These Peripheral Devices Are So Stupid

The reason people play video games is to simulate real life. Now, this means that they want some degree of attachment away from reality. Obviously if you had to actually, you know, learn how to operate a controller that simulated a real gun perfectly just to play Doom, we wouldn't have one of the best selling games ever. That's why for console games, whose goal is to entertain you while you're lying on a couch in front of a TV, ease of use of controllers is important.
Well, apparently some new developers aren't getting that message. While bad game input devices have littered history (Power Glove, anyone?), some newer developers (and some older ones who've been in this business for a long time) still haven't learned their lesson yet: too many of the peripheral devices released have too limited purposes.
An example of a relatively useful peripheral would be the DDR pad. Yes, it only works for one type of game, but it works for the entire genre. A bad example that's coming out soon, however, are the different instruments for Rock Band. Guitar Hero's use of a guitar peripheral makes sense because the guitar could simulate a bass as well, but having drums, guitars, and microphones all bundled with one game is going to be extremely expensive, not to mention as burdensome as the Steel Battalion add-on.
Worse still are Nintendo with their Wii add-ons. Do we really need a case so that the wiimote looks like a gun? Link's sword? These aren't items that help game play in any way, and all they do is make your product look like a cheap gimmick.
So lay off all of these peripheral devices. They're only hurting your product, and they're damaging the essence of video games.

Drug Laws Increase Possession Among Minors

The goal of government is to do as the people wish it to. However, like everyone else, the government creates consequences whenever it decides to enact laws. Some of these consequences are very much intentional: laws against murder, for example, are intended to stop people from killing others. Other consequences, however, are completely unintended, and can cause havoc with people’s lives as well as various societal and economic institutions. One law in India that paid a bounty for rat pelts, intended to reduce the number of rats, has ended up encouraging rat farming. These problems are categorized under the law of unintended consequences: despite the best efforts of any organization or government, certain consequences of their actions will be unintended and will end up having adverse affects on people. This is especially true in the case of laws preventing individuals from engaging in voluntary behavior that may harm them.

The most obvious case of laws intended to protect people going wrong is that of anti-drug legislation. While intended to prevent people from using drugs, which have adverse health effects, the current “War on Drugs” and anti-drug legislation has ended up creating a bigger drug problem, with stronger cartels, more sales to minors, and a host of unintended consequences. While intended to decrease the amount of illegal drugs sold and to stop its trade, the War on Drugs has failed. By making the drugs illegal, it has limited the sale of such substances to only those involved in already illegal activities, giving gangs a new source of funding.

One unintended consequence of anti-drug legislation has been the increased sale of drugs to minors. Because drug sales are illegal to both adults and minors alike, dealers have no incentive to avoid selling to children. In fact, they have a greater incentive to sell it to minors, because minors are less likely to rat them out, since minors have very few avenues of recourse against the dealers. Because youths are unable to legally purchase weapons, or pursue other judicial means, it becomes much harder for them to retaliate against drug dealers. As such, it becomes safer for drug dealers to sell to minors rather than adults, because it is safer for them personally. If anti-drug legislation were replaced merely with laws allowing only the sale of drugs to adults, dealers have an incentive to not sell to young people. However, because anti-drug legislation considers all sales equally, dealers sell more drugs to minors.

With the increase in drug trade, people are made worse off by the law. Increased drug sales means increased revenue for criminal organizations and gangs. Like in the era of Prohibition, criminal cartels make vast amounts of money selling drugs and circumventing the law. More funding for criminals means more crimes, more murders, deaths, and violence. The problem is especially bad in areas such as the cities, and has even crept into places normally considered far removed from drug problems. Even suburban areas and rural towns now face a drug problem.

There are, of course, better alternatives. Legalizing the sale of drugs will cut off drug dealing as a source of revenue for criminals. Drug users can get treatment, since using drugs will no longer be a crime that they are punished for. People who sell drugs will not sell to minors, because it would be disadvantageous and unprofitable. Legislation that doesn’t restrict drugs entirely, but rather sets a minimum age, would increase individual freedom to use drugs. It would also reduce the current drug problem in the United States, by mitigating the effects of shady criminal dealers with unsafe drugs and ties to members of gangs. The end result is greater freedom for the individual, and a better life for all.

