King, Ruler of the New france

Heh...Turing

2006-11-17T14:09:00.000-07:00

I found this on Wikipedia. I don't know how long it will last, since it isn't in the supposed spirit of the site at all, so here it is (and with some context too! how exciting!):

Lady Lovelace Objection: One of the most famous objections, it states that computers are incapable of originality. This is largely because, according to Ada Lovelace, machines are incapable of independent learning. Turing contradicts this by arguing that Lady Lovelace's assumption was affected by the context from which she wrote, and if exposed to more contemporary scientific knowledge, it would become evident that the brain's storage is quite similar to that of a computer. Turing further replies that computers could still surprise humans, in particular where the consequences of different facts are not immediately recognizable.

(It is unfortunate that the brilliant Lady Lovelace had not the experience of exposure to the modern world's most epidemic computer operating system, which is undeniable proof that computers are INDEED capable of highly independent, diverse, illogical and unpredictable behaviour.)

As a certain blender of small animals would say, Indeed.

Spam Comments

2005-11-25T20:10:00.000-07:00

Don't like 'em. Not at all.

Not talking about stuff off-comment when you folks are talking to each other (you "folks"? people read this?). Talking about actual spam. Like what you get in your e-mail. Take a look at the comment for the previous post. Total crap. Like automated telemarketers. A pox on them all.

Moving Perhaps? Maybe Not.

2005-11-08T20:37:00.000-07:00

Hey yo's. I be movin' my site a bit. Just to see if it work out, yo. May just change the template here, though. Actually, let's try that first.

IMAO's Third Blogiversary!

2005-07-11T08:14:00.000-07:00

Well, the title says it all. Guess what that means?

That's right! Link to IMAO day!

If you do not want to click on this link to IMAO, not only are you a loser, but you can click on the first link under the "Blogroll" header in my Links section. (That will also work if the above link does not work for some dumb reason.)

Go forth!

If Bush Died...

2005-03-09T21:39:00.000-07:00

I write this in response to some people saying their One Wish would be for Bush to die. Even if this was in jest, that is pretty a pretty lowly wish. For one, why would you go with that? I mean, if you wished for a lot of money, you could pay to have him dead, and still have money for other stuff [NOTE: NOT TALKING ABOUT ASSASSINATION, in case any G-men are reading...]. And for another thing, despite your opinions about his politics and what have you, he is still a nice, decent guy, and it is just plain despicable to wish for his death. Shame on you.

So, on to the topic. Well, let's just say Bush died for whatever reason. That would be great for liberals, right?

Right?

You might think that, but they might not like the consequences. For, you see, if the President is unable to perform his duties, the guy who becomes President is...

DICK CHENNY!

I bet that is SOOOO much better for those Bush-haters...

So you don't like that? OK. Let's say he died before naming a VP. Who then?

Dennis Hastert: Speaker of the House.

No? Don't like that either?

OK. After him comes...Ted Stevens.

Who is that? Why, the President pro tempore of the Senate.

"Who is he?" one might ask. Well, he is a senator from Alaska, who just happens to be the most senior Republican in the Senate.

Don't like any of those? Well, here is the rest of the order of Presidental Succession:

-Condoleezza Rice, Secretary of State
-John Snow, Secretary of the Treasury
-Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense
-Alberto Gonzales, Attorney General
-Gale Norton, Secretary of the Interior
-Mike Johanns, Secretary of Agriculture
-Carlos Gutierrez, Secretary of Commerce
-Elaine Chao, Secretary of Labor
-Mike Leavitt, Secretary of Health and Human Services
-Alphonso Jackson, Secretary of Housing and Urban Development
-Norman Mineta, Secretary of Transportation
-Samuel Bodman, Secretary of Energy
-Margaret Spellings, Secretary of Education
-R. James Micholson, Secretary of Veterans Affairs (interesting note: besides having an initial for a first name, this man was also the US ambassador to the Holy See [dat be the Pope, yo's])
-Michael Chertoff, Secretary of Homeland Security

(SOURCE)

Be careful what you wish for.

And now something completely different...

There is a link on the side that is misplaced! Find out what it is, leave the first comment (if you do not register to Blogger, please leave your name or some other identifying mark in the comment), and win a prize!

Enterprise Canceled

2005-02-03T21:00:00.000-07:00

Yup, they canceled Enterprise. Just as it was getting good, too. Well, even UPN has to get ratings.

Blogger John Hawkins from Right Wing News has list of his favorite Star Trek characters: (of course, I will comment in between his stuff!)

1) James T. Kirk (Star Trek): If America had a national "fictional character," it would be James Tiberius Kirk. An adventurous captain who was ready to fight at the drop of a hat if he had to and spent his nights "teaching alien women how to love" as Frye from Futurama would say!

Actually, if America had a national fictional character, it would be either Superman or Homer Simpson. But I like where he placed Kirk. Right at the top. Although, this was bound to get into the "Kirk v Picard" fight in the comments, which it almost did (actually, it got more into "Kirk v Sisco," as conservatives don't like Picard because he was a diplomatic pansy ;) ).

2) Spock (Star Trek): Brilliant, tough, and always logical, Spock was the perfect #2 for Kirk and such a great character that he'd have been captain on any other series.

Gene Rodenbery, at least, knew what he was doing.

3) Jean-Luc Picard (Star Trek: Next Generation): Picard is no Kirk, but who is? It's like comparing an American President to George Washington, it's not really fair. Picard is a great captain, but he's just a little too old to be "whooping people" in hand to hand combat.

See above.

4) Data (Star Trek: Next Generation): If any captain had ever had Spock & his mechanical doppleganger Data both on his crew, he could feel good going into the holodeck even if a rogue Klingon war cruiser was approaching at Warp 5.

But unfortunately, no one ever did. Voyager tried with its Vulcan and artificial life form, and that wasn't so good.

I don't know if I would put Data so high up on this list, but Brent Spiner is a good actor for these kind of roles.

5) Johnathan Archer (Star Trek: Enterprise): STE never really hit its stride and since it has been canceled now, it never will. But Archer was still a great character, it's just too bad the writers couldn't do more with him.

Archer most definitely wouldn't be on my list. Had potential to be better than Kirk, in my opionion, but it is that "the writers couldn't do more with him" that he wasn't that good of a character. In fiction, it is the writers that make the character. The idea could have grown into something good, but the writers crapped up that possibility.

6) Worf (Star Trek: Next Generation): Who can dislike a character who tosses off quotes like "Today is a good day to die" & "Humans damage so easily?" If they could distill a marine down into a Star Trek character, it would be Warf...

Agreed. Good character. Came off originally as the cliche tough guy, but by DS9 had evolved as a character.

7) 7 of 9 (Star Trek: Voyager): It's as if a character right out of Ayn Rand's novels were reborn in the Star Trek world. Love her!

I think I know where he is trying to get to, but never actually read a Rand novel, I can't say for certain. Nor did I see enough of Voyager after she came on the show to really say. But one of the best of Trek? No.

8) T'Pol (Star Trek: Enterprise): Soo hot, so Vulcan...she's totally irresistible even though she's the grouchiest Vulcan character ever on the show.

I don't really think that sex appeal makes someone a good character. She wasn't even a good Vulcan. Spock, the half-human, was able to hide his emotions better than her. And it really hard to take a character seriously when they are in a "uniform" like that (same for the above).

9) Odo (Star Trek: Deep Space Nine): A great character wasted on a weak show. Odo would have been a real asset as a crusty head of security at a better Trek show.

It was the Odo-Quark interaction that made it NOT a weak show. That is, until DS9 became Star Trek: Babylon 5 in the later seasons. Then it was good.

10) Deanna Troi (Star Trek: Next Generation): A bit too touchy feely (and coming from a psychology major, that's saying something), but still a compelling character who could read your mind well enough to tell if she's making you happy or unhappy, but not well enough to know if you're actually thinking about 7 of 9 while Troi is giving you her special "Betazoid backrub".

Seems like Hawkins has a thing for the pretty ladies. That's good and all, but they weren't the best characters.

But wait! There is more!

Bonus: The Three Best Star Trek Enemies!
1) The Borg (Star Trek: Next Generation): Relentless, merciless, nearly unstoppable foes...who somehow seemed to always get stopped!
2) Kahn (Star Trek): The genetically engineered, 20th century superman was Kirk's legendary nemesis.
3) Q (Various): The Norse God Loki + Leprechaun 4: In Space w/ much better writers = Q

I agree with the list; just in a different order. Just switch Kahn and the Borg. Kahn was one of the best villians, ever, in any show.

And there is still yet more:

Bonus: The Three Most Annoying Star Trek Characters!
1) Wesley Crusher (Star Trek: Next Generation): Only Jar-Jar blinks tops him on the Sci-Fi "Most Annoying List".
2) Janeway (Star Trek: Voyager): Worst. Captain. Ever. EVER!
3) Guinan (Star Trek: Next Generation): Oh look, it's Whoopi Goldberg -- the "wise" bartender who always has to get her folksy two cents in on every subject.

I would have replaced Janeway with Chachotay, but otherwise, yah. Except with Guinan in the movie. She was good there.

Want to know my list?

...

Well, too bad. You get to know anyways.

1) Kirk
2) Kahn (didn't say they had to be good guys)
3) Spock
4) McCoy
5) Data
6) Sisko (like a mix of Picard and Kirk)
7) Worf
8) Picard
9) Gul Dukat (I think that is what his name is - villian to good guy; good stuff)
10) EMH (doctor in Voyager-funny guy)

And there it is. I wonder if Star Trek has a future in TV. I hope so.

Although I think it is sad that the good sci-fi shows get canceled, or is only a mini-series, while the mediocre get props, the more mediocrity the more famous and the more money (and movies) it gets (read: Star Wars: Jar-Jar). The bad stuff gets canceled too. Good riddance to that. Only exception is Stargate: SG-1, which is the best sci-fi show without spaceships, and it has spaceships!

