Monday, July 31, 2006

Firefly

Hello, Gu the Alien here.

Kolek said I would write about conspiracy theories and the media,
but today I'm going to write about a little known T.V. gem
called Firefly.

The first fact good Browncoats (fans) will tell about Firefly is
that it was cancelled by Fox before the first season even finished.
Since we here at the Kolektive are good Browncoats, I thought
I'd point that out.

Why Browncoats? At the begining of the series a future civil war is
briefly shown between the larger, centralized Alliance and the
outlying independent worlds. The battle of Serenity Valley
is the final devastating blow to the Browncoats, or outer
planets. Other battles would continue on other worlds, but
the Battle of Serenity is the Gettysburg of that war.

Speaking of Gettysburg, the Firefly civil war is similar to our
War of Northern Aggression (incorrectly called the Civil War),
in that the North begrudged the South their right to
self-determination. The North believed they were morally,
economically, and politically superior to the South and also had a
financial interest in conquering and destroying the South.
(The Confederacy's low-tarrif policies threatened to suck European
trade away from the protectionist North). The Alliance had similar
motives.

After the war, Mal Reynolds motives involved owning a spaceship
and staying free. He is the main character and a veteran of the war.
He managed to get a Firefly-class ship which he named Serenity, after
Serenity Valley. Other crew members and passengers include Zoe,
Wash, Jayne Cobb, River Tam, and others.

Serenity gets involved in many adventures, from the dusty,
Western-like outworlds to the blue Sci-Fi Alliance inner planets.
She mostly smuggles prohibited materials around under the nose
of the Alliance (think Millenium Falcon).

By the way, an excellent movie called Serenity was made, which
wraps up the first season. It also shows Reavers for the first time
(Reavers are like Orcs, except they're in space). Like the show,
it has an excellent plot and is filled with humor.

I strongly urge you to check out either the series (on DVD) or the
movies.

Those of you who are Browncoats or at least viewers who disagree
with anything I said, leave a comment.

Tuesday, July 25, 2006

FSU Seminoles report







#28 Lorenzo Booker goes
for first quarter yardage. Take that Miami! From FSU.






Hey you! Purple People Eater here talking!

I'm gonna write a preseason Seminoles report.
The first game will be 9/04/06 against Miami
on ESPN.

Last year we beat them 10-7 in a narrow and
exciting game. FSU played an excellent defense
and sacked Miami 9 times.

This just in: FSU is gonna be the Atlantic Division Champs this year!
Big surprise there, heh heh. Clemson got second in rank, hopefully we'll
beat them this year.

Anyhow, this time Miami will be tough, but right now there is
not enough info to know exactly how hard they'll be.

Nuthin else to type about, so it's time for a song:

FSU is really great,
Their skill in war will never abate,

We make Miami fumble the snap,

It goes to show they play like cr



Jeez! Looks like I took the computer away from Purple before things
started turning bad.

This is why Nobody else here gets their own computer.

Well, Kolek here, signing out.

What's wrong with the pledge?

Actually, I do have problems with the pledge of allegiance.

Those of you who have read previous posts may have an idea why
I don't care for the pledge. I am a Localitarian, which may help explain
my position.

First, it is appropriate to print the current pledge here:

I pledge allegiance to the Flag of the United States of America,
and to the Republic for which it stands: one Nation under God,
indivisible, With Liberty and Justice for all.

I will disect and comment upon the pledge, but first will discuss who
performs it.

American children daily repeat it in schools. Most younger kids
probably don't understand what it means; I certainly didn't understand
its full implications then. It is thus invalid when repeated mindlessly.

Also, if a person makes a pledge, why should they have to repeat it
endlessly? If it must be repeated, was the first pledge meaningless?
Or are the following pledges meaningless? All it does is indoctrinate
children in a similar manner used by more totalitarian countries.
A person should wait until adulthood, after fully understanding the
pledge, before making that moral commitment.

The pledge was written by a National Socialist, Francis Bellamy,
which should raise warning flags in itself.