Anger Over Accepting Pesos is Ridiculous

The debate over immigration has shown up in the business world, this time in the form of death threats and angry letters to the owner of a pizza chain in the South and Southwest. The Pizza Patron chain of stores began accepting Mexican pesos as official payment along with United States dollars. All of the change is given in dollars. This is a very common practice in towns that are close to the national borders of the US, like certain stores near the Canadian border who normally accept both American and Canadian dollars.

The difference here is that many of the pizza joints are far from the border, in places like Dallas, more than 400 miles away, and Denver, more than 700 miles. There’s therefore controversy over whether this kind of action would be catering to illegal immigrants from Mexico. This claim, however, is absurd. The stores already have 60% of its customer base as Hispanic, so the likelihood of some of their customers having pesos is very high. This doesn’t mean, however, that any of the customers are necessarily illegal immigrants. It makes perfect sense in Dallas, in Phoenix, in Denver areas far from the border that have significant Hispanic populations.

The money they’re trying to pull in isn’t in huge quantities, so it would have been inconvenient to convert it back to dollars on the way back. Chances are the pesos would have gone around simply sitting in somebody’s sock drawer and have been unused. If the company wants to make more money this way, then let them do it. Don’t drag them into a debate over illegal immigration just because they’re accepting some foreign currency.

Freedom of Speech? Hardly.

They’re small, confined areas surrounded by cage wire, usually designed to look like detention centers. They’re used on dissidents against the current presidential administration as well as the protestors of the government at large. People are often crowded inside of them, shackled or handcuffed to each other, and left there for hours and sometimes even days without a real reason for arrest. They have been used as political tools to suppress popular protest against the leaders of the economic and political world internationally. Democrats can usually be found within them. This description isn’t of the jail cells at Guantanamo Bay, but rather so called “free speech zones” put up across the country for protestors across the nation at major international summits and meetings of world leaders.

These zones, more accurately described as cages, are an affront to the American way of life. Their purpose isn’t crowd control, as so often cited by police departments around the world. While many supporters of the meetings and summits are allowed to stay next to or very close to the location of the meeting or convention of world leaders, freedom of speech cages are oftentimes kept up to half of a mile away from the intended locations of the conventions, parades, and summits. Their most prominent use these days is political: freedom of speech zones are often placed at locations in which President Bush intends to appear, in order to allow local authorities and the Secret Service to take out individuals with anti-Bush apparel or posters to locations far away from the press and the President. In other words, these cages are used as nothing more than places to put away people who disagree with the President so that the media manages to avoid showing actual opposition to Bush and instead ends up portraying the President as if he actually had popular support from the people.

On what grounds are these protest zones even legal? The justifications are very shaky at best. Many times police will simply arrest people who refuse to go such zones with charges of trespassing, despite the fact that in these cases those arrested will oftentimes be surrounded by supporters of the President. At one incident in Pittsburgh, at which the Presidential motorcade made a stop in 2002, a 65 year old- retiree was singled out from a crowd of hundreds and ordered to go to a baseball field one third of a mile out of the way, simply because his sign criticized the Bush Administration’s policy towards the poor. It was, of course, much easier to send that retired worker away than to actually face the criticism.

The only federal law used to justify these cases is one that is so rarely used that it is hardly known to anyone. This law allows the Secret Service to arrest people who willfully enter areas cordoned off for the President. Regardless of what statutes or laws used to justify the zones, several trials at many levels of federal courts on the subject have ruled that restricting people at major appearances of the President simply by the content of their protest is illegal, and yet it’s still done anyway. Freedom of speech zones are in direct violation of judicial authority in this nation. Allowing them to continue will only help to undermine the US court system’s authority.

