Slashdot Mirror
DNC Salute to Vets Featured Backdrop Of Russian Warships
An anonymous reader writes "Our politicians, and their henchmen, at their finest! In an apparent error, the Democratic National Convention's primary backdrop for its salute to veterans, by a 4-star admiral, featured a composite warship backdrop, in parade review, as a sign of U.S. strength and force projection; unfortunately, all of the naval ships in the image were Russian warships."
The rest of the media already picked this apart weeks ago, and has since processed the DNC's effusive apologies for somebody's error in Photoshop.
Seriously?
I found this funny at the time, but it happened almost three weeks ago.
"The Greens lynched a hacker in Chicago. Last month, but I think the body's still hanging from the old Water Tower."
... the Democratic National Convention ... um ... Wait, what?
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
Democrats are commies
(I kid)
Careful with names containing L slashdot.org/~AiphaWolf_HK slashdot.org/~AlphaWoif_HK slashdot.org/~AiphaWoif_HK
Story is -1 offtopic
After all, Americans fly into space with the help of aging Soviet technology; perhaps we'll be taking to the seas in mothballed Russian naval vessels - at least those ships won't be vulnerable to the Blue Screen of Death! :p
Slashdot. OLD ASS NEWS for Nerds.
"Love heals scars love left." -- Henry Rollins
At least it wasn't Pedobear at the Olympics.
And it's merely a symptom anyways. Big woop.
This is what happens when you don't have much ex-military in leadership. If they had, one of the old barnacles would have said 'let's put up a picture of BB 61, that'l scare the hell out of 'em!'. Unmistakeable US naval power, surpassed only by the CVNs. Hey, how about a picture of CVN 77?
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
Anybody can make a mistake, but this was a doozy!
Also, as others have pointed out, this is really old news. I have to wonder how people can be isolated from what's going on to the extent it takes three weeks for the facts to trickle down to them. A little scary.
Simple. It's photogenic, and some art fart grad was tasked with finding the highest res, halfway-decent image the night before.
Grand Conspiracy, my ass.
Why is this on /.?
Nuff said!
http://spitfiresite.com/2009/03/press-review-contd-spitfire-and-politics.html The British National Party used a photo of a spitfire as part of an anti-immigration campaign, only for it to be revealed that the spitfire in question was flown by a Polish pilot.
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
PR folks usually have a pretty tenuous grasp on the subject matter. Hence, to appeal to those concerned about defence they probably just used Google Image to find "warships", look for some cool looking ones (with lots of sticky-out bits) and slapped 'em in their Powerpoint presentation. Note: US warships look less menacing these days, their radars are the slab sided SPY-1 for the Aegis and the missile launches are build into the deck as the rapid-fire Mk 41 Vertical Launch System and similar. So they look less mean, but they are actually more effective that way.
If only this basic incompetence and lack of fact checking was limited to PR people. The bulk of journalists these days are also woeful in their fact checking. For example, in Syria they keep talking about "MiG fighters bombing the rebels" all the while showing videos of the L-39 Albatross trainer (nb: not a MiG). A small detail, but lets get the facts we know straight, yeah? What really worries me about modern reporters is that they get the facts I know about so wrong, so I figure that they are probably getting a lot of the other stuff wrong too.
The City News Bureau of Chicago was famous for their high standards of making the journalists check their facts. They had classic watchwords, like, "If your mother tells you she loves you, check it out with two independent sources.". It is a shame that proper journalism isn't practiced, is probably not that profitable, and doesn't really interest the general public (who'd rather follow a nude prince's private romp in Vegas, and the Duchess of Windor's poolside habits than any of the other things happening on the planet, both good and ill).
However, these people are not alone in their bad habits. For example, both climate change advocates and climate change deniers seem to cling to dogma rather than continuously checking their assumptions against old and new data. It's always ok to be wrong, you just have to be prepared to change your mind in the face of better information.
ps. I won't even start a rant on how badly informed most politicians appear to be. Clearly the skills required to enter office are not the same as those required to make informed and sensible decisions once you are there.
