This article from USA Today talks about the death rates of certain branches of the US military. This is typical of the American media. You will be hard-pressed to find any mention of Iraqi casualties, civilian or otherwise, mentioned with any significance in today’s media. Why don’t we hear about any other casualties? Is no one else getting killed? Because we are the “good” guys fighting the “bad” guys? What a farce! Maybe if there were an accurate protrayal of war in the US, there wouldn’t be such strong support for it. I think most Americans do not realize what actually goes on in war, or at least don’t want to acknowledge it.

When the war first started in Iraq, we saw all of these gung-ho TV reporters riding along with our military doing reports from the fields. Why don’t we see that now? Its not good for TV ratings any more, I guess. That’s what’s important now, TV ratings, not military and civillians suffering debilitating injuries and death. What a load of horseshit.

A startling article about the civillian deaths in Iraq since the beginning of the US invasion was released today. What do you you Bush Warmongers have to say about this? I will be surprised if any candidate will address these statistics directly, given then amount of doubletalk we’ve had to endure to this point in the campaign.

And Iraq is a better place since Saddam is no longer in power? Wait a minute, my Bullshit-O-Meter is going off the chart…

I received this email last week:

FactCheck.org needs your help .

We are looking for examples of false or misleading political mail regarding the presidential
campaign. If you receive any, please send them to us.

We promise not to use your name without your permission, but we won’t be able to return the
material you send. Please do include your name and a telephone number or email address where we
might contact you in case we have questions.

The kind of mail we are looking for might be sent by the campaigns, or political parties, or
independent groups. Typically these mailings are targeted to specific groups – such as older
voters, minority groups or gun owners, for example. Since the messages aren’t intended for a
general audience and are seldom seen by political reporters, those who send them sometimes take
more liberties with the facts than they would in TV or radio advertising that is seen and heard by
everybody.

With your help, we hope to shed some new light on this sort of tactic and hold politicians
accountable for any deceptions we can uncover.

Brooks Jackson
FactCheck.org
320 National Press Building
Washington, DC 20045

I’m sure that they will get some interesting stuff.

The EFF wins an important case against Diebold and their flakey voting machines.

I found this interesting:

Inclusion of the 1954 words “under God” into America’s national patriotic pledge (which was originally written without any reference to God) was the result of a congressional resolution which became public law yet which the Supreme Court of the United States, in 1943 (West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette), had already ruled cannot be required. It was passed by pandering and misguided congressional politicians in the McCarthy era of American history when communism was a major concern in America. Insertion of “under God” into the pledge is a direct slap in the face of the Founding Fathers who commanded: “no religious test shall ever be required” (Art. 6., Sec., 3, Constitution, 1787) and of the First Congress which commanded: “religion” shall not be established by law or Congress (First Amendment).

All of you religious crazies please read the full text here.