Re: "Real Facts" and "Good Facts"
Eric Cordian writes:
In another teletext moment on CNN, the shuttle was described as traveling at "Mock 18."
There was an interesting article in the New York Times (http://tinyurl.com/5b4x) back in Nov 2001 about stenographers working on 9/11--that was an angle I didn't see anywhere else. When these special reports come on--and then go on and on and on--the captioners don't get a break. There are no commercials and they have to keep typing even though the talking heads get to take turns. On 9/11 it was even worse because communications in NY were so screwed up. Y'all are making a big deal about the "dangerous debris". As you may have noticed, there were very few real facts to report so they kept repeating the few tidbits they had, whether they made sense or not. The danger may well be overblown, but it is just prudent of NASA to say not to touch it. There were some pretty big pieces that fell and it is plausible they are still dangerous: http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/030203/170/36q9q.html http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/030203/168/36jm1.html Good article from 1980 on the boondoggle that is the space shuttle: http://washingtonmonthly.com/features/2001/8004.easterbrook-fulltext.html
Apparently artwork depicting the horror war is just to disconcerting a backdrop for Ambassador Negroponte as he rallies the troops. http://www.artdaily.com/noticiaframe.asp?not=11&fnot=2/2/2003 http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/9820/guernica.htm (the painting in question) We don't want war presented as anything but whoesome entertainment. j
participants (2)
-
jayh@1st.net
-
Ken Hirsch