Because... oh sweet Jesus.
I suppose the elections are "stuff that matters" - but covering every candidate's (team's) many, many gaffes is practically a day task best left to other sites indeed.
...(looks in way-back machine to "election 2008")...
"You're just saying Obama isn't a good candidate because he's black, and you are a racist!"
"No, I think he's a bad candidate because his official policy statements cannot possibly be met, and because his plans to get us out of this recession slump resemble FDR's new deal, which historicallu tripled unemployment!"
"RACIST!" ......(steps out of the wayback mchine)....
"And the only reason you hate Obama is because he's black. If Obama was a white man you'd be praising the Democratic party for the work that's been accomplished under this administration. Instead you'll stand by and let the Republican wreck the country further because you're a racist."
"No, the reason I don't like Obama is because he bailed out the people who flushed the economy down the toilet, continues to support printing money as economic stimulous which drives up inflation, enacted policies which tripled deficit spending, FAILED to close GITMO, EXPANDED govt wiretapping programs, and did exactly what I said he would do concerning unemployment."
Let me guess. "Racist!" Right?
I'm shocked, I tell you shocked!
Does anyone have an empty chair so I can sit down?
At least the nitwits got US made F-5 fighters in the backdrop... Unfortunately, they belonged to the Turkish Air Force...
Who cares? It's time for military worship to fall into humanities past anyway.
And the only reason you hate Obama is because he's black.
You honestly believe that? You really think that everyone who opposes Obama would be just fine with him if he were Ted Kennedy, Chuck Schumer, or Al Franken? Or that, conversely, they'd vote for those guys rather than Condi Rice or Allen West?
It's not as if I agreed with Obama back when he was a white guy named Jimmy Carter.
"The Greens lynched a hacker in Chicago. Last month, but I think the body's still hanging from the old Water Tower."
The real media ever touched this story. Wouldn't want to make any Democrat appear to ever have flaws.
If there's no other reason to vote non-Democrat, it's simply so that the media will pay attention when mistakes are made. Just look at how the media refused to ask questions of Obama when they were still claiming the embassy hit was random instead of a terrorist attack.
Voting for Obama is voting for four more years of media/government coverups. Only now with nothing to lose.
are belong to us
I dunno. That would require contemplating the idea that the republican party actually had sufficient intelligence to enact such a tactic. Given their track record, and inability to keep things secret, such a faux pas as that would have already exploded in their faces like a loaded cigar.
Occam's razor says to pick the least convoluted explanation.
It is more likely that some percentage of the population actually voted for obama _because_ he was black, while totally ignoring his political platform, and ascribed all resistance to "their" candidate as de-facto racism. To wit: the widely monetized sales of Obama's "historic" inauguration speech, clearly marketed toward african americans.
I don't care what color Obama is. He could have been the first green president for all I care; his policies were abysmal, and his track record is nothing I want to see more of.
I ascribe the "racist!" Posts and rhetoric I see as "racially biased electioneering part II", and find them offensive in every possible sense. That people have forgotten how heavily the word "racist" was slung around 4 years ago deeply saddens me. I don't know how many times I was accused of that disgusting vice 4 years ago for merely questioning obama as a candidate, based on his POLICY statements!
That was the reason for the prior post. Anyone with doubts can just go to waybackmachine.org, type slashdot.org for the site, 2008 for the year, and see for themselves.
A WORD FROM OUR SPONSOR... Ward's new microwave oven will allow you to cook a complete meal for four in under an hour. It will defrost, simmer, bake, and roast. It comes with its own removable browning element and even has a temperature probe. Help the cook in your home by giving her a new state of the art Ward's microwave oven when it comes out his Fall!