Here is a description of the "Bellamy Salute", from Wikipedia:

At a signal from the Principal the pupils, in ordered ranks, hands to the side,
face the Flag. Another signal is given; every pupil gives the flag the military salute
-- right hand lifted, palm downward, to a line with the forehead and close to it.
Standing thus, all repeat together, slowly, “I pledge allegiance to my Flag and the
Republic for which it stands; one Nation indivisible, with Liberty and Justice for all.
” At the words, “to my Flag,” the right hand is extended gracefully, palm upward,
toward the Flag, and remains in this gesture till the end of the affirmation;
whereupon all hands immediately drop to the side.
(quoted from The Youth’s Companion, 65 (1892): 446–447.)
It is very similar to the infamous Nazi salute, and was later dropped
for that reason.

Now I will disect the parts of the pledge I don't like:

I pledge Allegiance to the flag of the United States of America
and to the Republic for which it stands,

Isn't that somewhat anti-American and anti-individualistic, to pledge
an oath of allegiance and obediance to the central government? And
if "the republic for which it stands" becomes totalitarian, are we
supposed to follow our oath or abandon it, in which case it becomes
meaningless?

one nation under God,

Actually the "under god" section, although the most debated, is the part
I have the least problem with, even though I'm a religous agnostic.

indivisible,

I have already challenged this idea in previous posts. I do not think this
country is or should be indivisible. That's potentially like throwing
people who hate each other into the same room and locking the door.

Perhaps this post has either made you think twice about the pledge,
or else send a bunch of hateful messages into my comments area. That's
why my email address isn't displayed in my profile. However,
Koodooziez has a blog in my profile you might like to check out if you're
into video games.




Wednesday, July 12, 2006

An easy guide to ideologies

I find politics and political philosophy highly interesting,
but sometimes it is easy to be misled or confused. I'm going
to publish my guide right here.

These are all of the main factions I can think of. (If you have
any more, please post them in the comments and I'll discuss them.
And please no local or regional factions.)

-Anarchists
-Capitalists
-Communists
-Conservatives
-Fundamentalists
-Fundamentalist-Leftists
-Liberals
-Libertarians
-Localitarians
-Moderates
-National Socialists
-Socialists

Ok, I'm gonna tell a bit about each section. The Left-Right bar
should give you an idea of where each section stands in relation
to the political Left and Right. 0 is most Leftist, 10 is most Rightist.

Here's my definition of Left and Right, in general:

The Left likes more government, while the Right likes less government.


Of course other factors emerge in various areas, like race, morals,
etc., but my definition covers it best. If you disagree, please comment.

One question that still remains is what faction holds the political
center, and so calibrates the others? I will use "Moderates".

-Anarchists
Left-Right rating: 1 or 10?

Anarchism is one of the strangest and most politically diverse factions.

One would think that anarchy would be an extreme Right position
(no government), but it's often paired with communism, which puts it
on the extreme Left. It can be most bizarre there, since communism
demands government enforcement or people won't work like they're
supposed to. Similarly, many anarcho-syndicalists want to tear down
capitalism, which is the natural human economy (other than war).

-Capitalists
Left-Right rating: 8

When I refer to capitalism here, I refer to Lassez-Faire capitalism,
not the type we have today.

Capitalists believe that the government (especially the central
governments) should stay out of all economics, and believe that a
contract between two people should be enforced, but not tampered
with. They also believe in low tarrifs, no subsidization of any kind,
and little regulation (especially by bureaucratic institutions).
In fact, they see little in common with true capitalism and today's
watered down variety. Often allied with Libertarians, Localists,
and to a lesser extent, Conservatives.

-Communists
Left-Right rating: 1

In theory Communism is supposed to be a voluntary association of
workers, which may work at tiny levels (families, religous
compounds), where everyone has many things in common, but on
larger levels it has been an abismal failure, because at every
larger-than-village level there is too big a divergence of opinions,
goals, work ethic, etc. to work effectively. Thus government
enforcement must begin to crack the whip and keep everyone
in line. Then the masters of these whips come to power and
enjoy the fruit of the workers labors. And finally, the workers starve
via corruption and inefficiency.

-Consevatives
Left-Right rating: 6

Consevatism is a somewhat confusing term that means different
things in different places. Here I am refering to American
conservatives.

Consevatives strive to conserve the Constitution, morals, and a semi-
capitalist government and economy. However, they do not always
seek or advocate a strict interpretation of the constitution, like
when it comes to declaring war, often do not go as far as to
condemn presidents percieved as great, such as Lincoln and Roosevelt,
who installed the systems they seek to merely reduce, not eliminate.
Of course, some conservatives should be ranked 7 when they do these
things. Many, if not most, consevatives also are not Lassez Faire, and
condone certain subsidies and programs, regional or specialized tax
breaks, advocate certain business regulations especially when it comes
to "immoral" trades like gambling and organ sale, and very rarely
advocate the complete dismantlement of Social Security and other
large programs. They are often in fact political moderates.

