My third first-round mock for Monday’s draft went up on Thursday for Insiders. I’ll do one more on Monday morning. My final ranking of the top 100 prospects in the draft class is also up.
My latest boardgame review for Paste is on the D&D-themed miniatures and tile-laying game Temple of Elemental Evil.
Fewer links than normal this week because I’ve got this other thing going on… 
- A man held hostage for 977 days by Somali “pirates” tells the story of his captivity to the Guardian.
- The Red Cross wasted $500 million in donations after the 2012 Haitian earthquake. You shouldn’t give them any of your money. Smaller charities working on the ground tend to produce a better return on investment; check Global Giving for a variety of strong micro-charitable options.
- Pluto’s four smaller moons tumble and spin rather than rotating. In other news, Pluto has four small moons besides Charon.
- Definitely trying this out – a recipe for a Bengali condiment called kasundi that the recipe’s author compares to ketchup in its utility. But can you put it on a hot dog?
- I don’t usually do sap, but this story of a cop filling in for a teen’s dead parents at graduation was worth an exception. I actually believe most people are good by nature; the rest are on Twitter.
- So, that Facebook post by Terry Coffey that criticized Caitlyn Jenner getting an award for courage by comparing her to soldiers on the battlefield? There’s a beautiful irony to the photo Coffey chose, and tremendous grace in his response.
- Ben Lindbergh wrote a long piece for Grantland on macro trends in the MLB draft. While I found it interesting, this year’s class appears likely to buck his conclusions.
Michael Scott Moore’s story of his captivity is incredible. Thanks for sharing it.
I sympathize with Coffey a lot. I really want people to be accepted for who they are and love that Jenner has taken a flag to this issue and proudly raised it in triumph. I also loathe the fact she did everything with design to garner attention and effectively spin her every being into a money grubbing ugly performer.
To me she feels like it’s a calculated action that diminishes true heroes who blaze trails like a Michael Sam or Billy Bean or Jason Collins. Those people did what they did because they wanted to be true and give home. Jenner strikes me as a Johnny-come-lately who could do incredible work yet is doing work to get paid. Maybe I’m cynical and she’s doing the best she can considering her circumstances but it seems vile.
You should NEVER put ketchup on a hotdog if you’re over the age of 7. If you’re going to do that, you might as well have some deep dish pizza … Not all the bad people are on Twitter, we come here too.
I’m curious as to why you put the word ‘pirate’ in quotation marks. I’m guessing that you are thinking that the word glamorizes their activities, which are cruel, terroristic, criminal, etc. If that is the case, the problem is not the word (which is an accurate descriptor of what they do), it is that ‘pirate’ has been romanticized by its usage in popular culture (“Pirates of the Caribbean,” sports teams’ names, etc.) In that way, it is very similar to gangster/Mafia…
They’re kidnappers, not privateers. As you said, I didn’t want to give anyone the impression this was the Somali Jack Sparrow and his merry men.
I see–and, I would say, anticipated–your point. Just note that (contrary to popular belief) it is really more accurate to think of pirates as seagoing mafiosi, willing to do whatever it takes to make a buck, as opposed to privateers. The Barbary pirates, for example, made most of their money from what would today be called racketeering. And Julius Caesar himself was kidnapped and held for ransom by Cilician pirates…
Incidentally, anyone who thought that picture was real is, quite frankly, not paying attention. Consider:
1. The soldier has been injured in such a way that his legs have been rendered useless, and yet there is NO indication of the wound. His clothes are intact, his limbs are intact, there is no blood. Virtually impossible, even if the shot hit him in just the right spot in the lower spine.
2. Despite this grievous injury–which would be VERY painful–he is able to not only think about the approaching enemy, but to draw his weapon AND take an aimed shot? No way. And if one argues that he is in shock–very possible with an injury like that–the problem becomes even worse. Shock effectively shuts down most cognitive function.
3. Further, I think it’s fair to say that anyone trained in weapons usage would realize that the gunshot would create a recoil that would knock him off his comrade’s back, and so would not take the shot.
4. The off-screen “enemy” is within pistol range, which means pretty close by. And yet the photographer is in position to get a close up? That photographer would be a sitting duck. Photogs may be brave, but they’re not stupid. And if they ARE that…aggressive, the odds of surviving to bring the photo back after the battle are very low.