NEWS JUST IN... Antediluvian Heights man Noah Finklestein fresh off a citation for public drunkenness and indecent exposure was seen this evening constructing a large boat on his front lawn. The Ark as he has called it is already catching the ire of the neighborhood home owner's association. HOA representative Ruth Samuel issued a statement earlier this evening: "Clearly, this boat violates his home owner's agreement. Look at the size of this thing. And the animals! It's like he has two of every kind here. They smell horrible. They're ruining the lawns, ALL of the lawns. I don't even know how he could have gotten them all here this quickly. It's a gated community." When asked for comment, Noah replied: "Storm's a comin'. She's comin' on strong."
Seriously, Slashdot. Get a calendar.
There was a similar scandal in Russia in 2006. They put huge posters with USS Missouri on Moscow streets on Army Day. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11524992/ns/world_news-europe/t/russias-red-army-day-blunder/
People who have the guns should have the least freedom to exercise their power. There needs to be some institution that exercises legitimate force for purposes such as law enforcement and wars - but that institution, since it operates on the power of the gun, should be severely limited.
Corporations and businesses can be just as amoral and even immoral as the government, but unlike the government, corporations and businesses don't have guns backing them up. You don't like the Microsoft monopoly? You may find it difficult to make a lot of money and run the software you want if you install Linux, buy Apple, or just refuse to use a home computer, but you won't find yourself hauled before a judge by armed police officers like you might if you refuse to pay your taxes.
I often don't like the choices people make, but I like the fact that people make choices. That's why I'm a conservative.
But I do think this gaffe is good to point out in the wake of the Romney airplane windows gaffe, which has gotten so much attention. People on both sides make a big deal about nothing just to have the satisfaction of one-upping the other guys on trivial matters. Now that these stupid "aha look how dumb they are" moments have happened to both sides, I really hope everyone who has joined in on the mockery can step back and take a look at themselves.
your thin skin doesn't make me a troll
The thing is, socialist slogans proclaiming they're for the people aren't too different from capitalist slogans proclaiming they're for freedom. It all winds up in a race for who can use whom to empower himself. My advice is: be skeptical of everything, particularly of ideals which you hold dear.
your thin skin doesn't make me a troll
If it's a fiction, then why does a google search return hits from reputable news sources concerning racial mudslinging being used by democrats against percieved republicans?
For instance, these two:
Abcnews.com
wash.post
Granted, both are blogs, but if it were a fiction, how could both blog entries comment on official political rhetoric?
That line of thinking goes both ways. If somebody working at the National Endowment for the Arts, or OSHA or NOAA, is amoral or immoral and has a personal grudge against you, they can screw with you, but they aren't carrying firearms in their line of duty, so there's really nothing they can do to you that you can't try to petition the courts to fix afterwards. If someone in the military, FBI, DEA or BATF is similarly corrupt, venial and abusive, you had better hope your widow lives to seek some kind of justice for your corpse, because that's about the best you'll get. How does keeping the government focused on your tight list of legitimate uses for force protect you from abuses by the agencys of force? It seems to be a libertarian position that the way to keep the FBI from screwing with the average citizen is to close down the Dept of Education and not to restrain the FBI directly, and somehow the FBI will take the hint. I'm just not seeing it. There's parts of the government that have force projection capabilities internal to their mission, and parts that don't, and trying to shut down all the parts that don't because they may get help from the weaponous parts, but not worring about what those weaponized parts might do directly - how does that work out again? Is the CIA only a possible problem if somebody at the GAO activates it on a US citizen, and not if the CIA is targeting US citizens on its own?
Who is John Cabal?
If someone in the military, FBI, DEA or BATF is similarly corrupt, venial and abusive, you had better hope your widow lives to seek some kind of justice for your corpse, because that's about the best you'll get. How does keeping the government focused on your tight list of legitimate uses for force protect you from abuses by the agencys of force?
It protects by ballot. Voters only get one vote. We don't get to vote for one president who handles law enforcement, a different president who handles energy policy, a different president for NEA, and still a different president for health care. We only get to choose one. If that president does a crappy job handling law enforcement he can still get re-elected because people like his energy policy,or his position on health care, or his handling of mortgages, or his whether he spends more or less money on welfare.