-Fundamentalists
Left-Right rating: vary

Contrary to popular belief, Fundamentalists are not on the political
right, because they endorse government enforcement of religion.
There are few western Fundamentalists nowadays, but most large
Fundamentalist governments are patterned on Islamic law. Some
Fundamentalist government are milder than others. The more
severe ones have to be called Leftist, however, because they clamp
down hard on economic and personal activities. Iran and
Taliban Afghanistan are two examples.

Fundamentalist-Leftists
Left Right rating: 2

Interestingly, many Jihadists endorse communism, following
Marxist ideology and going one step further: after Communism
comes a Leftist Islamic government.

Liberals (western)
Left Right rating: 4

Liberals are moderate Leftists who do battle with Conservatives.
They tend to endorse a view of the Constitution which allows
personal interpretation, and view a large central government as
beneficial. They believe that they government should take care of
"the poor", and sometimes everyone else too (universal health care).
Some of the more Left leaning Liberals may earn a 3.

Debates with conservatives tend to focus on the scope of government
care, not its existence; on morals; on gun control (also usually on its
scope, not existence), on abortion (one thing conservatives take a
solid no position on); on amounts of regulation; and finally,
the current political scandals and events, which offer the most exciting
and heated debates. It is a fact that the great American political
conflicts are lead by political moderates who differ by degrees,
not ideology.

Libertarians
Left-Right rating: 8-9

Libertarians believe in even less government than the Capitalists
often do, and are closely aligned with Localists and afore
mentioned Capitalists.

Libertarians believe that all personal decisions, including morality
related ones, should stay out of the government's hands. They also
tend to agree with Lassez-Faire Capitalists, except they disagree
on patents and other minor issues. They sometimes agree with
Localists, except that Localists believe that it is okay for local
governments to make laws intruding upon personal decisions. Some
conservatives show disdain for Libertarian voting habits
(The Libertarian ballot), while Libertarians have the same disdain
for Conservative voters (The Republican ballot).

Localitarians
Left-Right rating: no rating

Localitarianism is a term I coined. Localitarianism is similar to
Federalism, in that lower governments make decisions.

Localitarians can be Libertarians, Capitalists, Consevatives and even
some Leftists. Localitarianism is more of a political structural ideology
than a Left or Right wing one. They believe in a sort of pyramid
structure of power, with local and state governments having the most
powers and the federal or central government having less domestic
powers. They believe that local and state governments are better
equiped to make decisions, because:

1) They are smaller and more responsive to their populations.
2) They cannot force their moralities or ideologies on other states or
localities, and as a result less internal strife takes place in a country.
3) They are less cumbersome and bureaucratic than larger central governments.
4) People can move to whichever state or municipality that best suits them.

Nowadays states are states in name only, they are more like
regional districts. But at one time, states were considered to be
equals of the federal government, and able to nullify and even secede.
The phrase United States was plural, (The United States are willing...),
not today's singular (The United States is willing...). Some localists
long for states' and municipal powers being restored.

Localitarians point to the U.N., Soviet Russia, and even the U.S. as
examples of the futility and evil of forced unification. Once the Soviet
grip on it's various regions and satellites collapsed, the USSR flew apart
with mostly better than before results. Even America is full of tension
between the Left and Right, various regions and ethnicities, especially
near election time, when the balance of total power is decided. If one
side lost enough, it could lead to civil war or oppression, or so
localitarians argue. And, they point out, what if the U.N. becomes
a real United Nations, centralized and armed?

Moderates
Left-Right rating: 5

Moderates can perhaps best be summed up as wishy-washy, not
picking stances on (or fights over) many issues, rather going with
whatever is popular or feel-good at the moment. There are some
solid moderates who, with a backbone, stand with the Right on
some issues and with the Left on others, but most fit the other
description. And we all know the joke about those who stand in the
middle of the road or battlefield.

National-Socialists
Left-Right rating: 2

Contrary to popular belief, Nazis were not rightists because
Nazis endorsed government control and regulation of industry
and personal decisions.

Nazi stands for "Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei", or
National Socialist German Workers Party. They are basically
Socialists who take a nationalist stance, as opposed to a
fundamentalist-, internationalist-, communist-, or
moderate-Socialist stance.