But more on that subject at a later date...

And I thought Americans were stuck up...

2005-01-05T11:21:00.000-07:00

Not too often that I get the pleasure of fisking something here. (Well, really, I don't do too much of ANYTHING here...) But I found this on someone's Xanga (go to the link in this post to see who, if you don't know), and it was a few posts down (meaning no one would read my comments), so I decided to replicate it here. Really is funny, once you get past the insulting part.

NOTICE OF REVOCATION OF INDEPENDENCE
by Basil Fawlty (aka John Cleese)

I saw that guy doing a show on how to choose/order/serve/store wine on the Food channel. Quite good, and slightly funny (which of course for him was manditory). Too bad it's info I will never need.

To the citizens of the United States of America, in the light of your
failure to elect a competent President of the USA

Too bad our choices were making that a bit impossible to avoid...

and thus to govern yourselves,

That's why we have a small-r republican form of government...

we hereby give notice of the revocation of your
independence, effective today. Her Sovereign Majesty Queen Elizabeth II
will resume monarchical duties over all states, commonwealths and other
territories.

Which means absolutely nothing...the Queen does diddly-squat. She doesn't even use the few actual government powers the monarchy has left. Too bad for that; Parliament isn't doing too good of a job at the moment.

Except Utah, which she does not fancy.

Neither do I. Good call. And that means a bit more, coming from one such as I, methinks.

Your new prime minister (The Right Honourable Tony Blair, MP for the 97.85% of you who have until now been unaware that there is a world outside your borders)

Now that isn't true! Most know about Mexico, and/or Canada!

will appoint a minister for America without the need for further elections.

That not so fair. Even New Zealand gets to elect its minister.

Congress and the Senate will be disbanded.

YAY!

I mean, boo to you.

A questionnaire will be circulated next year to determine whether any of you noticed.

Well, McCain and Clinton will not be so much in the news (and thank goodness to that!).

To aid in the transition to a British Crown Dependency, the following rules are introduced with immediate effect:

Thank goodness! We couldn't do anything without someone to depend on to rule our every move and such!

1. You should look up "revocation" in the Oxford English Dictionary. Then look up "aluminium." Check the pronunciation guide. You will be Amazed at just how wrongly you have been pronouncing it.

A-lu-min-e-um indeed!

The letter 'U' will be reinstated in words such as 'favour' and 'neighbour', skipping the letter 'U' is nothing more than laziness on your part.

Think how much of a Brit's life is wasted putting in those superfluous u's, though. I mean, they have to spend at least a day of their lives, if not more, just writing one letter! What a waste. So sad.

Likewise, you will learn to spell 'doughnut' without skipping half the
letters.

I never did get why it is "donut" here. "Doughnut" just makes more sense. I always personally spelled it that way.

You will end your love affair with the letter 'Z' (pronounced 'zed' not 'zee') and the suffix "ize" will be replaced by the suffix "ise."

Z is just such a fun letter to write.

And letters shouldn't have to be spelled. That's just them Brit's making things harder on themselves.

You will learn that the suffix 'burgh' is pronounced 'burra' e.g.
Edinburgh. You are welcome to respell Pittsburgh as 'Pittsberg' if you can't cope with correct pronunciation.

Now, that is just WRONG on the Brit's part.

For one, English is a Germanic language, so it makes sense that "burgh" would be pronounced the way it is spelled.

For another, it would be Pittsburg, not Pittsberg. They are very much different in the pronounciation, and in meaning. Pittsburg means "Pitt's castle (or city)." Pittsberg means "Pitt's mountain." The h in Pittsburgh softens the end consonant; kind of Anglicises it.

And the worst thing about the "burra" thing:

STOP BEING SO BLOODY fRENCH! Pronounce your letters! They are there for a reason!

Moving on...

Generally, you should raise your vocabulary to acceptable levels.

Generally nothing. Absolutely, EVERYONE should raise their vocabulary. It never hurts, no matter how many words you know already.

Look up "vocabulary."

I'd rather not.

Using the same twenty seven words interspersed with filler noises such
as "like" and "you know" is an unacceptable and inefficient form of communication. Look up "interspersed."

This is related to the above.

Filler words are such a bad habit. Not like you Brits are free of it. But that is another story...

There will be no more 'bleeps' in the Jerry Springer show. If you're not old enough to cope with bad language then you shouldn't have chat shows. When you learn to develop your vocabulary then you won't have to use bad language as often.

Can't argue with that. Although, again, Brits have tons of bad language in their shows. Much more so than in America. So then, WHO should be increasing their vocabulary again?

2. There is no such thing as "US English." We will let Microsoft know
on your behalf. The Microsoft spell-checker will be adjusted to take account of the reinstated letter 'u' and the elimination of "-ize."

Obviously, there is. Otherwise, there would be no need for the above points to be made, now would there?

And don't bother contacting Microsoft about anything. They won't change it.

3. You should learn to distinguish the English and Australian accents.
It really isn't that hard.

No, it isn't. I don't know of anybody who has trouble with that particular thing.
Of course, I don't think I could associate with anyone who did.

English accents are not limited to cockney, upper-class twit or Mancunian (Daphne in Frasier).

But those are the easiest to do. And, they are the easiest to differentiate from any American accent, especially Southern.

You will also have to learn how to understand regional accents - Scottish dramas such as "Taggart" will no longer be broadcast with subtitles.

I know of no shows like that which have subtitles. What ARE you talking about?

While we're talking about regions, you must learn that there is no such place as Devonshire in England. The name of the county is "Devon." If you persist in calling it Devonshire, all American States will become "shires" e.g. Texasshire, Floridashire, Louisianashire.

It's not quite the same. British counties have little to do with American states. It would be more like "San Bernardino-shire" or "Maricopashire." Not even you would suggest that.

4. Hollywood will be required occasionally to cast English actors as
the good guys.

They don't? I was not aware of this.

And besides, villians just sound so much more EVIL (as well as refined and classy) in some sort of upper-class English accent.

Hollywood will be required to cast English actors to play English characters.

Oh, and should it be required for Russians to play Russians, Spanards to play Spanards, or french to play french (heaven forbid!)?

The point of acting is to ACT LIKE SOMEHTING/ONE YOU ARE NOT!

British sit-coms such as "Men Behaving Badly" or "Red Dwarf" will not be re-cast and watered down for a wishy-washy American audience who can't cope with the humour of occasional political incorrectness.

???

5. You should relearn your original national anthem, "God Save The
Queen", but only after fully carrying out task 1. We would not want you to get confused and give up halfway through.

Now, that's just being mean. It is A LOT simpler than our own anthem. Shoot, we even made an American song with that tune that is more complicated than the original ("Let Freedom Ring").

6. You should stop playing American "football." There is only one kind
of football.

Obviously not, or the point would not be made.

What you refer to as American "football" is not a very good game.

That is just a matter of opinion.

And everyone knows soccer isn't very good (at least to watch). The rest of the world (that doesn't have baseball; I'll get to that in a minute) just doesn't know anything else to watch.

The 2.15% of you who are aware that there is a world outside your
borders may have noticed that no one else plays "American" football.

Except Canada. Although, I don't know if that border is quite official...

You will no longer be allowed to play it, and should instead play proper
football. Initially, it would be best if you played with the girls. It is a difficult game.

Actually, it is rather simple. That is why SMALL CHILDREN can play it. And that is where most of the players of that sport here are. When they aren't playing baseball. For some reason.

Those of you brave enough

Or stupid enough...

will, in time, be allowed to play rugby (which is similar to American "football", but does not involve stopping for a rest every twenty seconds or wearing full kevlar body armour like nancies). We are hoping to get together at least a US Rugby sevens side by 2005.

Well, rugby isn't much different than soccer, except that you can use your hands and tackle people.

Which makes more a much more exciting game than football, I agree; but are there any real rules to that game? It just seems to "go."

Oh, and with the padding.

Americans like their teeth. And blood. And testicles. That is why we protect them. It is really hard to make a career of a sport, and make good money, if you can't play well due to injuries.

And if you notice, the people who play football are a lot bigger than the people who play rugby (who are quite similar to soccer players, but more violent and/or stupid).

You should stop playing baseball.

Tell me something I don't know!

It is not reasonable to host an event
called the 'World Series' for a game which is not played outside of
America. Since only 2.15% of you are aware that there is a world beyond
your borders, your error is understandable.

I always wondered about that, when only two countries' teams are involved (again, Canada, which you love so much).

Which makes even less sense when quite a bit of this hemisphere, and also of east Asia, plays it. It is no accident that many of the good, famous players are foreigners.

It is, like, pretty much the top sport in Japan (that is played anywhere else; Sumo wrestling is big too), and the second in South Korea (Starcraft is the first).

Instead of baseball, you will be allowed to play a girls' game called "rounders," which is baseball without fancy team strip, oversized gloves, collector cards or hotdogs.

Why go backwards in time and sports evolution? Baseball came from rounders.

7. You will no longer be allowed to own or carry guns.

DETECTING HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATION! DETECTING HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATION!

You will no longer be allowed to own or carry anything more dangerous in public than a vegetable peeler. Because we don't believe you are sensible enough to handle potentially dangerous items, you will require a permit if you wish to carry a vegetable peeler in public.

And it is thinking like that which caused us to rebel in the first place.

Remember, when guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.

And the government, which is quite possibly worse.

Too bad you Brits didn't learn that sooner. And Parliament still hasn't learned that. Looks like you're learning your lesson now, though.

And it isn't sensible to carry vegitable peelers in public, anyways. That's just crazy.

8. July 4th is no longer a public holiday. November 2nd will be a new
national holiday, but only in England. It will be called "Indecisive Day."

That's just stupid.

9. All American cars are hereby banned. They are crap and it is for
your own good. When we show you German cars, you will understand what we mean.

