[Building on a post from The Man of GOP and the City, which you should read (it's short & mostly visual) to get the full effect.]

MoveOn.org has a new ad out, which includes a shot of "American troops stuck in Iraq".

Trouble is, they used a picture of British troops in the video, one of whom is wearing shorts (which are not part of the American uniform).

Normally I'd just say "buncha dumbasses" and ignore it, but as we all know, it's not the lie, it's the cover-up that'll bring you down.

In the sidebar picture, they show Mr. Shorts wearing pants.

But not just ANY pants - the same exact pants as the guy standing next to him.

This presents some problems, since they're not standing at the same angle, but they hoped no one would notice.

Sorry guys, it's just not your day.

Links to some VERY big pictures follow, so it might take a while on dial-up, but I wanted you to have the full effect.

First, a screenshot of the MO.O site, so you can see the pictures side-by-side (and as proof that it actually happened, in case they take it down - remember: ALWAYS GET A SCREENSHOT).

Second, greatly enlarged side-by-side comparison of the fake pic (left) and the real pic (right). In the fake pic, notice that the camoflage pattern - right down to the wrinkles and reflection of the sunlight - is EXACTLY the same on both pairs (with allowances for distortion due to photoshopping).

Yet if you look at their feet, you'll see that they're standing at different angles. Which makes for a VERY strange effect for the left soldier: although his right foot is slightly behind him, and you should see the butt-crack of his pants (as you do in the shorts pic), you actually see the front of his pants, which made me think of Escher's "Belvedere" and thus the title of this post.

Anyway, I suggest that MO.O remove the ad, apologize for misleading the American people, and fire the guy who came up with the idea for posting the fake picture.

UPDATE: Tiny thumbnails of very large pictures:

First:

Second:

Posted by: Harvey at 08:35 AM | Comments (18) | Add Comment
Post contains 345 words, total size 3 kb.

1 Are you trying to say someone with a political agenda is trying to decieve me? I don't believe it!

Posted by: Contagion at November 30, 2005 08:37 AM (e8b4J)

2 Ha! Too funny. At least they tried.

Posted by: Oddybobo at November 30, 2005 09:27 AM (6Gm0j)

3 Why you! How dare you get a Malkinlance to something you posted on your own website!

Posted by: Frank J. at November 30, 2005 09:54 AM (NkZSk)

4 I looked and looked but I could see no butt cracks. You teasing me?

Posted by: Machelle at November 30, 2005 10:22 AM (ZAyoW)

5 Why demand an apology from idiots? It's not like that will make them any less idiotic.

Posted by: Bugz at November 30, 2005 11:00 AM (uKuUC)

6 Machelle - Well... a cloth-covered butt crack... Bugz - True, but I'm trying to be kind by suggesting the course a responsible adult would take after being caught exercising bad judgment. Not that I expect them to go that direction :-)

Posted by: Harvey at November 30, 2005 01:14 PM (ubhj8)

7 http://www.actionforum.com/forum/scores.html?comment_id=270466 lets see what they do.

Posted by: z at November 30, 2005 01:50 PM (ii/Tg)

8 Kinda off-topic, but I LOVE M.C. Escher's drawings! :-)

Posted by: dustbunny101 at November 30, 2005 06:56 PM (a+Mxr)

9 Naughty MoveOn.org. You would think that they would have learned a lesson from Air America that you can't fool the public anymore!

Posted by: SeanS at December 01, 2005 04:10 AM (cEjQ0)

10 And? Seems to me this is small taters compared to the cherrypicked WMD evidence, the Scooter Libby/Karl Rove lies, and the biggest lie--"Mission Accomplished."

Posted by: paul at December 01, 2005 07:36 AM (oseFw)

11 Paul - Granted, it's very small. I just found it ironically amusing that MO.O would doctor a photograph on a web page designed to accuse Bush of misleading people. It was mostly petty schadenfreude on my part. As for the rest of your comment... I'll just say that I disagree with your evaluation of Bush's job performance and leave it at that.

Posted by: Harvey at December 01, 2005 08:34 AM (ubhj8)

12 Shocking! Only evil libs could do such a dastardly thing: http://photos1.blogger.com/hello/145/1296/640/whatever-med.jpg

Posted by: circlethewagons at December 01, 2005 10:49 AM (7Fqgx)

13 Dude, did you know you've been linked to by PJM / OSM? http://www.osm.org/site/story/20051130moveonfraud?currow=9 Congrats!