Socialists
Left-Right rating 3

Socialists can be nationalists, internationalists, moderates, etc.
However, here we refer to the variety that is more Leftist than
Liberals but less Leftist than Communists or Nazis.

Socialists believe in centralized control of major-to-moderate
sized industries, government care of the poor, an expanded welfare
state, high taxes for "rich" individuals, but still would allow private
ownership of property.


I hope this guide has been interesting reading and perhaps informative.

Saturday, July 08, 2006

Peter

Well, Todays 100 word story was "Peter":

Nobody liked Peter." Greenpeace Pete", we called him.
He did less work than lecturing, scolding us for our "high
carbon lifestyles", while praising himself for driving an
electric car. Someone pointed out a coal plant powered his car,
so he ditdhed it and got a bycycle. Now he arrived late
at work, and we hated him even more. Finally, we confronted him,
and he cycled home crying. When we heard the news that a
bus hit him, we knew we would finally have peace at the office.
This era of peace lasted until his replacement arrived.
Nobody likes Liz.

Wednesday, July 05, 2006

The magic of irradiation

Hi! Fat Guy here!

How often is it that I've been deprived of a delicious treat because
of mold and bacteria? I think it's time for a modern procedure.

Irradiation is the process of passing food past a radioactive source
to kill germs and viruses inside. The food does not become radioactive.
It is currently done in small amounts of food, but has not been much
accepted by the populace.

When enough radiation is used, this process allows vacuum sealed
perishables to stay unrefrigerated (including meats, poultry, milk, etc.)
for years because there are no microbes or viruses alive inside to
consume it. Non vacuum sealed products stay fresher longer. No
dangerous byproducts have been found, although some vegetables may
become mushy.

The FDA also believes irradiation is safe and beneficial.
Astronauts and very ill people in hospitals eat irradiated foods to
reduce the risk of infection. Why not the rest of us?

The Organic Consumers Association opposes food irradiation because:

"Irradiated foods and vegetables benefit the packer and grocer, not
the farmer or consumer. The consumer recieves an inferior product
that appears fresh, but has depleted vitamins and enzymes."

But the FDA says that no more nutrients are lost than when the food
is cooked normally, and the food is tons safer. Also, if it benefits the
grocer and packer, why not us? That makes no sense in terms of
economics, which means they have some agenda.

Let us check out the "About us" section.

"The OCA represents over 850,000 members, subscribers and volunteers, including
several thousand businesses in the natural foods and organic marketplace."

Aha! Of course, irradiated foods pose an economic challenge to the
"organic foods" industry. Organic foods are very expensive and more
dangerous than modern processed foods, because they use no
pesticides, fungicides, fertilizers or other chemicals. The foods don't
last as long and since more crops die, they cost more. Irradiation
is cheaper and safer, and a direct threat to these buggahs. It seems
this must be a lobbying group.

"OCA works with a broad range of public interest organizations to challenge
industrial agriculture, corporate globalization, and the Wal-Martization of the
economy, and inspire consumers to 'Buy Local, Organic, and Fair Made.'"

Hmmm... It seems these people are anti-corporate and anti-free
trade. So, they're not out to protect consumers, only to aid organic
food suppliers. "Wal-Martization" allows consumers to by cheaper
and often better products. Local, fresh, and "fair made", whatever
that means, is fine, but you'll have to shell out more cash. And don't
deprive the rest of us of Wal-Mart.

My God, these people are crazy. Check out their political agenda:

*The conversion of American agriculture to at least 30% organic by the year 2015,
including major reforms in agricultural subsidies and appropriations to help family
farmers make the transition to organic, develop local and regional markets,
and adopt renewable energy practices.

*Fair Trade and economic justice, not so-called corporate-driven "Free Trade" as
the global norm.

*A global moratorium on genetically engineered foods and crops.

*A phase-out of the most dangerous industrial agriculture and factory farming
practices.

*Universal health care with an emphasis on prevention, nutrition, and wellness
promotion.

*Energy independence and the conversion of US and global agriculture,
transportation, and utilities to conservation practices and renewable energy.

This is their political agenda, one that they wish to force on us with
the use of the government. If all foods were made "organically", there
probably would not be enough for us to eat. They want us to live in
the stone age, or so it would seem. With universal health care.

And what is fair trade?