Indeed. At least cars made by German-owned companies (like Dodge: good trucks).

All road intersections will be replaced with roundabouts.

Possibly the worst transportation snafu Brits ever made.

Only thing worse is the two-lane roundabout. What is the point of the middle lane?

Youwill start driving on the left with immediate effect. At the same time,you will go metric with immediate effect and without the benefit of conversion tables.

You know, about as many countries drive on the left as don't use metric.

Roundabouts and metrication will help you understand the British sense of humour.

Maybe, but unlikely.

10. You will learn to make real chips. Those things you call French
fries are not real chips. Fries aren't even French, they are Belgian though 97.85% of you (including the guy who discovered fries while in Europe) are not aware of a country called Belgium.

And what relevance to the universe does Belguim have?

...

Exactly.

Those things you insist on calling potato chips are properly called "crisps." Real chips are thick cut and fried in animal fat. The traditional accompaniment to chips is beer which should be served warm and flat.

Well, British beer isn't "warm;" it's served at room temperature, which in England is significantly cooler than in America.

Waitresses will be trained to be more aggressive with customers.

Yah, like that will go over well. This isn't paris.

11. As a sign of penance 5 grams of sea salt per cup will be added to all tea made within the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, this quantity to be doubled for tea made within the city of Boston itself.

That's also just plain dumb. But whatever, I don't drink tea.

If it weren't for the source, I would support it. Sounds like fun.

12. The cold tasteless stuff you insist on calling beer is not actually
beer at all, it is lager. From November 1st only proper British Bitter will be referred to as "beer," and European brews of known and accepted provenance will be referred to as "Lager." The substances formerly known as "American Beer" will henceforth be referred to as "Near-Frozen Knat's Urine," with the exception of the product of the American Budweiser company whose product will be referred to as "Weak Near-Frozen Knat's Urine." This will allow true Budweiser (as manufactured for the last 1000 years in Pilsen, Czech Republic) to be sold without risk of confusion.

A topic completely out of my personal understanding. Won't touch it.

13. From November 10th the UK will harmonise petrol (or "Gasoline," as
you will be permitted to keep calling it until April 1st 2005) prices with the former USA. The UK will harmonise its prices to those of the former USA and the Former USA will, in return, adopt UK petrol prices (roughly $6/US gallon - get used to it).

You know, this is starting to just sound bitter. The reason European oil is so expensive, besides the fact that their refining capacity is pretty crappy, even compared to us (it is refining, not crude that defines the price - that is why diesel prices are pretty much independent of gasoline prices - but not the heating oil prices - oil products refined about the same amount; in California's case, the additives also drive the price up, which is significantly higher than other states': go a mile across the Colorado and compare the gas prices with those in Blythe). They also insist on buying oil from the Middle East, almost exclusively, as opposed to the US, which gets most of its oil and oil-products from Mexico and Canada. (And more would be from domestic sources if we could drill and pipe in more places.) It's their own stupid fault.

Also, driving up prices way more than the market would allow...

14. You will learn to resolve personal issues without using guns, lawyers or therapists. The fact that you need so many lawyers and therapists shows that you're not adult enough to be independent. Guns should only be handled by adults. If you're not adult enough to sort things out without suing someone or speaking to a therapist then you're not grown up enough to handle a gun.

Like Shakespeare said, "Kill the lawers!"

A thing about the guns: a child can handle guns (and probably should, so not to be unreasonably scared of them, like many grow up to be) IF AND ONLY IF they understand and use the proper safety practices. It is not a "grown up" thing, not a maturity issue. Just a responsibility issue. (Of course, you start kids off with pellet guns - no use having broken bones/joints from a full-sized gun; just something to start them off psychologically.)

As you can see, gun-rights is a big thing for me.

15. Please tell us who killed JFK. It's been driving us crazy.

Well, I would, if you weren't so snarky about it.

16. Tax collectors from Her Majesty's Government will be with you shortly to ensure the acquisition of all revenues due (backdated to 1776).

Hmm...We'd like to see you try...especially after your armies are defeated after you try to take away our guns!

See children, this is why the old saying is "You don't want the [Queen] of England in your backyard, do you?" Or something like that.

Crap science

2004-12-02T15:46:00.000-07:00

"One out of 250 Americans has AIDS.

One out of 500 know it."

Shoot. I'm pissed about that. That means half of doctors didn't tell their patients, but told some statistics gatherers.

Either that, or someone is making assumptions they shouldn't make. And it isn't me.

I hate it when intrest groups post figures that are mere estimates, and then pass them off as fact. You all know this. Not news to anyone. Because 92.67% of all statistics are made up...including this one.

I think it is rather absurd that a full half of people with AIDS in the US don't know. This is probably the Western country with the most paranoia about that particular disease. Granted, there are an awful lot that wouldn't know, as the symptoms don't show up for a long time. But a half-million, and more?

I would like to see the data on this statement. And how it was gatered. And how the statistic was deduced. All these are very important to the accuracy of a finding. You can observe the detrimental effects of bad science every day. Global warming, for one thing. The myriads of health "studies."

Don't believe me?

Look up a couple of sites (they just happen to be in my links on the right, but if you so choose to look them up, use the links here):

Tech Central Station
Greenie Watch

Both are very good in uncovering the bad science. Much more so than I.

Hie thither!

And don't forget to do the quiz-a-ma-bob below.

And click on my links too.

1000!

2004-11-27T18:08:00.000-07:00

Yay! Just saw that my site has had 1000 visitors since it started! Yehaw!

I will start up Blogads soon, if I get any more visitors.

And go do the thing in the last post. Nobody did it. Boo hoo.

The Quiz

2004-11-13T21:02:00.000-07:00

I am not dead...not quite yet. My blog just about did, though. I guess only I and one other have anything against Bush...so much for that little thingy...

I did promise a quiz/survey...and here it is! It is again the fictional-character thingy, but this time I want some good answers.

I will in the future think of something along similar lines... If you already did this, things have probably changed, so do it again...

Of course, use the comments for your answers...

There has been a survey put out by Right Wing News to list your 25 favorite fictional characters. I know it is a bit late, because he already has the results. But I will do it anyways, since I am such a cool guy like that, and I didn't get the memmo.

My 25 favorite fictional characters (in no particular order):

Ford Perfect (Hitchiker's Guide to the Galaxy series)
Mr. Bennet (Pride and Prejustice)
Bender (Futurama)
Mr. Burns
Sideshow Bob
James Bond
James T. Kirk
Indiana Jones
Mara Jade (Star Wars books)
John Clark (from Tom Clancy's books)
Jack Ryan (from the same)
Bill Werden (The Right Kind of War)
K (Men in Black)
Roscharch (The Watchmen)
Wesley (The Princess Bride)
Han Solo
Eomer (The Lord of the Rings)
Earendil (The Silmarilion)
Bart Simpson
Nikolai Rostov (War and Peace)
Superman
Red Forman (That 70's Show)
The Joker
Captain Zennor (Star Trek: First Strike)
Stewie Griffin (Family Guy)

Why don't you like Bush?

2004-10-27T20:19:00.000-07:00

Before the election, I would like to know why or why not you are voting for a certain candidate. Also, I would like to know why, specifically you do not like President Bush, or what you don't like about his policies. I know everyone has some gripe. But, I want it to be entirely rational and able to be backed up. I don't want any lame "He went to war for oil!" bull-crap. I want a real, verifiable answer to policy issues. I would put them now, but they are many, and I am doing something else at the moment - just wanted to put this out while it was still in my mind. I meant to do this a while ago, but I forgot amongst all the other things I was doing. I will either put it in the comments, or in another post in the near future.

Oh, and I will be doing another survey, much like the one about the fictional characters a while back. I have to think of a new thing, though, that will cause thought. Or, if that doesn't happen, I will just do the fictional character thing again, because not all of you saw it, and less actually took the time to really do it.

Important voting instructions!!

2004-10-21T07:46:00.000-07:00

You may have seen the adds for all the Get Out the Vote and the Vote or Loose campaigns, ect. They all want you to vote; to get as many people as possible to perform their civic duty. And they all have an agenda...most target young people - a rather large group - who don't normally vote for some reason, but when they do, tend to be liberal...how convienient, no? I would have to say that, statistically, at least one would be honest, just wanting to get people to vote. But certainly not all.

Anyways, they all claim to just want you to get out and perform your civic duty and vote. Well, guess what: you don't have the civic duty to vote. In fact, there are times when you should just stay home on the polling day. Why wouldn't you vote, if you are perfectly able and willing? I will explain:

The founding fathers, even more than a monarchy, feared mob rule. They knew that the average bumkin was not smart enough, not informed enough, to make a proper decision on who would be in charge of their country. They would fall to the ebbs and tides of popular opinion, easily swayed to someone else's informed opinion, as they have none of their own. Prone to vasilate in their own opinion, depending on whom they are talking to at the time. Or, even worse, a person would vote right on party lines - not because of any agreement philisophicaly, but just because it is their party, which must have, at one time, appealed to them in some way, but now may be completely different, and the voter will not notice, or care - have to vote for my party. If such a thing happened today, pretty much every election (at least presidential) would go to the Democrats, the party of Roosevelt and Kennedy. Also, there are people that are just too stupid to operate a voting machine properly. Even the incredibly simple butterfly ballot is too hard for some people. Those people should not vote. All these are most definitely NOT what the Founders wanted.

Well, David, you are saying that just because I am a Democrat?
No, not at all. I am saying that if you have not done research into actual positions, actual political history, of each candidate. You should ABSOLUTELY NOT vote entirely based on what the candidates will say they will do. Campaign promises are not promises; they are but possiblilties, mere suggestions to the candidate if elected. The only campaign promises you should even begin to believe are the ones that they have been actively persuing in the past, and havn't accomplished. Unfortunately, we, as Americans (even as a human species it seems; but Americans especially), vote based on what a candidate says, not on what they have done, and thus will most likely do in the future. If this is you, do not vote.

