us not to go.

And, as we all remember, anybody who opposes the war hates the troops.

Which means that wanting to recognize the troops who made the ultimate sacrifice is obviously just a filthy liberal plot.

And war is peace, ignorance is wisdom, and up is down. I would say that black is white, but I don’t want to be killed at the next zebra crossing.

While we’re on the subject, Joyce Marcel wants you to remember something Barbara Bush said once. But that was, like, a little more than a year ago. Remembering that far back is just plain un-American.

As the argument over this censorship continues, I hope people remember a widely-quoted remark made by the president’s mother, Barbara Bush, last year during the build-up of the war – the lying time.

“Why should we hear about body bags and deaths,” Barbara Bush said on ABC’s “Good Morning America” on March 18, 2003. “Oh, I mean, it’s not relevant. So why should I waste my beautiful mind on something like that?”

Back when the reconstruction contracts were being handed out like party favors, I was troubled by the idea that there were multi-million contracts going to establish a cell phone network in Iraq when there were some basic needs that were lacking. Like, you know, water. And electricity. I don’t know about you, but my cell phone can only handle about twenty minutes of talking before it needs to be plugged into a wall – it would seem to me that a stable power grid would kind of be a prerequisite for a cell phone system.

So how could I possibly be upset over reconstruction funds now being diverted to other worthy causes like, say, security?

So far, occupation officials have reassigned $184 million appropriated for drinking-water projects to fund the operations of the U.S. Embassy after the provisional authority is dissolved June 30. Another $29 million from projects such as “democracy building” were reallocated to fund the U.S. development agency’s administrative expenses.

And more diversions may be coming. Armitage said the State Department still faces a shortfall of $40 million to $60 million in embassy operating funds this year. And embassy construction and operations could consume as much as $2.5 billion in fiscal year 2005, none of which has been requested by President Bush.

Wait. They reassigned funds from drinking water projects? What about the cell phone project? Or the government-funded mercenaries protecting Halliburton’s headquarters in Iraq? Did those funds get diverted?

Honestly, I don’t know. I do know, however, that they’re diverting funds from projects meant to restore electricity and potable water to most of the people of Iraq.

Our troops need greater security over there – especially if Bush is going to continue in his jingoistic, go-it-alone, who-needs-the-world-anyway policies. But it seems to me that failing to restore drinking water and electricity isn’t exactly going to endear us to the local population.

Dude! Low Carb Pop-Tarts! All we need now is a chocolate fudge flavor, and we’ll have taken care of my last remaining ultra-high-carb temptation.

I am seriously considering writing a series of pulp novels where the first line of every chapter is the subject line from a piece of spam in my inbox.

“You were wrong, Turkish Gerald!” chuckled Allain as he strapped the heavy idol to his back and lifted it from its pedestal. “These things are never booby-trapped!”

It could work.

I don’t typically watch 60 Minutes II because I feel that it’s a poor imitation of the original. But the New York Times has picked up a 60Min2 story about how some troops in Iraq are putting together a grotesque holiday slideshow.

Mr. Myers represents Staff Sgt. Chip Frederick of the Army Reserve, who has been charged in the case and who was interviewed by “60 Minutes II.” He complained of a lack of training and admitted that dogs had been used to intimidate prisoners.

In one photograph obtained by the program, naked Iraq prisoners are stacked in a human pyramid, one with a slur written on his skin in English. In another, a prisoner stands on a box, his head covered, wires attached to his body. The program said that according to the United States Army, he had been told that if he fell off the box, he would be electrocuted. Other photographs show male prisoners positioned to simulate sex with each other.

“The pictures show Americans, men and women, in military uniforms, posing with naked Iraqi prisoners,” states a transcript of the program’s script, made available Wednesday night. “And in most of the pictures, the Americans are laughing, posing, pointing or giving the camera a thumbs-up.”

Is it a shock that such things are happening? Well, unfortunately, it shouldn’t be – war is a horrible, horrible thing as I’m certain I’ve said before. Otherwise good people have been known to do horrible things in war. It doesn’t make it right – it just makes it less “shocking” and more, say, “revolting” or “disturbing.”

Human life shouldn’t be devalued to this point – no matter the situation. But to believe blithely that something like this isn’t going to happen somewhere is a little bit naive. It’s a tough situation.

What bothers me is the six people charged with these acts. They did wrong, and they should be punished – as I said, what they did may not be surprising, but it’s still not right. But very little is being said of the people – including “independent contractors” – who ordered these six to soften up the prisoners for interrogation. The six people who wrapped wires around an Iraqi man and told him he would be electrocuted if he stepped off of a small box are responsible for their own actions – but somebody in another room issued the order that led them to it. Where’s their exposure? Their time in front of the media? Where are the charges against them?

For those of you who haven’t seen what 60 Minutes II ran, the pictures are here – they’ve been dithered, but they still might be considered not safe for viewing at work. For that matter, they may not be safe for viewing, period.

The new version of iTunes is out with a host of features people have been wanting – including support for a new lossless codec and the ability to print labels with cover art for the songs you’ve purchased from the iTunes music store.

Of course, the things that always get me about Apple release are the real gee-whiz things – the little tricks they include that aren’t particularly practical, but do a lot for the experience.

Case in point: The iMix. From iTunes, you can now choose to publish your playlist. It’s not really a practical thing – you don’t make a commission off of track sales and you still can’t share your files. All your published list does is put together a convenient little tracker on the iTunes store.