If the government only manages a few things, it had better get those few things right or it will be tossed out.
With corporations, you get many votes. Every purchase is a vote. You can vote Ford for your pick-up truck and Toyota for your commuter car. You can vote Apple for your computer and Enbev for your football-watching drink.
The fewer things the government manages, the more likely it is to get those few things right.
I often don't like the choices people make, but I like the fact that people make choices. That's why I'm a conservative.
If somebody working at the National Endowment for the Arts, or OSHA or NOAA, is amoral or immoral and has a personal grudge against you, they can screw with you, but they aren't carrying firearms in their line of duty
The entire government is weaponized. Some of them just take longer to get to the weapons than others. If Microsoft wants my money, they have to persuade me peacefully to give it to them (usually by giving me something in return). To use your example, if the NEA wants my money, they send the IRS after me. If I don't pay the IRS, they send the marshals. To use another of your examples, if OSHA wants me to do something because they are an agent of the government and the government has decided how I should act, then OSHA can fine me. If I don't pay they can shut down my business. If I refuse to shut down the business they can send in the marshals to shut it down. There may be more steps involved, but eventually the guys in uniforms with guns will show up unless I go along with what OSHA wants..
Sure, I can petition the courts, but they are also an arm of the government. At least if Bill Gates takes me to court it is private citizen vs private citizen. He's got an advantage because of his money, but if the government weren't involved in so many things voters could focus more on truly governmental matter like having a fair court system.
I often don't like the choices people make, but I like the fact that people make choices. That's why I'm a conservative.
So is this from the new influence of dice.com? Our tech stories will now be non-sequitor political bullshit? CNN and FOX can deliver crap like this, I expect much much more from slashdot.
"You're just saying Obama isn't a good candidate because he's black, and you are a racist!"
No one ever said those words to you, you lying piece of shit. But lots of people (like you!) accused black voters of being racist for voting for him, and nevermind the fact that black people have supported the Democratic candidate by 90+% margins in each of the last several elections, ever since the Republicans openly announced that they were pursuing a "Southern Strategy" to take advantage of racial hatred following the passage of the Civil Rights Acts.
So you bitch about imaginary people accusing you of racism while simultaneously accusing others of racism. What a great person you are.
Really now..
Stating it is more likely that some of the aftican american demographic would have voted for obama because he is black is no different than saying some of the white demographic voted for mccain because he was white. It does not imply that all african americans are racists. It implies the reality that some are. Just as there *are* racist white people who voted for mccain on racial terms.
I am not one of either of those types of people. I considered obama's campaign in this light: the democratic party needed a candidate that it could galvanize the polls with. At first it tried with Hillary, but she failed to garner the support they were looking for in the polls, and she lost the nomination to Obama. I can't prove that the intentions of the democratic convention was to incite controversy over the first black presidential nominee, but it definately worked out in their favor: the illusion that refusal of the candidate was a vote for another white man, and the disenfranchisement of the black man was a powerful tool used by their campaign. See the linked blogs earlier in the thread. Almost overnight the landscape of the election shifted from platform (Obama was widely criticised for not having a consistent one, other than a nebulous "change" message) toward mudslinging over race and insinuations that people were afraid of the idea of a black president.
As for being called a racist during the 2008 election, in pretty much exactly the situation I lampooned, yes, it did happen. I was there. You were not. Kindly abstain from decyring bullshit when you can't possibly disprove the statement.
I've seen time and time again stock footage being used in the press( typically TV ) where they didn't have real footage or images of the area of topic. So when I heard a few weeks ago about the DNC using the Russian warship footage, I just wrote it off as being done by someone hired from the typical media outlets.
I am surprised someone with a military background didn't catch that unless it was first seen only during the event, ie not during any rehearsals or proofed.