If you have based your vote on the debates, do not vote. Nothing new was said; nothing changed from before (except the polls...); it is just for useful soundbites and seeing who can give a better speech. All I said about campaign promises above doubles, triples, here.

If you are basing your vote just on what you see on the news, or read in the newspapers, do not vote. You are not properly informed. You are only partially informed. You need to look around. Congressional records, or state records, are pretty good. You don't have to hit the books yourself; someone else has done the research, and posted the results on the internet. You just have to look for that. (Sometimes it would just be easier to just look up those records yourself). A good place to look is Factcheck.org. They...check the facts...of what the candidates say. That is a good way to stay informed. Shoot, if you actually read the e-mailed articles I send you, you are pretty well-informed, but I would still suggest you do some of your own work, too.

This is not just my opinion. Go here and read what this guy says, at least up to the first emoticon. The rest is about a campaign rally. If you want to read the rest, be my guest. If not, as it is quite long, read the begining part.

Liveblogging the Debate!

2004-10-13T18:16:00.000-07:00

6.17PM
Was eating my pudding. Saw Kerry's skeletal face, first thing I saw. Not something you want to see when you are eating dessert.

Kerry and Bush zinging each other so far. Both seem to have good points and counter-points at this time. Bush talking about education training for jobs in response to a question about job loss. Kerry points this out. Kerry now talking about deficit in response to this. What is this? Talking about extending unemployment benifits.

6.21PM
Good question. About realistic effect of pres. on jobs. Kerry says can't stop outsourcing, when he just was berating Bush on it. Bush laughes at Kerry about Boing thing. Kerry says will fight for even playing field on jobs. Will fight for our jobs as much as he fights for his. That is pretty hard, methinks. Bush now saying taxes are our moneys, not governments. Saying more stuff about Kerry's votes. Kerry says Bush playing with his votes. Bush says he is on the "far-left bank;" Kennedy conservative Mass. senator.

6.26PM
Good response about homosexuality being a choice. Says adults have the right to live the way they want, but marriage is between man and woman. Woried about activist judges going over people's heads.
Kerry says we all God's children. That will get the DU in a fuss. Mentions Cheny's daughter. Says gays made the gay. Discrimination bad.

6.29PM
Kerry says he is Catholic, and that voting for himself is not a sin; can't legislate faith; abortion between "woman, God, and her doctor." Mentions he was an altar boy. Mentions that all things have to be guided by faith, but can't transfer that through legislation. Kennedy: We are to do God's work. How can you do God's work of not doing abortions, while supporting abortion, like a good Catholic? Can't find "faith w/o work is dead" in my Bible. Makes me sad. Means I have to mark up my usual scriptures. Can't believe I havn't done that yet.

6.35PM
I found it: it is James 2:17. Oh, and they are talking about the rise of health-care costs. Kerry talking about Bush blocking Canuck crap drugs. Kerry looks less like a skeleton and more like an old man now. Less scarry. Wants health care for all Americans.

6.40PM
Kerry says will take Medicaid kids away from states, so all kids can have health care. Yet he says they don't have to give them the kids. Hmmm...how will that work. Bush just screwed up about Kerry mentioning the media saying Bush misrepresents his healthcare plan. Should have gone through with it. Oh well. Missed opportunity. Bush now talking about how health care run by government is crap. Kerry agrees. Says he will not have a govn run plan. Even though he has a plan, and he wants to be the government.
Now talking about social security. Talking about the cost of changing the system. Lets see if he will mention the costs of not changing. Doesn't look like he is going to. His major weakness. Oh, wait, maybe he will. Mentions it will cost more, but not how much. Kerry says that young people getting own money is not good. Mentions that people paying SS now are paying for the old people's benifits. Says he will not cut benefits, but will keep things the same, but better(?). Says fixed SS in the 90's. Says, basically Greenspan, inventor of money (I am pretty sure; he is that old), is wrong about the tax cuts for rich. He has a plan to put Americans back to work, and to fix SS. Bush says Kerry voted for tax on SS benefits. Talking about 1.9mil job gain in past whatever months. Again.

6.51PM
Now asking about illegal immigration. Bush says it is an issue in basically everything. Talking about how he is trying to make borders secrue, but now talking about temp worker card. Booo! Basically ex post facto making illegals legal. Same with the employers. Now saying amnesty bad. Isn't that what he was saying he was for earlier.
Now Kerry going back to income! Get back to the question! Now back. Says he will be tough. Says probably should enforce laws agains the hiring of illegals. Wants Big Brother technology to positively identify people that have no prior identification.

6.57PM
Kerry wants to raise minimum wage to $7.00. This is incredibly bad. Sure, the people who earn minimum wage will get more. But you know what happens when that happens? It is called outsourcing.
No Child Left Behind is a jobs program? Sounds plausible, if it actually works.

7.04PM
Kerry talking about Iraq and how much of the army is all tied up. Roommate says (and I agree) that they (the candidates) should fight. Kerry now talking about increasing alliances, and how Bush does not have a real alliance, and that our forces are over-extended, blahblahblah. Kerry just got the $200 bil for Iraq sort of right. "Eventually" is the key word. Always implied money already wasted.
Kerry saying that no nation gets veto over US stuff, but needs to pass a test of honesty.

7.09PM
Bush says he supported AWB, but it would never be extended anyways, so he didn't push it. Says best to bust those that commit crimes.
Kerry says he owns guns, and is a hunter. MWAAHAHAHAHHAA! He doesn't even know how to operate the shotgun. Says law enforcement don't want none AW in the hands of the public. The civilians (even though they themselves are civilians) don't need them, the plebians. They should accept their place under us.
Also says terrorists can get AW in gun shows. I don't think that the kind of people there would let a middle-eastern-looking person get close to a gun. Plus, you can't (legally) get automatic weapons at a gun show, which, by definition, is an assault weapon. Not some scarry-looking gun.

7.14PM
Zzzzzzzzzzzz...more of the same.

7.15PM
Bush pounding on podium about minorities owning own homes, more than ever before. Should have also mentioned that it is up all across the board.

7.17PM
Bush says that religion is a big part of his life. Good for him. Not denying that it is a part of his policy, or trying to deny his faith influencing him, like Kerry.
Kerry talking about Indian blessing. Now talking about his Christian schooling. More distant past, rather than the near. Talking about "two Americas." Both saying how they respect person's choice to worship or not. Sounds good on that front.

7.21PM
Almost done. Come on. Hurry up!

7.22PM
Bush's lopsided grin is really distracting. Kind of like my brother.
Last question! Huzzah!

7.23PM
Talking about wives and daughters. Bush says he is really lucky to be Laura's husband. I wonder if Kerry will say the same thing. Talking about marrying up! Yes, indeed. Talking about his mother leaving him with the words "integrity, integrity, integrity."

7.27PM
Final statements!
Kerry: We will all have health care! We will have equality! I served in Vietnam! Asks us to be respected in the world. Wants to be president.
Bush: I am optimistic. We have gone through a lot together. Thanks to you, we are doing better. Firm resolve, clear purpose, to fight terror. Spread liberty. Asking for vote.

7.30PM
It is over! On time. At ASU. Stupid school. Lots of girls though. Like, 70+%, according to rumors. I could look it up. But I won't.

Overall:
Well, Bush gets Most Improved. Kerry improved as well, just not as much. Bush did well, but Kerry was on the ball. Bush was as well, but I think this one goes to Kerry. Just because. Bush on offensive more, but defense is a good place to be. Some guy on FOX says that Bush slaughtered Kerry. I will have to differ. Too much foreign policy in a domestic debate.

Well, soon, off to program my Lego robot. Make sure it runs the right course. Enough with this.

Travel Advisory

2004-10-09T19:35:00.000-07:00

Via a link from Nuke France (Look to the right under "Blogroll"):

April 12, 2002

TRAVEL ADVISORY

FRANCE - In the last 18 months there have been over 400 hate crimes against Jewish targets in France including, in recent days, arson attacks against synagogues, Jewish institutions, beatings of Jewish school children and pedestrians and other acts of threats and intimidation in Paris, Marseilles, Lyon and other communities. As a result, the Simon Wiesenthal Center urges Jewish travelers to France to exercise extreme caution while traveling to that country.

BELGIUM - Since the Intifada II, Jews in Belgium have been subjected to threats, intimidations, and attacks including a daylight assault on the Chief Rabbi in Brussels. Many religious Jews no longer feel safe wearing the traditional skullcap in public. As a result, the Simon Wiesenthal Center urges Jewish travelers to Belgium to exercise extreme caution while traveling to that country.

For additional information and further developments, log on to www.wiesenthal.com.

In response to hundreds of inquiries, the Simon Wiesenthal Center is releasing its first ever TRAVEL ADVISORY covering two countries.

I don't recall hearing anything about this in the news back then. (Odd, how the media is all run by the Joooooooooos!) We are now hearing about similar things. This indicates that things are only getting worse. And these are the "civilized" nations of the world.

Debate 2

2004-10-08T22:21:00.000-07:00

Hmmmm...DU says that Kerry obvoiusly won the debate. They are basing this on online polls. Only the most accurate of polling methods, of course, are fit for Democrats, such as these online polls apparently, unlike the Gallup poll. Yup, scientific accuracy is what liberals crave, all right.

That was sarcasm, in case you didn't get it.

I didn't watch the debates, as Kerry is a big fat liar, and I already knows what he is going to say (well, maybe not; he seems to change it an awful lot; I guess I have a 50:50 chance of getting it right); and Bush just plain sucks at getting his message across. I may have to catch the debates later; or I could just listen to Frank J.'s reaction to it. He will be on Republican Radio tomorrow at about 1.45PM EDT (that's 10.45AM PDT/MST). Unless you are in Washington or northern Oregon, you will need to listen on the internet feed at that time.