But even more so, these zones fundamentally undermine the United States Constitution. Not only does the First Amendment to the Constitution not come with a qualifier that says that “this law only applies to cages set up far away from public notice,” but it specifically prohibits Congress and by extension the federal government from violating the freedom of speech. No federal law can therefore be used to justify sending people out of the way to exercise their rights inside of cages and far away from the media. But even worse is the implication that this has for freedom of speech in general. If freedom of speech is only limited, as implied by the name, to those specific areas at all times, does it mean that we live in a country where we can’t exercise our inalienable constitutional rights unless we’re confined to prison-like conditions? What good are these rights if the only place we can exercise them is in cages? What kind of message does it send to the world when America proclaims that the only place in which you can truly be free is inside of a chain linked cell?

The only conceivable reason that these zones could possibly be used under any circumstance is extreme crowd control. But this is clearly not the case, as every event in which the Presidential motorcade or a summit of world leaders in the United States occurs requires these zones. They are nothing more than political tools for those in power to both ignore and silence their critics from the American people. At the very best they highlight the incompetence of police departments in being able to control protestors. At the worst they exist as physical affronts to the United States Constitution and to Americans as a whole. The freedom of speech zone is a concept that must be eliminated immediately, because every time one is used, it sends out a message to the rest of the world: America is no longer the land of the free, no longer the land of opportunity or self-expression. Instead, America becomes a land of irony where the only true way to be free is to be imprisoned in cages.

NJ Ruling Does Nothing for Republicans

It would appear that the Republican Party is grasping at straws. They are seeking any possible reason to try and rally their conservative base. The recent ruling in the New Jersey Supreme Court that gay couples have the same legal and financial rights as heterosexual ones is their latest attempt to try and garner some votes from their demoralized supporters. It’s not going to work this time, unlike in 2004, because the issue has already been played out, and because it’s seen clearly as a ploy by the Republicans to simply gather more votes, not to do anything on the issue.
The biggest reason that this issue isn’t going to work is because the court actually stopped short of getting into the “gay marriage” issue by not mandating the state give that title to unions for gay couples. This means that the ruling doesn’t necessarily offend anyone in particular. In fact, very few social conservatives will be that concerned, since bigger issues like the war in Iraq and health care play on their minds. Gay marriage seems like a small issue compared to those, especially when it’s not actually involving the word marriage.
Another reason why the New Jersey ruling won’t seriously affect change in the polls is because of the damage and fallout from the Mark Foley scandal. This scandal has been a big, big problem for the Republicans. It managed to obscure the news of the launching of nuclear weapons by North Korea. It’s hurting the Republicans on this issue now. The party is seen as the one who harbored a homosexual pedophile. Regardless of their views on gay marriage, conservatives are now much less likely to vote with their party, or at all.
What this all means is that the Republican Party’s attempts to try and make this whole ruling a big issue will fail. They’re not likely to excite their base anymore after Mark Foley. The chances of them winning the House and Senate elections are now slimmer than ever, and committing themselves to this issue is not going to help them one bit.

Russian Nukes for Sale, Terrorists Inquire Within

On September 26, 2006, is a day that you should learn about. Had the judgement of one man failed, the world as we know it would no longer exist. In fact, the world as we know it would consist of the smoldering nuclear ashes of the US and the Soviet Union. That man was Stanislav Petrov, and he stopped a nuclear retaliation against a faulty warning by the USSR’s computer systems. Unfortunately, if our current policy towards former Russian nuclear scientists continue, no one man will be able to stop nuclear destruction.

The problem is that since that day onwards, the Soviet Union has ceased to exist. However, their nuclear arsenal, still ready to be used at a moment’s notice and powerful enough to wipe cities off the map, are readily available. Compounding the problem of shoddy security, corruption, and the general unworthy character of the Russians is the fact that Russian nuclear scientists are unemployed and willing to work for very low pay. How low? Al Qaeda could afford to hire them.

Now, it doesn’t take a genuis to realize that starving Russian nuclear specialists + terrorists with money = nuclear terrorists. Clearly then, since a nuclear program by a terrorist organization would be catastrophic, the United States, in its vaulted war on terror, would be working to stop these Russian scientists from not having work? Not anymore. Now with no program in place to hire former Soviet scientists, their knowledge goes to the top bidder, and despite the elapsed time, Soviet nuclear technology is still as potent as it once was.