LoB
"Anyone who stands out in the middle of a road looks like roadkill to me." --Linus
Sadly, AC is speaking the truth.
Sad not that it was an AC pointing this out, sad that those jerks could have used any of millions of photos of US ships or planes but somehow they decided only foreign tools were appropriate for their purposes of impressing their constituents.
No brain, no pain.
Comments like this and the several above it are a great example of why coming to Slashdot sucks, anymore. This is the kind of "republithug/libtard" kindergarten retardation that you see vomited in the comments section of youtube and every news article ever linked to by Matt Drudge on his website. This is what Slashdot is devolving into. A place with little tech, where all those tech-less vacuums are filled in by mouth-breathing dumb-fucks carrying on like the conversationally lowest of the low on the internet.
Perhaps they're hinting at future budget cuts
Nope, the libs just put up photos of the people they actually consider their heroes, the soviets. ;-)
Russia today has a lot of bad things going about it. Being socialist in any meaning of the word is not one of them.
What shows you hate veterans more? Using a wrong ship as a backdrop at a PR event, or torpedoing a bill that would give them jobs?
"I know I will be modded down for this": where's the option '-1, Asking for it'?
What shows you hate veterans more? Using a wrong ship as a backdrop at a PR event, or torpedoing a bill that would give them jobs?
I don't know, why don't we talk about the first issue first before we move onto the next? Typical tactics, you change the subject. If you keep on doing that then no actual discussion occurs between us and you are just spouting rhetoric rather than engaging me in a conversation.
Jesus was a compassionate social conservative who called individuals to sin no more.
I bet you not 1/100 people could detect that mistake. I'm an aviation buff, and the only thing that stuck out at me was "why use a picture of F-20s?" (and I guess I'm wrong on the fighters). We live in a world of PR hacks who grab whatever pic they can get their hands on. You see this with recycled stock news footage of gas stations, fat people walking, etc. Pure nuttiness to assume this was anything other than a lazy staffer grabbing the first interwebz pic of "some military stuff."
I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
Russian battleships are exactly what we want to see through our submarine scopes, right?
If you want to see how race affected voting for Obama you may want to look at the nomination breakdown. Hillary won every racial breakdown (most being in the neighborhood for 60/40 for Hillary but the black vote went overwhelmingly for Obama (85.1%) and that gave him the nomination.
If ideology is the only factor affecting black voting patterns, as you assert, then how do you explain such a disparity in voting when the only candidates are effectively identical from an ideological perspective.
Of course that's just my opinion...... you could be wrong!
Oh yes. Beat that strawman harder.
That is not what I said at all, and no, I don't watch nor listen to limbaugh, any of the fox news personalities, nor to talk radio of any sort.
What I do see, are stories like this one, which treat the issue with alarming matter-of-factness, along with disturbing numbers of youtube videos parroting the same views as Mr Jackson's.
Seeing that tells me that racism from the african american demographic is a stark reality.
However, conflating that I think this demographic alone (black racists) is sufficient to garner the win of a presidency is a farce. Intead, will attempt to explain it to you.
Much like germans will become enraged at the mere mention of suggesting they are nazis, many white people become equally disturbed at the implication of being called racist, at least here in the US. So much so that saying "you are afraid of the idea of a black president" to them can greatly influence their behavior, and even influence how they will vote.
The black vote is a big red herring. As you pointed out, historically 97% of that demographic consistently votes demorat across the board, regardless of the candidate's race. The issue here was influencing independents and moderates of other demographics. The implied "you are racist if you don't vote for obama" message of the last election cycle had more impact than you care to realize. The DNC initially tried to get the women's vote with hillary, but was unsucessful. (Hillary is just not likeable enough.) They then decided that they could sensationalize a black candidate, which they did. It isn't obama's blackness that I found distasteful at all, nor did I think all black people would vote for him due to his skin color, though it is a foregone conclusion that some did. (See link earlier) what I found distasteful was the sensationalism concerning his race. It is *never* acceptable to engender support of a candidate due to their skin color. End of discussion. The DNC did exactly that, when they started campaigning that McCain supporters were "afraid of the idea of a black president." A huge nonsequitor like that, coupled with rhetoric that undoes work to reduce racial tensions does more harm to racial equality than you can possibly imagine.
