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
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.
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!
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.
I first noticed this on the Drudge Report.
Was it ever reported on CNN, NBC, CBS, ABC, PBS, Huffington Post, or the New York Times? Not that any of those lean to the left and would have spiked the story, or anything...
...(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?
At least the nitwits got US made F-5 fighters in the backdrop... Unfortunately, they belonged to the Turkish Air Force...
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.
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.
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. ;-)