What I’m saying is this: that the if Russian scientists are not given employment, they will do anything to get money to feed their families and themselves. People are willing to survive no matter what the cost, even if it means giving terrorists the technology to make 9/11 look like a game of paintball. What I ask, then, is that you never cease to remember that should effort be made to contain this threat the world will literally end.

This isn’t hard to do. It’d take less money than funding the Iraq War and does more to make the world safer. So why aren’t we doing it?

Alex Zhao is foxchasefive’s self-appointed expert on nuclear proliferation.

Stop Rioting. It's not that bad

The pope quoted a medieval author, saying something like the Muslims have only brought evil upon the world. Something along those lines, I’m not really quite sure. But the fact remains is, after the apology and re-explanation from the pope, many Muslims are still up, demanding for the pope’s apology, after receiving one. I for one am completely against those who protest against the Muslims on this one. Not only because the Muslims, who want to prove they are not evil, are causing riots and advocating a holy war against the west, but the fact that the Muslims aren’t treated that badly. One statement by a religious figure is not enough to cause a huge riot.

I know some of you may think, “Well, what would you do if your beliefs were attacked?” For that, I say fuck you. I’m an Atheist/Agnostic. I’m treated like crap. They don’t like us in the military. Something like, “There is never an Atheist in a foxhole.” Only recently have they allowed the atheist to have something on their grave stone. The Jews have a star. The Christians have the cross. And I finally get the Atom. But even with that, the atheists are treated far worse. Many people state that the Atheists are just a bunch of communists. Recent surveys indicate that Atheists are on the bottom of the trusted totem pole. This puts them below gays, terrorists, Muslims, and Jews. This basically means that an Atheist will never hold office. At least until this religious period passed.

What does this exactly mean? When was the last time an Atheist waged a war because their beliefs were attacked? Repeatedly, we’re stomped on and distrusted, even if we advocate the separation of church and state. Many atheists wouldn’t even agree if the words, “There is no god,” was inscribed everywhere. Unlike several radials located in the US, who believe that if we don’t like it here, we can just pack up and leave for China. So apparently, we’re fairly reasonable people. And I say fairly, because there’s always the communist thingy, which I also don’t agree on. But the main point is, we don’t walk around with AK-47s about it. Or any weapon for that matter.

Naturally, I give sympathy to those who are not militant, and would rather get on with their lives rather than be screened for plastic explosives.

Now, I believe that Islam is a fairly peaceful religion. The Jihad is something that happens when an intruder comes in and destroys thing. It’s something that you do in order to protect yourself (Correct me if I’m wrong, but that’s what I’ve picked up so far). However, this entire, “protect yourself,” doesn’t exactly seem to coincide with the definition of the Holy War. Neither does the outrage against the Pope’s quote. If anything, the Muslims should be pissed off at history.

Then again, what does that say about Atheists?

It was worse back then, granted. The Medieval ages were very Christian oriented, and Heresy was a big topic.

Yet even so, Atheists seem to remain fairly peaceful people. The Muslims in America at least get funding for their religious organizations. The Atheists get nothing. Yet we don’t blow shit up about it, and we don’t raise riots. We don’t go out to anger the other side. Get on with your freaking life; you have more important things to worry about. You have to worry about food, water, and shelter. Your kids. Your house. And if it means anything to you, the people kicking down your door too.

THAT'S FALSE ADVERTISING!

False Advertising

False advertising is a crime in the United States. However, this is run by politicians. So does false advertising apply to politicians as well? What happens of a politician directly slanders and lies at another? Does this count as false advertising? So say you’re running for president, and the other person directly attacks you. The attack is based only on false information, saying that you were a drug dealer. Or that you had a bastard child. Or even worse, they said you were an atheist(1). So you two are going at it, and there’s a lot of people who were going to vote for you. However, after the opposing party ran these false claims, you suddenly have a drop in votes. Is this illegal? Should I be able to directly attack my opponent with things I pull out of my ass? If you said no, then I demand George Bush be impeached.

If you paid attention to Bush’s run for primaries back in 01, you know that John McCain was one of the fore runners in the republican primaries. John McCain. Nice guy. He was a captured pilot. He knows how to run the military. He knows what’s going on. Since he’s in air force, he’s intelligent enough to do whatever he really wants.