Oh, and I added Bill Whittle's site back on the blogroll. Go and read his newest essay. Now. In fact, go and read all his essays. Print them out. Bind them some way. I have. You should too.

2004-10-04T20:53:00.000-07:00

I am getting into the habit of this. This posting often thing.

I saw something that really bothered me today. The thing that bothered me is that it is by an author that is normally quite intelligent. And, that there are many other people that feel that way. Mainly people at the Democratic Underground*. Not the most intelligent people at all. Why would a normally rational, even smart person fall into this trap? I do not know. It is all rather tragic. To think that saving troops, or keeping them at home, is better than freeing an oppressed people, whether or not it keeps us safter for our troops to fight elsewhere. And the whole Freudian explanation? Not credible.

I don't give a darn about the "missing" WMD's, or that Iraq and Afganistan are not Germany in less than four years. All that was WMD business was to try to get the UN to join up with us (I don't know why we would want that; the UN had muddled up any conflict they have been in, from Korea on). The United States needs no international body to give it permission to defend its interest. We needed no international help at all to do what we have done. It is helpful to have the cooperation of 30 other countries, especially the full cooperation of Britain. It eases our burden. Nothing else. When we have a bigger, more capable military than the rest of the world combined, we need no help to take out some puny country that we smacked before, and have been keeping down, militarily, since.

My only problem has been the way Bush has been handling it. He fights like the opinions of the rest of the world matters. The only other country it matters to how we fight the war is Iraq. As we have seen with the recent Sammara actions, the Iraqis do not have the same restraints as we do. They are not afraid to even damage a "holy" mosque. Why do we? I say, most of us sane people dont. Just those DU people, and those like them. But then again, they do not like the whole war in the first place. Or, at least, not the "unilateral" way Bush is doing it (no coalition is complete without the frogs and krauts). All too crazy.

*Warning!!! DU is not for the feint of heart (or those who cannot control their tempers)!!

Who are the imperialists?

2004-09-27T10:28:00.000-07:00

You know what really bothers me? When Europeans talk about the Americans being imperialistic. Especially the french. How can they talk about the US being imperialistic, when they themselves are? France still has colonies all over the world, mainly in the Americas. Martiniqe, anyone? And the only places france ever does anything to intervene in anything are its former colonies. Think Chad-Libya.

Just a bit hypocritical, no?

What also really bugs me is when people say that the Middle-East cannot have democracy*. It goes against their culture and history, speak the nay-sayers. I can think of a few places that have democracy now that never had it before. And the US helped them into it. Germany, for instance. Ruled by kings and princes...forever, basically. We all know what happened the first time they tried democracy. When we went in and helped them, it went a lot smoother, wouldn't you agree? Same with Japan. Rigid feudal caste system, for millenia. Then we come in. Look where it is now.

There are many examples of democracy that we didn't have to help along, too. Think Britain and "its" commonwealths, for instance. Indonesia looks to be taking to it quite well, even though it has a Muslim majority, and even with staunch Islamist resistance. You can think of some others.

If all those places can have a democracy, why not Iraq? Why not Afganistan? Just because they are those pore brown peeples? Is democracy only for us rich white folk? I think not. As Japan has shown us, even collectivist societies can embrace a governmental system where the individual can make decisions. And the Middle East is definitely not anywhere near as collectivist as Japan. Why shouldn't we give them a chance to rule their own lives, as opposed to some dictator?

*by democracy I mean constitutional or parliamentary republic

Kid Driving Flying Corvette...

2004-08-27T12:11:00.000-07:00

I recently heard that the add with the boy driving the Corvette got pulled. That was one of the best car commercials ever! It had awesome stunt driving, flying cars, upsidedown cars, everything! Shoot, the only part I don't agree with the little sort of...I don't know...romantic intrest (?) with the little boy and girl. I don't think little boys and girls would, or should, fell that way about each other. But that is a whole other issue. The thing is, some whiny parent groups think that it encourages unsafe behaviour. I know that all underage kids want to drive like that, and will go do it. I mean, in the past seven (7) years, there have been twenty-five (25) fatalities from underaged driving. Big, scary statistics, all making me want to hide under my pillow from fear of little boys driving cars at extreme speeds through pipes...or not. I think it is just rediculous, in my opinion. Except for these frenchies, the commercial had been very favorably recieved. Like I said before, I thought it was really freaking cool. Almost as good as the one where they were throwing stuff out of the back of the trucks at the cars to "Ballroom Blitz" by Sweet. Car company caves to a parent group. Just pathetic.
My only other gripe with this is that the back of the Corvette looks like some dumb 80's sportscar. Love the front. Hate the back.

Why shouldn't we be Fat?

2004-08-10T10:20:00.000-07:00

Boy, it has been a long time....
Anyways, back to the topic...Why shouldn't we be fat? Because it is ugly? Because it is unhealthy? Because it is uncomfortable?
I was crusing around the Blogsphere, and in my usual visit to Tech Central Station, I decided to click on the link to the section on the movie Supersize Me. Those folks must really not like that movie. I can see why. Along the way, I come across the article Food Fights by Sandy Szwarc:

Yes, eating is becoming political. Our government is increasingly adopting the false science of a special interest group intent on making sure we all eat what they think we should -- and look and behave acceptably, too. If we're not careful, this new eugenics will see to it we're no longer free to eat what we want and we'll pay more for the privilege. If this sounds overly dramatic, look at what's already happened.

Hmmmm...seems those that decry the fashion industry for setting unhealthy examples of beauty and warn that the various fad diets can be very unhealthy as well, want us all to be thin and eat certain foods. Oh, and that food pyramid-wrong! Don't listen to us-well, not what we said before, but what we say now.
Why should we let the government tell us how we should eat? It is one of the few things we have absolute, complete freedom in left. If I want to be a fat tub of lard, who has the right to stop me? Hell, it is a place where even kids have the freedom to do what they want. That "bad" stuff tastes really good. Baring mommy and daddy (and the almighty dollar), who is to stop them from eating candy, ice cream, chips, chicken nuggets, and all the other assorted goodies our modern capitalist society wants to sell them? Not me. And not Uncle Sam either.
I have always viewed that particular Uncle as that fun relative that lets you do what you want, baring a few basic rules, but if you break them you get that whipping, stupid kid; not the one that locks you in the house while he reads your diary while eating steak bought with money from your piggie bank.

Fiction (again)

2004-07-01T09:25:00.000-07:00

I am reposting a thing from a little while ago because I didn't get enough response. So do it!

There has been a survey put out by Right Wing News to list your 25 favorite fictional characters. I know it is a bit late, because he already has the results. But I will do it anyways, since I am such a cool guy like that, and I didn't get the memmo, as I am not a particularly big blogger, and I don't visit his site...ever. My mistake. This will be fun, and you should all do it too.
::EDIT::
You should post your replys in your own places and/or comments, either here or my Xanga.

My 25 favorite fictional characters (in no particular order):

Ford Perfect (Hitchiker series)
Mr. Bennet (Pride and Prejustice)
Bender (Futurama)
Mr. Burns
Sideshow Bob
James Bond
James T. Kirk
Indiana Jones
Mara Jade (Star Wars books)
John Clark (from Tom Clancy's books)
Jack Ryan (from the same)
Bill Werden (The Right Kind of War)
K (Men in Black)
Roscharch (The Watchmen)
Wesley (The Princess Bride)
Han Solo
Eomer
Earendil (The Silmarilion)
Bart Simpson
Nikolai Rostov (War and Peace)
Superman
Red Forman (That 70's Show)
The Joker
Captain Zennor ( Star Trek: First Strike)
Anakin Solo

Bomb France?

2004-06-25T09:13:00.000-07:00

This is something I wrote for English after Colin Powel's speach to the UN...if you didn't get that from reading it...

To Go to War with Iraq?

Should we go to war with Iraq? That is the question that has been on the minds of every one who has any interest in world affairs. Many people think that we should. The current administration is in this camp. Many others think that we should not. This includes people all around the world. They each have their reasons for their views. I, personally, do not think we should go to war. I believe that all war is morally wrong. I will support the decisions of the president, however, whatever they may be.

Colin Powel, the Secretary of State, has recently made a speech before the United Nations Security Council. He made a case for going to war, and tried to convince the other nations in the council to agree with him. He gave evidences that Iraq had violated the terms of the UN resolution stating that it must destroy its weapons that are in violation of a resolution made twelve years ago. He also provided evidences that Iraq was testing new weapons, and hiding weapons from inspectors. He stated that Iraq in the past had used these weapons on its own people. He stated that Saddam Hussein, the dictator of Iraq, was willing to use the weapons he has, and that he was the one who ordered their use in the past. With these evidences, I believe that the United States would be justified in using military force to depose Hussein and his lieutenants, and to enforce the destruction of the weapons of mass destruction, and any other illegal weapons, if it should come to that.

Many parties, however, believe that this is not enough evidence to justify military force. These parties include most of the Security Council. They believe that the inspectors need more time to do their work. As of yet, there is not enough evidence to say that Iraq is not complying with regulations.

Many people around the world think that there should be no war at all. Many people in the United States think that we should wait for the inspectors to finish, and that we should not fight without the United Nations. However, I do not think that we should not go to war just because the UN says it will not. The main opposition to force is lead by France and Germany, followed by China and Russia. Siding with this coalition is logically wrong. Russia has problems of its own, including a severe depression in that country and a civil war in Chechnya, and they could ill afford another war. China is the main Communist government left, and it is inherently opposed to the U.S. However, Germany has never sided with France exclusively before, especially against the United States. This leads to suspicion that France is influencing Germany in some unethical way. The most important thing to consider, though, is France.