5. A lesser point, but the details of the shot don’t add up either. It’s B/W and has been given a graininess to suggest WWII (or Korean War) vintage, but the camo they wear is recent. Also, the gun–while blurry–does not much look like a sidearm that an American soldiers would carry in WWII, since it appears to be of German manufacture. Officers provided their own sidearms, so it’s possible he’s an officer and he acquired it in some way (picked up on the field, bought from a third party). But not likely. It’s certainly not a gun issued by the U.S. government…
Eh…quibbling over the details of the photo seems a bit beside the point, but…
1/2 — Why would a lower body injury necessarily entail a bloody wound or mangled limbs? A fractured ankle or foot may well keep you from walking or running, but would not necessarily have any dramatic visual indication of the injury.
3 — I’m not sure what pistols and pistol rounds you are familiar with, but none of the common military pistol rounds I’ve fired (9mm, .45 ACP) had so much recoil as to “knock him off his comrade’s back.” Moreover, the recoil would be first absorbed and redirected upward by his shooting arm. If I’m sitting on a table and fire a pistol, it doesn’t knock me off the table.
4 — I generally agree, but when I saw the photo I was immediately reminded of Robert Capa’s war photography, and he certainly managed to bring back some incredible images from very dangerous situations. Rare, yes, but not impossible.
5 — I am curious what details you can make out in the pistol that lead you to the conclusion that it is of German manufacture and not a U.S. military pistol. I can only make out a very indistinct outline and certainly don’t feel I could rule out that it’s a 1911 .45 ACP pistol, for example.
Re 1/2: If the soldier’s issue was one bad ankle, it would be faster to have him use his one good leg in a three-legged-race posture. The pose clearly suggests paralysis, which would almost always leave a visible wound. You also overlook my comment about pain/shock, which I find to be the even bigger barrier to accepting this photo as valid.
Re 3: He’s pretty perilously balanced, such that if I was him–and, apparently, mindful enough to take note of the enemy’s position–I would be seriously concerned about the effect of even moderate recoil. Your mileage may vary.
Re 4: Capa’s photos are remarkable, but I’ve not seen one that implied he was in an unshielded position with the enemy in close firing range. He was usually shooting from behind the soldiers (who became his shield, effectively), ala the D-Day photos. Or he was shooting soldiers who were prepared to engage, but not with enemy already upon them.
Re 5: The back of the gun looks completely square to me, which–if true–means it’s not a Browning or an M1911 and, to me, more Luger-like. Again, your mileage may vary.
When I first saw the photo last week, my first impression was that it wasn’t from any war. I suppose mostly because I probably would have seen it at some point in a book or movie if it was. After closer inspection, it does raise more questions like the modern camo but WWII era helmet, the very muddy field but apparent lack on mud on the uniforms of the men, as well as what CB talked about above.
If someone wants to see a color photo, here it is: http://s1278.photobucket.com/user/warhobbies/media/1-6%20scale%20amazing/marwencol2_zps750512d0.jpg.html
I suppose I just can’t muster up quite the level of certainty you have attained. One of the legs is mostly obscured by the other soldier so I can’t tell if it’s injured seriously or not. If there is blood, I’m not sure how I would identify it as blood rather than dirt, or mud, or patterns in the uniforms. Similarly, I don’t know if I could distinguish between different era-appropriate camo patterns and just splotches of dirt, mud, or blood on the uniforms. I think I see the outline of a hammer at the back of the pistol, but again maybe it’s just a spot in the sky, or a visual artifact. Nor do I see the exposed barrel of a Luger, but I could be mistaken. And it’s true I’ve never tried to shoot a pistol while draped over the back of another man, so I can only surmise that the mild recoil of a 9mm or .45 ACP pistol wouldn’t suddenly knock me off his back.
I could continue, but my point in all of that is that maybe I’m just not expert enough to pick these things out. If you do possess the expert ability to pick out those details from a grainy, black and white photo, I’m impressed.
Well, put more simply, any one of these “unusual” features could be accepted as an anomaly. Maybe he was injured in a way that was incapacitating but not visible. Maybe the non-era-looking camo is just an artifact of the mud/photo process. Maybe the photog is really THAT willing to take a risk. Maybe he is able to control his pain enough to focus and take an aimed shot. And so forth. But ALL of those things?
Even more basic than that, the thing that made me start to question the photo was this: I have seen a lot of war photos, and I have NEVER seen anything like this. Not even close. It’s just a little too Hollywood, which is the only place that one can dismiss how painful a gunshot wound is.
I also think addoeh’s point is a good one, if this was a real photo, it would be everywhere (like that photo of the sailor kissing the WAC in Times Square, or the photo of Ike speaking to the paratroopers at D-Day).
Sure, I think it’s a very good point that it is the summed unlikelihood of all of these things that becomes a stronger argument.
Also agree with your second paragraph, which (I think) was my reaction to the photo — there is something unnatural or artificial or constructed about the photo. In a word, posed. Which is exactly what it was.