Posted by: _Jon at December 01, 2005 01:29 PM (g9Y9+)

14 Cool! And the Philly Inquirer Blog: http://blogs.philly.com/blinq/2005/11/moving_right_al.html Still waiting on the Puppy Blender. Meanwhile, it looks like MO.O has pulled the doctored photo. See? THIS is why I always say GET A SCREENSHOT! I feel SO incredibly smug now :-)

Posted by: Harvey at December 01, 2005 02:02 PM (ubhj8)

15 Yeah, well just don't look in your shorts - I'm told that for you it's a view that will deflate any pride.

Posted by: _Jon at December 01, 2005 02:08 PM (g9Y9+)

16 I'm so proud of you grandpappy!

Posted by: vw bug at December 02, 2005 07:01 AM (BAHyt)

17 What's really funny to me is that they took the guy that is in line behind the shorts guy and put his pants on the shorts guy... check it out... that's REALLY weak - even I could do better than that... FYI - I understand they've taken that image down now

Posted by: Madfish Willie at December 02, 2005 09:03 AM (dcX0a)

18 Wow! Now getting caught with your pants up around your knee's is a novel occurence. Only the folks who had no problem championing a President with his pants around his ankles would see no ethical problem with "tweaking" the photos.

Posted by: NOTR at December 09, 2005 05:32 PM (izx0t)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Pam of Pamibe lost her mother recently. She turned off comments on her post, but I suppose you can leave some words here, if you'd like.

Being an adoptee, Pam asks an interesting question about whether being adopted has an effect on the depth of her mourning:

"I feel disloyal, wondering how a birthchild would feel in my place. Would the connection be broader, sharper, as a branch of the family tree is snapped off? The pain more deeply felt, the sadness a seemingly endless well?"

Short answer, no.

My father went after a lingering illness, and since I knew it was coming, I got a good deal of my mourning finished before his body quit.

You'll feel the loss in stabbing bits and pieces, as you stumble over moments when you think "Mom would like this" before remembering that she's gone. It won't be a constant thing. It'll catch you off guard when you least expect it, but each time it bleeds a little less, until the wound is healed and all that's left is the scar of loving memory, where the flesh is bright and strong.

No more pain. Just the reminder.

Cherish the memories and tell her stories so that her light will still shine.

Posted by: Harvey at 11:31 AM | Comments (11) | Add Comment
Post contains 212 words, total size 1 kb.

1 I feel it would be the same as mourning for the loss of a family memeber from your spouses side. Your not related to the them blood wise but you feel a bond with them, a bond of family. I mourned the loss of my husbands grandmother, whom I only knew for 7 years, more than I mourned the loss of either of my grandmothers, who I knew for my entire life (35 & 37 years). It's the connection you feel with that person, not the DNA.

Posted by: Machelle at November 28, 2005 12:16 PM (ZAyoW)

2 I agree that when faced with a lingering illness it seems to be the case that you get some of those thoughts and feelings out before your loved ones pass. I remember being glad that my grandfather had finally passed. I wasn't too sad as he had lead quite a life. I was more grateful to have been able to share a bit of it. Pam, you are in my thoughts. Remember your mom and all those moments your folks blessed you with.

Posted by: Oddybobo at November 28, 2005 12:22 PM (6Gm0j)

3 Pam, my thoughts and prayers are with you and your family right now. Please don't reproach yourself for your feelings. You wouldn't feel any different if you and your mother shared blood as well as the bond of your family. Your grief comes from your love for her, not your blood. And Harvey's right, too. Your mourning isn't new, so there's no reason for it to be sharp and painful. When my grandmother died after a long battle with cancer, I felt washed out, flat, not really sad. I don't think I ever cried until later. When I missed her. Hugs.