France should be the only reason necessary to not support not fighting Iraq. Logic suggests that anything that France says against the United States is probably wrong. In fact, France has been a cause of many of the political and social problems in the world in the past hundred years. And any person with sense should see that, in most decisions involving military involvement, France is wrong. I propose that, if anyone should be bombed, it should not be Iraq-though something does need to be done there-it should be France.

To begin with, France should not be involved in military affairs. France has not won a major war without some extraordinary support in the past thousand years. In 1066, the Norman ruler William invaded and conquered England. Because Normandy is in France, one might suppose that a Frenchman had won a war. However, the Normans were Viking conquerors that had been given a country to live in exchange for not destroying France. Little did anyone at the time think that that would be the last time an enemy army set foot in England, French or otherwise.

The power of the Capetian kings grew because the French nobles were killed during the Crusades. They died because they lost, obviously.

The French lost even more battles after that. They lost most of the battles against the English during the Hundred Years’ War. The English king Edward invaded France at Normandy. He and later kings then proceeded to conquer most of the rest of France. Only the aid of one person, Joan of Arc, led the French to their one major victory at Orléans, after which they proceeded to quickly drive the English out of most of the country. It can only be assumed that the French won because Joan was a woman, thus being an extraordinary help; also, she probably bestowed special favors to the most gallant men, which caused them to fight extra hard to get said favors. She was burned at the stake for being a witch. It then took the French more than twenty years to drive the British out of their few remaining strongholds. The English retained the city and port of Calais for over one hundred more years. It should be noted that the English had only about a third of the French forces, and yet were winning for ninety-two years. The English forces were cut off from their homeland, while the French were fighting for theirs. This war also marked the beginning of the rise of the English fleet.

The French would not fight many important wars for the next two or three hundred years. During this period of time France and other countries were forming colonies in the Americas. The French claimed lands from Quebec to the Ohio River, Mississippi River, and beyond. The English wanted the lands around the Ohio River, and also French lands in India. The English started a war with France, in which the French lost almost all of their colonies. When the American colonists rebelled against English rule, the French eventually decided to send aid. The French general Lafayette went to help train the Americans. He was a brilliant trainer, an oddity. And very few actual troops or ships were sent. The French only really had a big impact on the battle at Yorktown, which just happened to be the battle that ended the war, for the most part. The French also fought the English around the world. Even though they were helpful in the American victory, they gained little from it but debt, because they spent all possible funds helping the Americans. This led to the French Revolution, which had a Reign of Terror, in which many of their own citizens were executed (fourteen thousand of the best and brightest, to be exact). The French Revolution ended with a foreigner in control of France, Napoleon.
Some ignorant people may argue that Napoleon was French, and therefore could not be a foreigner to the French. In actuality, Napoleon was a Corsican, an island south of France, which the French had recently occupied. The Corsicans viewed the French as alien invaders, and resisted French rule as much as possible, before the French put a stop to it. Therefore, Napoleon was not French. He was undoubtedly a great general, one unsurpassed by few in the history of the entire world. He led the French army to conquer most of Europe. That is right, the French army. He did have the help of the Prussians after he conquered them, which accounted for the quick victories afterwards. Only nature could defeat him now, as he invaded Russia. This lead to a lesson for future generations: never invade Russia during the winter. After he lost most of his troops, he was pushed back to France, where he was exiled to an island in the Mediterranean. He came back and led another French army, only to be defeated in the Battle of Waterloo. That day he had a fever, so he laid down to rest for one hour. At the beginning he was winning. By the end of that hour the French general he put in charge had lost the battle and ruined Napoleon. Almost any general from any other power could have kept the victory, but few others than the French could have lost it.

The Franco-Prussian War was the next major war in France. The Prussian chancellor Bismarck all but started the war, because his aim was to have a common enemy for all of the German peoples, whom he was trying to unite. France actually started the war. Prussia easily won the war, and France lost Alsace and Lorraine, two important French territories.

The next time France had an opportunity to fight was in the Great War. Germany would have quickly overrun France if it were not for the intervention of the British Army. Even then, the Germans got just outside Paris. When the Germans started moving forces to the Western Front after the Russians surrendered, there was little chance for the Allies to keep from being overrun. When the Germans finally crossed no-man’s-land, only the American aid kept the Germans from Paris, and supported the counterattack. After the war the French were so bitter that they put an unfair burden on Germany to pay for the entire war. But more on that later.

The treaty at the end of the Great War severely limited the German military and industrial potential. Even so, the French built a massive fort along the entire German frontier, the Maginot Line, built to repel any German aggression. When Hitler rose to power, he started to rearm his forces. France did nothing to stop this. France also let Germany invade and occupy Czechoslovakia and Austria. Perhaps this was the point where the white flag became the unofficial main arm of the French armed services? France finally declared war when Germany invaded Poland. After a few months of no fighting, Germany invaded Scandinavia and the Low Countries. It then invaded France north of their “invincible” barrier. They just went around the line! France was conquered in a month. A puppet government was set up in Vichy. This was later taken over by Germany. Thus the entire country was taken over by one that was formerly the loser. The Brits and the Americans again had to come and save the French. Even though the French were losers in that conflict, they got to occupy some of Germany at the end of the war and have some of the spoils.

Even with this record, France was let into NATO. In the 1950’s, the French colonies started rebelling. The first was Indochina. The French could not keep these backward and poorly armed peoples from gaining their independence through force. Another rebellion was much closer to France, in Algeria. The war lasted through the ‘50’s, and was very costly. About 500,000 men were in combat there. The Arabs there still gained their independence through force of arms, and the other colonies were freed through diplomacy. Eventually France left NATO, at least militarily, because it felt that NATO was controlling the destiny of France. It has avoided war since by courting to both sides to keep it out of anything.

France, in its history, has done other things that did not help the world at all. During the Depression, France delayed a moratorium that would have suspended Germany’s reparation payments in hopes that it could get more payments. During the two weeks that France delayed, most of the banks in Germany failed, preventing reparation payments that were used to pay off other debts, causing banks in those countries to fail. Thus, France was the major contributor to the Great Depression in Europe. France was the major cause of the punishment of Germany after the Great War. It wanted Germany weak and poor so it would have no competition on the Continent. France wanted the entire blame for the war placed on Germany, and it was. The resentment of the treaty that made these conditions, the Treaty of Versailles, was a major cause of Hitler rising to power, and thus World War II. As mentioned earlier, France dropped out of NATO (though this might not seem such a bad thing), depriving NATO of valuable bases near where a war would have taken place. The French Revolution set a poor example for future revolutions, making radical revolutions seem the only possible way.

In conclusion, I do not believe that the United States should go to war with Iraq. I do believe that something should be done about Saddam Hussein. I believe that if there can be a diplomatic solution to this problem it should be pursued. I do not think there can be one, however. I do not think we should avoid war because of the opinion of the United Nations, but because avoiding war is the right thing to do. I believe that the focus should not be on Iraq, but should be on France.

China

2004-06-18T14:43:00.000-07:00

It seems China is not too happy with our war on terror. Well, some of it isn't. They see our increasing presence in the region as a potential threat to them, like any good paranoid communist, even though that just happens to be where the terrorists happen to be! ::gasp:: Some see this as an opportunity, though. With our attentions focused elsewhere, they can build themselves up without having to worry about us bothering them too much. They may be way behind us technologically, but they are catching up VERY quickly. We still need to remember that Regan only got rid of one of the Evil Empires.
For a more detailed annalysis, go here.

Fiction

2004-06-16T09:35:00.000-07:00

There has been a survey put out by Right Wing News to list your 25 favorite fictional characters. I know it is a bit late, because he already has the results. But I will do it anyways, since I am such a cool guy like that, and I didn't get the memmo, as I am not a particularly big blogger, and I don't visit his site...ever. My mistake. This will be fun, and you should all do it too.
::EDIT::
You should post your replys in your own places and/or comments, either here or my Xanga.

My 25 favorite fictional characters (in no particular order):

Ford Perfect (Hitchiker series)
Mr. Bennet (Pride and Prejustice)
Bender (Futurama)
Mr. Burns
Sideshow Bob
James Bond
James T. Kirk
Indiana Jones
Mara Jade (Star Wars books)
John Clark (from Tom Clancy's books)
Jack Ryan (from the same)
Bill Werden (The Right Kind of War)
K (Men in Black)
Roscharch (The Watchmen)
Wesley (The Princess Bride)
Han Solo
Eomer
Earendil (The Silmarilion)
Bart Simpson
Nikolai Rostov (War and Peace)
Superman
Red Forman (That 70's Show)
The Joker
Captain Zennor ( Star Trek: First Strike)
Anakin Solo

At a loss...

2004-06-15T12:01:00.000-07:00

I truly am at a loss. I have nothing to say. No one comes here (except Jake), so there really is nothing to debate, as this is expressly what I created this for. Bloody hell. And there is not much going on in the world that hasn't been commented on extensively by those that are linked. Someday I will take some time for my views on environmentalism...but not at the moment...for I have to go...but worry not! for I will have something of some substance!
To my one reader:
Get some more readers! Tell your friends! Huzzah!
I know...I will start some e-mail ads...not spam...but personal invites...good, good.

LOTR vs. Harry Potter?

2004-06-07T15:04:00.000-07:00

It truely has been a long time, hasn't it? There hasn't been much for me to say, as it has all pretty much been said before. You know, same ol', same ol'. Well, onward!

LOTR vs. Harry Potter?

Who will win? Well, obviously...it's not as cut-and-dry as you might think. They really can't be compared too much. One is a fantasy story in a fantasy setting. The other is in a world much like our own, with the same political system, same geography. Harry Potter depends on magic to do just about anything. Can the wizards solve any of their problems without magic? Harry can't even handle his non-magical family without magic (which, by the way, he's not allowed to do). The government controls magic and magic users. There are a few holes in the background history, such as what of magic users in wars? In other "secret" organizations, such as MI6? Is there a magical equivilant of James Bond?