I couldn't find a definition on their site, so I looked it up on
Wikipedia. It seems to have several features.

*Anti-subsidization and tariff

I'm all for that, but OCA isn't. They want subsidization.

*Anti Global Warming

Lost me there.

*Living wages

Paying higher wages than the work is worth leads to expensive
products and unemployment.

*Oppose NAFTA and free trade

Many who advocate "fair trade" oppose NAFTA, which helps
S. American countries and gives us cheaper stuff.

Interestingly, the terms free trade and fair trade have been
blurring, especially when it comes to protectionism. Milton
Friedman argued that free trade is fair trade, because both
producers and consumers benefit in a true free trade system. I'm
pretty sure that's not how OCA defines fair trade, however.

We have detour far to long, we must get back to my favorite topic,
food.

Wikipedia has an interesting irradiation entry.

Radappertization kills all pathogens and most spores, including
Botulism spores, but is only used for medical instruments. Why
it's not used on food beats me. It may impact food texture and
flavor negatively, but it should be an available option.

Currently only Radicidation is used on food, and doesn't kill
spores or Salmonela. As stated, leafy and delicate vegetables can
become slighty wilted or mushy at higher levels. Refrigeration is
still required after treatment.

Gamma radiation is the most cost effective and efficient, allowing
entire industrial pallets to be irradiated at a time. Cobalt-60 is used.

Minimum levels of radiation are sometimes used to kill hitchhiking
pests, like crop consuming insects. This helps to prevent the spread
of such insects, as well as dangerous spiders, scorpions, and the like.

Irradiation is hopefully the future of food consumption. If so,
perhaps we can safely drink eggnog and eat raw hotdogs like
Purple People Eater did a couple of days ago.

I'm glad I'm not him right now.

Tuesday, July 04, 2006

Joe Moore antics


Heh Heh Heh...

Check out KHON anchor Joe Moore's crazy antics.

Monday, July 03, 2006

On Powerline's Article

Purple People Eater showed me an article by Powerline
in order to irritate me. Well, he did it. It's about Lincoln.

I always get annoyed when I see conservatives hoodwinked
by Lincoln. I will disect parts of the article and comment.

"Thinking about the Great Liberator"

I must begin by noting that I will borrow quotes and research
by Thomas J. Dilorenzo and Walter E. Williams. I hope this
post will change your minds or at least encourage you to seek
information about this misunderstood era.

I will begin by pointing out the fallacy of calling Lincoln the
"Great Emancipator" or "Liberator", when a better name would be
"The Great Centralizer".

Lincoln did not free the slaves. This notion probably comes from
his "Emancipation Proclamation". You may believe that this freed
the slaves, but first read the following:

"Arkansas, Texas, Louisiana, (except the Parishes of St. Bernard, Plaquemines,
Jefferson, St. John, St. Charles, St. James Ascension, Assumption, Terrebonne,
Lafourche, St. Mary, St. Martin, and Orleans, including the City of New Orleans)
Mississippi, Alabama, Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina, and
Virginia, (except the forty-eight counties designated as West Virginia, and also
the counties of Berkley, Accomac, Northampton, Elizabeth City, York,
Princess Ann, and Norfolk, including the cities of Norfolk and Portsmouth[)],
and which excepted parts, are for the present, left precisely as if this proclamation
were not issued."


This lists the areas in which the slaves were supposedly freed. Why so
particular? Because it only applied to areas in "Rebellion". All slave
areas in Federal control were still slave areas.

"the forty-eight counties designated as West Virginia, and also
the counties of Berkley, Accomac, Northampton, Elizabeth City, York,
Princess Ann, and Norfolk, including the cities of Norfolk and Portsmouth..."

All of these areas were under Federal control and remained slave
zones. Why didn't he just free all the slaves? Because he didn't
care about the slaves, this was just a political manuever.
Lincoln admitted it held no water:

"The original proclamation has no...legal justification, except as a military measure."

It was a political and military manuever with three goals:

*To inspire slave revolts against the women on plantations;
*To discourage anti-slavery England from helping the South;
*And to solidify northern anti-slavery Republican support.

The first objective failed, and it is impossible to know how
much of an effect the proclamation had on the second objective.
It may have achieved the third objective, but it demoralized the
Union army. It also brought criticisms of desperation. It certainly
did not change the objectives of the war.

