Too bad that Zodiac movie came out a month too early. It was right on point on this issue, and might not have sunk like a stone at the box office.

Battlefield photos? I thought the Bush adminstration was prohibiting photos of flag-draped coffins.

On the other hand . . .the whole thing about going forward with "open eyes" is tricky. I imagine, if we had full disclosure about the collateral consequences of everything we do, we wouldn't get out of bed in the morning. Or we would because we wouldn't care about the people whose ox was being gored.

Yesterday, the Supreme Court upheld Congress's criminalization of an abortion method because of how nasty it was, which it explained in excruciating detail. This was not an undue burden on abortion because other methods were available that the statute did not reach. Of course, the court detailed some of these as well, so we pretty much know how it will decide other cases that attack the method but not the right. This is the same way that challenges to execution methods are being litigated; the right to execute is not challenged, just the nasty way it's implemented.

So, whether the question is abortion, capital punishment or a, for the sake of argument, just war, how much weight in the debate should the evidence that is likely to provoke the most emotional response be given?

And, to add the ridiculous to the already deplorable, how about this headline in today's imdb updates:

NBC Weighs How To Handle Killer's Package

Nope, I'm not making that one up.

LOL! Don't they have proofreaders any longer?

Oh gawd....

I'm guessing it's passe to proofread anymore. I have two textbooks with glaring grammatical errors. One text book, for my Business Communication class, stressed using proper grammar, spelling, word usage and the like... but it seems to get a C on the same count for itself.

/end derail

That's a rather personal question.

(Okay, that was a stretch.)

/shakes head

Not that it is a big distinction but the news at IMDb is not an internal product, they synidcate WENN.

Wait... I'm confused. Is there a typo I'm missing?

I can understand why it's a very, very bad headline. But proofreaders are generally checking for grammar and punctuation. Copy-editors look at big questions like "gee, why are you implying that they're doing anything with the killer's genitals?"

Yeah, but that's how they got longer in the first place. Most weren't born that way.





The girthiness, however, is all nature.