LOTR takes place in another world. It cannot be subject to those sorts of questions. Magic in the sense of Harry Potter magic is not a major part of the story. Even Gandalf the Wizard only uses his magic in the most dire of circumstances, with the exception being the fireworks at Bilbo's party.

The main characters cannot be much compared either, at least not on the same level. Harry, and the other Hogwarts kids, are easier to identify with than the characters in LOTR because of the fact that they are teenagers, going through much of the same problems that we all have to go through, while most of us don't go on epic journeys to save the world...Frodo (although not depicted this way in the movie) is a fifty-plus year old Hobbit from the Shire, far away from the rest of the world. Most of the rest of the Fellowship consists of princes, and the rest of the Hobbits are relatives in some way to Frodo, who himself is a celebrity, a kind of prince. Not everyday fare, no?

There are a few places where the arguements are much better put than here. Go to here and here.

On "News Coverage as a Weapon"

2004-05-17T14:59:00.000-07:00

I would like to point everyone to the Belmont Club today. It had a most interesting piece on war casualties and victory. I will include an excerpt here. Go and read the whole thing.

Historian John Terraine notes that unit casualty rates during the Civil War were close to those experienced by the British Army on the Somme. The 1/Newfoundland Regiment lost 84 % of its men on that fatal July 1, 1916. But the 1st Texas Regiment lost 82.3% in Antietam and the 1st Minnesota lost 82% at Gettysburg. Nor were these exceptional. "In the course of the Civil War 115 regiments (63 Union and 52 Confederate) sustained losses of more than 50 percent in a single engagement". Losses during World War 2 were just as brutal. Although the average loss per individual mission was often under 5% for the pilots who flew in the British Bomber Command, the fact that they flew 30 missions per tour meant a crew had less than a 1 in 4 chance of completing it. Once you signed on, there was a 75% statistical chance you wouldn't survive. Nor were these estimates far from the truth. Almost sixty percent of Bomber Command, a total of 55,000 men, were killed. They had an easy time compared to German U-boat crewmen, who lost 630 men out of every thousand. Nations required a huge pool of manpower and high birthrates to sustain losses on this scale. Russia alone suffered twenty million deaths during World War 2. Even Yugoslavia, a country whose role in the conflict is hardly remembered as central, lost 1.6 million killed. Defeat in that conflict came to those whose armies were driven from the field, whose cities were reduced to rubble and whose manpower resources could no longer continue the struggle.

Viewed in this context, the American "defeat" in Iraq projected by the press must be understood as being something wholly different from anything that has gone before. The 800 odd US military deaths suffered since the start of Operation Iraqi Freedom a year ago are less than the number who died in the Slapton Sands D-Day training exercise in 1944. The campaign in Iraq has hardly scratched American strength, which has in fact grown more potent in operational terms over the intervening period. Nor has it materially affected the US manpower pool or slowed the American economy, which is actually growing several times faster than France, which is not militarily engaged. The defeat being advertised by the press is a wholly new phenomenon: one which leaves the vanquished army untouched and the victor devastated; the economy of the vanquished burgeoning and that of the victor in destitution; the territory of the loser unoccupied and that of the winner garrisoned. It is an inversion of all the traditional metrics of victory and defeat. That the assertion is not instantly ludicrous is an indication of the arrival of a new and potentially revolutionary form of political wafare.

Why I do this

2004-05-14T14:17:00.000-07:00

I already have a blog on Xanga. I don't have to do this one. But mypetjawa put it best, I think:

Like many bloggers I see this space as an extension of the alter-ego. My blog is a place where my mean-spiritedness can have a home.

Yes, that is exactly why I do this.

What to do with them?

2004-05-12T16:13:00.000-07:00

What can we do with them?
How can we possibly bring justice to Nick Berg?
We can't.
It seems like we won't try, either.
The next time someone says that we got what we had coming to us from the Abu Garhib thing...
Maybe those people are on their side. The side of the terrorists. Some Iraqis were stripped and humiliated. The idiots who did it are getting the justice they deserve. Somehow, I just don't get how such things are eqitable to decapitating a man with a knife. Call me racist, but those towelheads deserve a bit more than that. They won't, as no human being, including myself, would, could do anything worse. Of course, we could always find some sub-human to do it. I mean, they did it to an innocent man. It obviously wouldn't be so bad. They took a movie for all to see.
At least the MP's had the balls (if not the brains) to show their faces.
For something a bit more coherent, go here.

Bush screwing China?

2004-05-11T15:18:00.000-07:00

It seems that Bush's immigration policies (or lack thereof)could possibly be putting a hamper on China's plan to screw with us, should (they say "when") a war take place. China hoped that the influx of illegals-caused by the drug trade, messing up Mexico and driving people here-would cause us to tighten the border and mess up our relations with Mexico. They didn't count on us just letting them in like the border was the gate to Disneyland. Go to this site and get the full scoop.

What is with those Arabs...

2004-05-10T15:45:00.000-07:00

What the bloody hell?!

If I hear of those bloody Arabs complaining about Abu Ghraib or whatever the hell that prison is one more time, I might just take an M-60 and gun down all those idiots! It's OK for you guys to pull all this ethnic-cleansing, but it is an outrage for your jihadis to have humiliating pictures taken of them? Or was it that it was a WOMAN that did it? Can't have those blights on humanity (females) disrespecting men, can we? Women like that get stoned in ArabLand.

"Religion of Peace"? Bull! Blacks in Sudan (and now Chad) are getting killed by Sudanese government troops and Muslim militia. But that's OK, as they are Infidels, and thus it is God's will that they all be killed. I'm glad that someone has the balls to kill those towel-heads...too bad our government can't. I think it's funny that a third-world country can field a fighting force so quickly at it's borders that is skilled enough to have a 60-1 kill ratio...maybe we should hire some of those guys and send them to Fallujah...

You might think this is racist...you might be right...I don't particularly like a group of people that is out to kill me and everyone else unlike them...so sue me. At least we're not in france (which still is not obeying me, by the way), where I probably would get sent to prison for voicing any views against Islam.

2004-05-06T16:17:00.000-07:00

This is something from T.A.I.R. (See the link over there->).
I didn't write it, so pardon the language:

OK, We Lied...
There IS actually something more that needs to be said.

How can we resist when LC Evil Otto presents us with one of his personal and inimitable Fiskings? No, don't bother, we can't.

So here it is, LC Evil Otto goes medieval on Rrraalphhh... Take it away, Otto:

(Hit the "Give us more, O Caesar!..." for the rest. You know the drill)

Give us more, O Caesar! »

Hey there, kiddies, it's Ted Rall time! Do you all have your barf bags? You're gonna need 'em!

AN ARMY OF SCUM

With a name like that, it's got to be good.

By Ted Rall

Voted 2004's Leftist Fuckwits Illustrated's MOST LIKELY TO BE MYSTERIOUSLY RUN OVER BY AN ABRAMS TANK.

Or, We're Looking For a Few Good Homosexual Rapists

I think you made a mistake, Ted, and posted your personal ad instead of your column.

NEW YORK--Now it's official: American troops occupying Iraq have become virtually indistinguishable from the SS.

You can tell by the way they wear black uniforms with skulls, slaughter Jews, and repeatedly invade Poland. Nope, no difference there...

Like the Germans during World War II, they cordon off and bomb civilian villages to retaliate for guerilla attacks on their convoys. Like the blackshirts who terrorized Europe, America's victims

Those, poor, poor "victims," whose only crime is shooting at American soldiers, bombing them, and occasionally dragging the mutilated bodies of Haliburton "mercenaries" through the streets.

disappear into hellish prisons ruled by sadists and murderers. The U.S. military is short just one item to achieve moral parity with the Nazis: gas chambers.

And when they're built, Ted, you'll be the first one in. There are quite a few people who'll see to that. (Whistling quietly)

"Numerous incidents of sadistic, blatant and wanton criminal abuses were inflicted on several detainees" by soldiers, freelance mercenaries and professional torturers under the command of CIA intelligence officers at Baghdad's Abu Ghraib prison, according to an internal government report.

"Take my word for it! What, you want actualy evidence? I'm Ted Rall!!! Would I lie?"

The detainees, about 60 percent of them assumed to be innocent by the Americans themselves

Because the military has nothing better to do than to arrest random Iraqis and imprison them for long peoriods of time. The military just loves babysitting.

were routinely beaten, sodomized "with a chemical light or broomstick," urinated upon, tied to electrified wires and threatened with death, stripped and forced to perform homosexual sex acts on each other and U.S. troops.

...But enough of Ted's fantasies.

Don't be fooled by military apologists who insist that these American SS are nothing more than a few bad apples. Seymour

Butts.

Hersh,

Oh.

who has read the army's internal report, quotes Major General Antonio Taguba as saying that U.S.-committed atrocities are "systemic, endemic throughout the command structure...[The soldier-torturers] were being told what to do and told it was OK."

So let me get this straight; Ted hasn't actually read the reports himself. He's just taking someone else's word for it.

True, most soldiers probably don't condone torture.

OH, THANK YOU TED!!! Thank you sooooo much for your heartfelt, half-assed little disclaimer. Y'know, I've heard that most left-wing political cartoonists probably don't like being ass-raped by gorillas, but...

But all soldiers have been tarnished by it.

And here we have the "but." There's always one, isn't there? Yes, Ted Rall, that famous, patriotic supporter of our troops is going to tell us what tarnishes them. Ted Rall, who called for the deaths of American troops, is worried now about their reputations.

