Back in town. Saw the whole family on my old man's side, and I mean the whole family. It was surreal to not be the youngest generation anymore. All of a sudden, all of my cousins and me are our parents, and our kids are us. Weird, wild stuff. Same goes for the all my friends I grew up with, who we saw earlier today.

Anyway, in case anyone was wondering about my post about the Netscape headline being biased, I was focusing on the ridiculous "Iraq in Flames" part. But James Lileks noticed the same headlines elsewhere and focused on the first part here. The relevant part quite correctly says:

Started with the newspaper, of course. Headline: A DOZEN MARINES SLAIN. Subhead: “At least 20 wounded in fierce fighting; Iraqi attackers suffer ‘heavy casualties.’” Sidebar: "LATEST US DEATHS." Story from the Washington Post; three paragraphs before the jump with scant but sufficient context: there’s this Al-Sadr out there, a “radical Shiite cleric.” Last line before the jump: “In nearby Fallujah, meanwhile, Marine officers said Tuesday they control the city.”

Given the horrible headlines that followed the brutal deaths of four Americans last week, you’d think that would be the main story, or at least something that merited a mention in a headline. But a dozen dead Marines is the main story. The reason they died is not the main story. What has been accomplished is not the main story. To me, this is like printing “Four Thousand Dead in French Assault” and putting “Omaha Beach secured” in the subhead.

Which one honors the dead more?