Of course, it is just easier for you to consign me to some prefabricated mental stereotype, and deounce anything I say as lies, but that doesn't reflect poorly on ME.
It reflects poorly on YOU.
I believe you have mistaken me for a neocon.
I am a moderate centrist. I am neither liberal, nor conservative. (I often get attacked by both however. I would be seen as raging conervative by europeans however. No contest.)
I have not voted for a major candidate in any of the past THREE elections.
As such, the false dichotomy you have painted of "if you are down on Obama, you MUST support BUSH!" Is horrible and completely out of touch with reality.
The truth is that we haven't had a sensible government in the USA for the past 50 years.
Simply because I call Obama on his failures, does not mean I give the shrub a free pass. Got it?
You can look it up from many sources but for just one example here is the NYT.
Or if you accept blog analysis you can try The Audacious Epigone.
But of course that took 2 seconds of a google search to find so I understand that it was too much effort for some to do their own research.
Of course that's just my opinion...... you could be wrong!
he bailed out the people who flushed the economy down the toilet
No... that was his predecessor.
continues to support printing money as economic stimulous [sic] which drives up inflation
inflation has barely budged...in fact, it's lower now than it was before the recession started
see the pretty picture? it actually is a pretty picture, i'm not being snarky...
enacted policies which tripled deficit spending
actually, that was Congress, but i'll grant you that as a half point
FAILED to close GITMO, EXPANDED govt wiretapping programs
true and true, and don't forget that he's also a lot LESS transparent though he promised more transparency. Big FAIL, and the reason i seriously looked at Romney.
did exactly what I said he would do concerning unemployment
you said he would triple unemployment...it didn't even go up another 33% from when he got in office and most of that was momentum as we plunged into the recession. unemployment is now right back down to where it was when he took office... so no, it didn't.
I can't stress enough how important it is to keep looking at facts and drop the fox news line.
...I said he ws enacting policies when _resembled_ FDR's new deal, which is what I said tripled unemployment. (The new deal that is.) Obama did not make newdeal part 2. He enacted policies that were similar but not identical. I predicted unemployment would rise sharply. 33% increase is pretty sharp.
As per inflation, you have the issue with america's credit rating being dropped twice during his presidency, as a result of the deficit spending (which he is culpable for, for faling to do his job as the executive. Congress can pass whatever it wants, he can veto. He didn't.) And the money printing stimulous. This has greating devalued american services and products overseas. Domestic inflation hasn't gone up. Interationally it has. (Surely you noticed the devaluation of the dollar?)
Also, I don't watch fox news. I am a moderate centrist. That means I lean liberal in some circumstances and conservative in others. I find both CNN *and* Fox news to be unworthy of airtime. Don't get me started about the talking heads.
I agree though, it is important to look at facts, and not political tag lines. It is also important to have reading comprehension skills.
I predicted unemployment would rise sharply. 33% increase is pretty sharp.
Um, it peaked at 10% in 10/09 and has been steadily dropping since then. The curve was much more gradual after he took office than leading up to 1/09.
you have the issue with america's credit rating being dropped twice during his presidency
9/2011's cut was due to the repubs in congress stamping their feet, holding their breath, and going back on good-faith efforts. I'm struggling to find the 2nd cut though. i see Moody's threatening, but not actually cutting.
Surely you noticed the devaluation of the dollar?
No...actually, i didn't. We lost some value back in 2009 against CAD and GBP, but we've been more or less flat since the beginning of 2010. We did lose some value since then against JPY and CNY. We've been making some strides against EUR. Here's the data back to '99 if you're interested.