Lincoln was, however, a brilliant manipulator whose proclamation
was a brilliant long term move, one which endeared him to Americans
for over 140 years.

If you still believe he was anti-slavery, read this:

"when they remind us of their constitutional rights [to own slaves], I acknowledge
them, not grudgingly but fully and fairly; and I would give them any legislation
for the claiming of their fugitives"


Yup, this is a Lincoln saying, one that is rarely quoted. (Source)

As Walter E. Williams noted,

"Abraham Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation was little more than a political
gimmick, and he admitted so in a letter to Treasury Secretary Salmon P. Chase:
'The original proclamation has no...legal justification, except as a military measure.'
Secretary of State William Seward said, 'We show our sympathy with slavery by
emancipating slaves where we cannot reach them and holding them in bondage
where we can set them free.' Seward was acknowledging the fact that the
Emancipation Proclamation applied only to slaves in states in rebellion
against the
United States and not to slaves in states not in rebellion."

Note Secretary of State Seward's very important explanation:

"We show our sympathy with slavery by emancipating slaves where we cannot
reach them and holding them in bondage where we can set them free."


Next Up from Powerline:

"Lincoln's primary aim as commander-in-chief was of course the
preservation of the Union -- the restoration of democracy and the
rule of law among the seceding states."

Funny, one big reason why the States seceded was because he did
not compromise- If he wanted to unify the country, he would have
compromised, or resigned. I challenge the "of course" part too,
I disagree with that notion. I believe it was about tariffs, not
the Union or slavery.

In the book The Real Lincoln Dilorenzo chronicles the role of the
the Morrill Tariff. The tariff was voted "yea" by Republicans in
Congress before the south seceded, but free trade southerners
blocked it. The vote was along sectional lines, because the tariff
would mostly favor northern industries and harm cotton states and
all consumers. Knowing that the bill would pass, the cotton states
seceded. The bill doubled the existing tariff to about 36%. The tariff
was passed by a north controled congress, but the southern states
had left the Union and the bill did not apply to them.

Lincoln, the Republicans, and Northern industries realized that with
the south being free trade and low tariff, and the north being
protectionist, much European trade would shift to the south unless
the Morrill Tariff was repealed. They were unwilling to do this, and
so launched the Civil War, or War of Northern Aggression.

It is ironic that conservatives so love Lincoln, who dismantled the
free trade and low tariff/tax system that was once in place.

Another thing was that law and democracy did not disappear from
the south, only Federal law was banished. State and later
Confederate law took its place. And if the representatives and
people of a state no longer want to be part of the Union,
is it democratic to force them to stay?

The southern states did exactly what the colonies did in the
Revolution. The colonial legislatures decided to secede from
Great Britain. In fact, one may argue that the South had more
right to do so: They were full States, not colonies, and a higher
percent of southerners probably supported independence
than the 1/3 of American colonials.

Powerline next quotes Lincoln:

"among free men, there can be no successful appeal from the ballot to the bullet;
and that those who take such appeal are sure to lose their case, and pay the cost."

Interestingly Lincoln seems to condemn himself. He instigated the
Civil War by illegally resuplying the Federal force in Fort Sumter,
which now belonged to South Carolina. He well knew that by
sending supplies rather than withdrawing fom the harbor
South Carolina authorities would be forced to attack or lose face.
In the process, it would appear that it was South Carolinas fault.
This was more of Lincolns brilliant manipulation.

We all know how Lincoln used (or perverted) the phrase:

"preserve, protect and defend the Constitution."

But nowhere in the constitution does it say that he has the authority
to attack independent states once they secede, nor to march through
and burn the south, or that secession is in fact illegal. Nowhere is
the draft authorized, or the ability to blockade southern harbors.

Nor is the constitution protected or preserved by punishing an
action (secession) not explicitly disallowed by it.

Nowhere is he authorized to independently suspend Habeus Corpus,
or to arrest dissenters or U.S. congressmen who criticize him, or
to arrest state legislatures. Nor should he have shut down opposition
newspapers.

He even contemplated arresting Supreme Court justices.

It takes balls to do all this and use that phrase.

"As president and commander-in-chief, he suspended habeas corpus, used
martial law, instituted military trials, and exercised power to the limits of his
constitutional authority in a manner that suggests the loose nature of those limits
when confronted by necessity."