Posted by: caltechgirl at November 28, 2005 01:04 PM (/vgMZ)

4 Pam, know you are in my thoughts, and may the light enfold and guide you in the days ahead. Short answer, as Harvey says, is no. You and she may not share genes, but you share hearts, spirit, and love for she was you mother. She wanted you, and raised you. That transcends mere genetics and the mechanics of delivery. I still reach for the phone some days to share news, funny stuff, or just life with Dad or even Mom, and I lost them five and ten years ago respectively. Harvey describes it well... In both cases, we got a lot out of the way well before the end -- particularly with Mom as she fought ovarian cancer. Dad went down fast at the end, but we both knew the end was indeed coming. It still hurts, but the funny stuff that I would share brings a smile these days, simply because I know they would find it funny. Besides, if I listen real carefully, I can hear their laughter and comments still.

Posted by: Laughing Wolf at November 28, 2005 04:19 PM (5cMH5)

5 Thank you so much, everyone, for the perspective as much as the condolences. Harvey, you're quite simply the best. Hugs to you all...

Posted by: pam at November 28, 2005 05:46 PM (l6NIn)

6 Pam- No. It is the same. I feel certain. She was YOUR mother. Blood is irrelevant. I am so very sorry.

Posted by: Bou at November 28, 2005 09:49 PM (iHxT3)

7 Pam: My husband was adopted, but found his birth parents at age 30. He was close to BOTH sets. He has lost 3 of the parents in the past two years. He mourned all of them. Blood IS irrelevant. It is love that binds one to parents...adopted or otherwise. You are in my thoughts and prayers.

Posted by: DixieDarlin' at November 28, 2005 10:02 PM (oMcKT)

8 I would argue that the love from her mother was greater than a natural child. She _chose_ Pam. Adopting her was a deliberate and planned act, not simply a matter of letting "nature take it's course". She made a conscious choice. As for the grieving part, I agree that Harvey sums it up best. I think the toughest part is the unexpected events that will remind you of her and result in an emotional moment at an inconvenient time. I had one of those this weekend - they suck. It's a bit tougher for a guy to explain why he's welling up, so I keep sunglasses handy wherever I go. I recommend, Pam, that you try to be productive and active. That was my dad's advice to me as he found that spare time resulted in him dwelling on the past, making the transition more difficult for him.

Posted by: _Jon at November 29, 2005 10:18 AM (ZM3Qb)

9 Based on the way Beth *still* misses her parents, *especially* this time of year - I'd say no, the bond is as deep as you want it to be. And, if anything, birth-children can be can take parents for granted...

Posted by: John of Argghhh! at November 29, 2005 04:36 PM (15lPy)

10 And I can't even blame alcohol for my inability to type...

Posted by: John of Argghhh! at November 29, 2005 04:37 PM (15lPy)

11 .. you and your family are in my thoughts, Pam... my sincere condolences...

Posted by: Eric at November 29, 2005 05:46 PM (r5XsL)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

An interesting comment in this post:

You are planning to volunteer for the military, right? I mean, "support the troops" is more than just an empty slogan for you, right?

The fact that I spent 4 years on a floating nuclear missile target (aka aircraft carrier) during the Cold War aside, I think the author of that question has an exceedingly narrow view of what "support" means.

You don't need to be firing a gun in theater to "support the troops". In addition to men, a successful military campaign also needs supplies and good morale - the will to stay in the battle until victory.

The most you can do to "support the troops" from the homefront is to actively provide material or morale. Send them armor, send them cookies, send them a postcard. It all helps.

The least you can do to "support the troops" is stay out of the way while they get the job done. You don't even have to so much as say "hi" to a soldier on the street. Just live your life as a productive citizen leading a normal life. Believe it or not, it DOES help troop morale just to know that the country they're fighting for is safe and comfortable - to know that there's a land of sanity to return to when the job is done.

What DOESN'T support the troops is denigrating the mission. Arm-chair quarterbacking that the troops aren't doing a good job, or that they're doing the wrong job. It's corrosive and eats away at morale.

Now, to the commenter's credit, he's not following the third option. He's merely evaluating some events in Iraq in a more pessimistic light. I won't hold that against him.

But I wonder if he's thought through the full logic of his chicken-hawk argument. If the only people who can be considered as "supporting the troops" are those who're in combat, then aren't the only people with the right to criticize the war the people working for the Department of Defense who have full access to ALL the relevant information about conditions in the field?

If I have to pick up a rifle or shut up, they have to get a job at the Pentagon or shut up.

Posted by: Harvey at 09:38 AM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 385 words, total size 2 kb.