George W. Bush's new gulag archipelago,

Y'know, the irony of a leftist fuckwit like Rall whining about gulags is enough to make me vomit everything I've eaten for the last twelve years.

a string of concentration camps,

...Where prisoners are housed, fed well, and given access to their religion. Yes, real concentration camps. Just like the Jews suffered.

military and INS prisons that span the globe from North Carolina to Iraq to Afghanistan

Wait. We've built prison camps where the actual war is being fought?!?!? Are we INSANE? What's next; are we going to imprison the people fighting against us?

to Guantánamo Bay to New York City, has been designed to give torturers the veil of secrecy they require to carry out their hideous acts as well as the tacit understanding that they won't be held accountable. The Red Cross, defense lawyers and relatives of the victims, few of whom are charged with a crime,

Few of the Red Cross, defense lawyers, and family members are charged with a crime?

are denied access to the detainees or even the simple confirmation that they're being held by our government.

And I'm, like, all broken up over that. Really. Those poor, poor terrorists. Oh, sure, when they have a war, it's always the terrorists who suffer.

Some soldiers, like Sergeant Ivan Frederick II, "questioned some of the things I saw,"

...Like the UFO crash in Bagdhad. Which the Bush administration covered up.

such as "leaving inmates in their cell with no clothes or in female underpants,

OK, now I've got to admit, that is pretty horrible. Who would want to see these ugly, bearded fucks in frilly panties?
The Bush administration has much to answer for if they're inflicting that sight on our soldiers.

handcuffing them to the door." But when he discussed these abuses with his superiors, he says they brushed him off: "This is how military intelligence wants it done."

Oh. My. God. Do you mean to tell me, Ted, that the intelligence services are being mean? Those bastards. They should have offered the terrorists tea and crumpets and asked (politely) if they could maybe tell us about what they were planning and who their friends are. I mean, if they feel up to it and aren't too depressed because of the last episode of Iraqi Idol, in which Ahmed was voted off (and shot) even though he was CLEARLY the most talented.

As proven by the classic psychological experiments of the '50s, people put in a position of total power over another human being find it hard to resist abusing their charges.

Keep that in mind, Ted, if you ever go to prison. (cracking knuckles)

Prison guards mistreat inmates for a simple reason: they can. Wherever one controls another, sadism is inevitable.

There's an easy solution. Simply abolish all prisons. That'd work, right Ted? (I shouldn't say that; he'd probably agree with me.)

However, this tragic truism can be mitigated by creating mechanisms to ensure transparency behind bars. Granting prisoners access to attorneys, journalists

...Dog catchers, their crack dealers, Miss Mary Martin's pre-school class, the Pope, and Count Chocula.

and other members of the outside world, unannounced inspections by human rights agencies,

Who never, ever have an agenda or an axe to grind.

recognizing their rights under the Geneva Conventions

Which they violated by fighting out of uniform, which means that (according to the Geneva Convention) they don't HAVE any rights.

and rigorous prosecutions of criminal guards can never entirely eliminate abuse, but they're essential to prisons run by democratic societies.

If ony Ted were as furious at the, y'know, TERRORISTS as he is at the "criminal guards."

We know about Abu Ghraib only because the inbred psychos who forced nude Iraqi men to pile up in pyramids were dumb enough to snap photographs as mementos of their time liberating the nation from Saddam. It's like the Rodney King video: cops beat up blacks every day, but there usually isn't a camera around.

Other than on their squad cars, in the hands of pretty much every citizen, on cell phones, in convienience stores, and pretty much everywhere else.

Abu Ghraib, you can bet your bottom dollar,

... that tomorrow, they'll be sun! Oh, sorry, thought Ted was slipping into Annie mode there. I just wanted to sing along.

is merely the tip of the iceberg. Our military is structurally corrupt. Beginning in Afghanistan during the weeks after 9/11, civilian command yielded to the amoral gangster mentality of the arrogant intelligence officers of Army Special Forces and the CIA, who stand accused of massacring thousands of captured Taliban prisoners

"Accused?" By whom, Ted? You?

yet have never faced a real investigation. The new tone of lawlessness comes all the way from the White House, directed by a commander-in-chief who starts illegal wars without justification,

This, from Ted Rall, who doesn't even think the Afghanistan war was justified. Hello, Ted?!?!? 9-11? Ring a bell?

strips captured prisoners of their rights under the Geneva Convention and whose smirky fingers-crossed response to the prisoner abuse scandal--"I shared a deep disgust that those prisoners were treated the way they were treated...Their treatment does not reflect the nature of the American people"--sends a wink and a nudge to our uniformed torturers. Keep it up, boys. Keep those broomsticks busy.

You're next, Ted.

Even our coalition partners are getting the message. British soldiers running a coalition gulag in Basra reported smashing the jaw and teeth of an Iraqi accused of stealing, then dumping the broken body of the accused thief off the back of a moving truck. "They did not know whether he survived," writes The New York Times.

You're right, Ted. they should have followed iraqi law and dealt with the thief in that way. A question, though: what should they have done with his hand after they chopped it off?

One more Iraqi, it seems, who won't be tossing roses at his liberators.

Yes, that's the reason we're over there: to receive the roses of thieves.

2004-05-05T15:33:00.000-07:00

Here is some fun stuff I found at IMAO.
USMC Rules for Gunfighting
1. Be courteous to everyone, friendly to no one.
2. Decide to be aggressive ENOUGH, quickly ENOUGH.
3. Have a plan.
4. Have a back-up plan, because the first one probably won't work.
5. Be polite. Be professional. But, have a plan to kill everyone you meet.
6. Do not attend a gunfight with a handgun whose caliber does not start with a "4."
7. Anything worth shooting is worth shooting twice. Ammo is cheap. Life is expensive.
8. Move away from your attacker. Distance is your friend. (Lateral and diagonal movement are preferred.)
9. Use cover or concealment as much as possible.
10. Flank your adversary when possible. Protect yours.
11. Always cheat; always win. The only unfair fight is the one you lose.
12. In ten years nobody will remember the details of caliber, stance, or tactics. They will only remember who lived.
13. If you are not shooting, you should be communicating or reloading.
14. Someday someone may kill you with your own gun, but they should have to beat you to death with it because it is empty.
15. And above all ... don't drop your guard.

2004-05-04T14:29:00.000-07:00

I broaden my definition of terrorist to include those that support terrorists in any way. This would make basically all "Palestinians" to be terrorists. What kind of pigs celebrate in the streets when a bunch of Israli women and children get killed by a terrorist suicide bomber? It would be natural that terrorists would. Mission successful, right? Well, who are? The PALESTINIANS!

2004-05-03T15:16:00.000-07:00

I have decided that I will teach my children to shoot. All of them. Starting from a young age. And my wife, if she is not already so empowered. Myself comes first, as I should have ample time before I have to worry about those other peoples. I thought that I would get that opportunity in college, but as they don't like weapons, they would have it that some goblin would kill me in some dark alley than I could defend myself. Freakin' Justice hates guns, and look where that got him. Maybe he'll learn, but most likely he won't as those sort of things don't seem to faze the Barking Moonbat Brigade. If I had my way, I could at least carry large bladed weapons to school, if not guns. Those stupid people that would abuse such privilege will quickly die, as the security would be able to do the same if not more. If I had my way, and this is more realistic, I would teach all my friends, especially those more likely to need it. You know who I mean. There is nothing like the sheer power of holding something so awesome in your hands. Of course with that power comes responsibility, and that is what the training is for. And there is not many things as fun as shooting blackpowder, with the strong sulfrous smell in the air. All should have that opportunity.

2004-04-29T00:20:00.000-07:00

Embry-Riddle actually has a policy that states that there can be no guns, ammo, knives, or "any weapons" on campus! What the hell is this uber-liberal policy doing at an aerospace/engineering school?! We're in the middle of nowhereville Prescott, AZ! All sorts of crazies and goblins could be hiding in the desert waiting for some poor, defenseless college kid to prey on. How are we supposed to defend ourselves? I, personally, am bringing my "letter openers." I'll carry them around with me if I have to. Hell, we are all adults. We should be able to handle the responsiblily of a weapon; because if we couldn't, we probably would be dead or locked up already.What if I wanted to start a weapon's club, or a metalworking club? I'll just have to rebel I guess.

2004-04-27T23:51:00.000-07:00

I'm just going to post something from my other blog...

I do hereby declare myself King, Ruler of france. Don't laugh. I'm serious. What are they going to do? Call me names? Surrender? Oooohhh, I'm scared of the white flags. Now, as I am king, I set out a few decrees. First, all current citizens are hereby evicted from wherever they are, and are to move to a state yet to be determined. Second, I do hereby declare that the United States' holding of Saddam Hussein is wrong, and demand that he be released to the protection of france, and that he is to be sovereign governor of the state, to be determined, where all current french citizens are to be moved to. All other terrorists are also invited to this state, where, and only where, they will be free from persecution by french forces. Third, in the spirit of cooperation with the world with the War on Terror, I do hereby invite any nation that wishes to carpet-bomb said state to do so, in order to destroy the fore-mentioned terrorists. Fourth, france officially withdraws from the United Nations. Any current french citizen violating or resisting any of these decrees are declared traitors, and will be executed on sight.

So let it be writen, so let it be done.

2004-04-27T15:14:00.000-07:00

This is from Kim duToit:

Political language -- and with variations this is true of all political parties, from Conservatives to Anarchists -- is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind.
-George Orwel

"Yup.

And when this convention is not followed, of course, one is labeled a fool, or stupid; as though plain-speaking is a deficiency rather than a virtue."

You said it, brother.

2004-04-26T14:58:00.000-07:00

Hopefully someone will help me get something in the way of links and stuff. That way I can really get on with my conservative schenanigans.

2004-04-26T00:14:00.000-07:00

Hello, and welcome to france's new, official blog, courtesey of the king himself. One thing you may notice is that france will never, EVER, be capitalized. That is, until I actually go to that stinkhole and take my rightful place. They don't seem to believe that they have to listen to someone that isn't there, that they haven't even heard of. Damn frenchies. I'll show them.
Basically, this site is for my political commentaries and such, as it seems my friends don't appear to like it too much. Well, now they won't get to hear my kingly comments about such things unless they come here. Boy, will they be missing out.