But the neat thing about it is the way it lets you set up your own “now playing” list. Celebrity playlists have long been a feature for the iTunes Music Store, and now you can check out playlists published by your friends and family or post your own pickings for them to look over. And they even send you a link to point others in the right direction (link requires iTunes software).

Personally pointless? Sure. But it’s also a lot of fun.

Yahoo! News reports that the government thinks blogs might be worth watching.

So, let me be the first to welcome our newest readers from the federal government. It is so delightful to have you here that it simply is not enough to say, “It is so delightful to have you here that it simply is not enough to say, ‘It is so delightful to have you here that it simply is not enough to say, “It is so delightful to have you here that it simply is not enough to say, ‘It is so delightful to have you here that it simply is not enough to say, “It is so delightful to have you here that it simply is not enough to say, ‘It is so delightful to have you here that it simply is not enough to say, “It is so delightful to have you here that it simply is not enough to say, ‘It is so delightful to have you here that My dearest Cynthia, by this time I know that only you will have read this far in the entry. I hope you are well, and that the last set of pictures turned out all right. The next manuscript is already delivered – five-hundred pages in all. You can find it at the third bench from the stern on the port side of the Carnival cruise ship marked with a green Disney logo. It is wrapped in cheesecloth and attached to the underside of the bench with black masking tape.

Note: Yes, I have been reading A Series of Unfortunate Events. Why, does it show?

I don’t know if I’m more disturbed by the Olsen Twins filing suit against Acclaim, or by the fact that Mary Kate and Ashley are heading to their freshman year at NYU with an approximate worth of 150 million – each.

[Celebrity Justice] has obtained a lawsuit filed by Mary-Kate and Ashley against video game giant Acclaim Entertainment for nearly half a million dollars. Acclaim was supposed to develop and market the games for the Olsens, but according to the suit, Acclaim has not only taken the brand and “run it into the ground,” but hasn’t paid out all the royalties.

According to Chuck Kenworthy, a Los Angeles entertainment litigator, this suit is about “respect.” The Olsens are trying to send a message to everyone they do business with: we may be kids, but you can’t push us around.

It’s kind of like Activision’s case against Viacom, only in reverse. See, Activision sued Viacom, claiming that Viacom sold them the license on Star Trek and then ran the franchise into the ground and devalued the game license that had cost them so much. Now, The Olsen Twi—Oh, excuse me. Mary Kate and Ashley (who no longer wish to be referred to as “The Olsen Twins”) are claiming that by producing substandard games (and failing to pay out all royalties), Acclaim has devalued their rather daunting franchise.

So, here’s my question – who’s responsible for what, now?

On the one hand, we have Activision and Viacom. Activision purchased a license to produce games for a franchise that was – at the time – incredibly popular and very trusted. But it can also be said that many people felt the Star Trek franchise was in decline at the time. Now, if Activision paid what the license was worth at the time and Viacom – through a series of blunders and stupid decisions – later devalued that franchise, does Activision have the right to expect remuneration? Or could it be argued that granting the license to Activision was, in fact, one of the blunders – and that Activision’s widely-reviled Trek games had contributed to the franchise’s loss of value.

Now, Mary Kate and Ashley^TM made the decision to license their names to a series of games, can they later claim damages if they feel the games aren’t worth spending money on? Even if they made the decision to license, signed the contract, and cashed the check?

And how far back do we go? Can Atari now sue Spielberg because the license on E.T. failed to deliver the sales it should have? And, alternately, can Spielberg sue Atari, claiming that their treatment of the license resulted in the valuable E.T. title forever being associated with cruddy, slapped-together, nonsensical video games rushed to market to cash in on a popular craze? And who sues whom over The Matrix? Atari made Enter the Matrix – considered one of the most overhyped and underdeveloped games of the year – but the Wachowski Bros. made The Matrix Reloaded and Revolutions, effectively devaluing the Matrix name in the marketplace (and I say that as one of the few people in the world who liked the entire trilogy).

It’s not that I don’t feel people should be able to work hard on building a brand and then not have legal recourse when somebody undoes their work – it’s that I’m beginning to wonder who bears the ultimate responsibility, or even if that responsibility can be assigned in the first place.

For those of you who care, the next Doctor has been announced for the new Doctor Who series.

• He waved a poisoned skull around in The Revenger’s Tragedy
• He fought in a war in The Others
• He played the titular character in an adaptation of Thomas Hardy’s dreary Jude the Obscure
• His character in 24 Hour Party People was named after the author of The Consolation of Philosophy

Ladies and gentlemen – Christopher Eccleston

Chris revealed: “I don’t think he’s going to be quite as eccentric and quite as foppish as he was in some of his incarnations.”

He also claimed the hats and scarves had been cast aside and suggested, “I think he should have a slight dark side.”

And Chris hinted at a “much more intelligent and pro-active” sidekick, called Rose Tyler.

The actress for the role has not yet been chosen, but, according to Christopher, she can hope to see the softer side of the Doctor.

“He’s got two hearts Dr Who and they can both be broken”, explained the actor, famed for his parts in Our Friends in the North and Clocking Off.

-BBC News

Yes, yes, yes. By now, you should have all heard of Designs on the White House. If not, then I would call you unpatriotic cowardly terrorists, except that that’s a Bushie sort of thing to do. Homey don’t play dat.

Am I going to be entering something? Take a look at my CafePress Store – evidence of my clear addiction to design – and tell me if it looks like I’m going to enter. I may even enter a political design from the Lost Liberty Blues store where I’m already pledging a portion of my profits to defeating Bush.

So stop on by DotWHo today and help to take back the country.