What are these loose limits, I wonder? And what is necessity? The
constitution is explicitly written and yet Powerline seems to think
otherwise. Conservatives always critisize the Supreme Court for
their very loose interpretations, and yet many seem to advocate
the same principles under other ill-defined conditions.

"Yet Lincoln preserved the rule of law and became the Great Liberator."

I'm not going to bother refuting this nonsense again. Preserving
his perverted version of law, I'd say.

'The Peace Democrats of 1863 nevertheless sound remarkably like today's
Peace Democrats."

No, they didn't. Todays war is fought against Islamic fanatics; that
war was waged against entire populaces of law abiding southerners.
The democrats back then were free-marketers who opposed a
war fought for protective tariffs, the opposite of todays Dems.
And, copperhead democrats used reasoned arguments as
opposed to the irrational and illogical Lincoln speeches.

Powerline details how General Burnside arrested Congressman
Vallandingham for criticizing Lincoln, then says:

"Lincoln ultimately resolved the controversy over Vallandingham's conviction and
confinement by banishing him to Confederate territory (from which he escaped to
Canada)."

That's a resolution? Banishing a congressman for political reasons
resolves the controversy? Interesting.

They continue with a New York World incident. I have no
particular disagreements there.

I really wish conservatives, or actually all Americans take a look
at all of the facts and arguments behind the scenes and then decide
whether Lincoln was a "Great Emancipator".

Lincoln was for sure the "Great Manipulator".

Saturday, July 01, 2006

The Pie of Peril

Here is this week's 100 word story:

Charles was paranoid. He saw peril in the most innocent
things. So when he recieved a pie from his mother, he
reacted in a cautious manner. He first x-rayed, then scanned
for radioactivity. His sensors showed nothing, so he opened
the package. He read her seemingly innocent letter, but he
knew better. She was out to get him. He did more tests, but
the pie was safe! It smelled good, and he was hungry. After
hesitating, he finally tried the pie. It was good. He hastily
and greedily consumed the pie, which caused him to choke
to death.

Anyway, I lost my final draft, so this is a slightly different
version. Check out the 100 word stories link to hear it
and other stories.

Battlefront 2 underestimated

Hi! Koodooziez here.

Today I'm going to discuss Star Wars Battlefront 2.
Now before you accuse me of being a Star Wars fanboy, let
me explain that I don't like the movies that much. The vehicles
are kinda cool, but the stories suck. I like Firefly much better.

Anyway, don't reject a game just because of its universe.

IGN gave Battlefront 2 a 7, which is quite unfair. They say its
because it is too similar to the first game, but how often do they
give Final Fantasy sequels and other similar RPG high ratings?
There has been at least a dozen FFs alone. They did give
Battlefront 1 a high rating, yet its sequel is much better and
more balanced.

Game Informer was right in giving BF2 a high rating. In fact, it
earned a better rating than Battlefield 2:Modern Combat, which
is the conquest game everyone is so obsessed about. I like
Battlefield 2 as well, but not as much as Battlefront 2.

SWBF2 has more features than BF2:MC. For one thing, it has
offline 2 player and the same features online has. I could leave
or take the Heroes feature, but I really enjoy the space battles along
with the ground ones. Also, there are two flag modes, hunt mode,
standard conquest and assault.

Also, the graphics and A.I. are of similar quality in both games.
The A.I. is not nearly as good as human smarts, but that can be said
for all Ps2 and Xbox generation games. And in anycase the large
volume of A.I. troops and vehicles make up for that.

Speaking of vehicles, Battlefront 2 has a large supply of them. Unlike
the prequel, the vehicles and troopers are well balanced in respect
to each other. Bazookamen and infantry must use cover and surprise
to kill tanks, and vehicles need infantry escorts to work effectively.
Each vehicle also has a weak spot that takes massive or fatal damage
when hit. Vehicles are no longer all powerfull.

The maps range from inside (and outside) spaceships to jungles and
cities.

The starfighters aren't just for show, either. They have excellent flight
mechanics and the right balance between missile and short range
dogfights. These fights can be very fun, especially with (an)other player(s).

All in all, this is an excellent game well worth your money.
But if you don't have online, make sure you have a buddy to play with
offline. The one player mode, although fun, is not nearly as good as
playing with humans.

-Games I'm playing= Battlefront 2, Battlefield 2, Metal Gear series,
Mortal Kombat, Pokemon Saphire, Advance Wars.

-Check out my LOR concept site! Feel free to comment or share it.