For the start of the run, McCain schooled Bush in both Iowa and New Hampshire. In an act of desperation, Bush started spreading rumors about him, saying he had an illegitimate child with a black woman. This caused a lot of, “Moral,” Americans to switch their primary votes from McCain to George Bush. Now how is this moral? Aren’t we all about a fair race between two presidents? Instead of getting calls saying, “Would you vote for McCain if you knew he was fathering a bastard(2) child?” This, my friend, is direct propaganda. For one thing, McCain did not father a bastard child. He adopted a child. But just the entity itself was proof enough for everybody to agree with George Bush’s campaign team.

John McCain also came out with something like….

"I hate the gooks, and I will hate them for as long as I live . . . and you can quote me."

Now, gook looks no where close to chink, but you could just as easily twist that and say that McCain is a pretty racist son of a bitch. Personally, I think he’s pretty moderate because he doesn’t exactly hate all Asians. If I was a downed fighter pilot and was tortured for 4 years, I’d be one pissed off person.

What is sad that Bush’s campaign worked. Not only did he win the Republican primaries, but he also took a large percentage of Americans as fools. Everybody knows that nobody reads the news. Fox Chase Five and Pamphlets probably accounts for 3% of the population who reads the news. By playing the card of ignorance, he stole the republican primaries, and ran away with Presidency.

_________________

(1)Atheist: Apparently, they would vote for a gay Muslim before they would vote for an Atheist.

(2)bastard: You know, pregnancy before marriage?

Halliburton

Halliburton

One may wonder why we went into the Iraq war. All leads we have linking Saddam and Al Qaeda only uncover distrust between the two. Saddam’s WMDs have disappeared; his nuclear program has been air-struck by Israel. All of his large purchases relating to nuclear weapons have uncovered, “scams,” of red mercury. Morality is low in the Intelligence Agency. So why did we go into Iraq? After some digging, some very suspicious links started to appear.

For one, Halliburton seems to have just as much dirt on them as Wal-Mart. That in itself is a little scary.

During a time of war, it is not unusual for an arms contractor to have a sudden stock jump. But further research indicated that one of the companies that profited the most happens to be Halliburton. When you link company with politician, it turns up with the name Dick Cheney, who had retired during the year of 2000. In 2001, he ran with George Bush for presidency. While some may state that Halliburton had a very small profit margin, the fact of the matter is that Halliburton’s stock jumped from 9 measly dollars, to a stunning 69. Coincidence? So one would hope. Connect the dots and something strange appears. That or I should take off my tin foil hat.

The thing that surprises me the most is the benefits Cheney gets from Halliburton. This includes somewhere between 50,000 to 150,000 dollars worth of pension, and 18 million dollars worth of stock. The fact that he’s donating all 18 million dollars worth of stock to a charity seems to be the shadiest thing out of all. For one thing, it mirrors the RIAA, “Sympathy,” case. In this case, the sympathy donation is just there to clean up the image. The entire fact that the Republicans killed an investigation of Halliburton’s military profits just seems a little…..strange. The more you dig, the stranger it gets. The fact that Halliburton won with a low bid seems strange. But Cheney’s bribery actions as the CEO of Halliburton as well as the evidence stated linking Saddam and WMDs just makes the hole deeper.

Bomb Thy Neighbor

Hey everyone, I’m alive and this will probably be the first of many posts from me until I make friends out here and start being more socially active. Los Angeles is fine and all, but I miss you guys a lot. Well, some of you. You know who you are. My new school has a more diverse student body than RHS (gasp). Oh, and if you think that knowing Khalil will prepare you for dealing with black people, you are dead wrong.

Anyway, lots of things happened over the summer. For one thing, Israel invaded southern Lebanon. Let’s go over that whole situation, shall we? Hamas took an Israeli soldier captive, follow by Hezbollah capturing two more Israeli soldiers. Both organizations wanted negotiations, but Israel went on the offensive. A brave and assertive move, I would say, but someone at Israeli high command needs to be fired. At. With rifles. Everything went wrong. In Lebanon, Israel started the attack by spending a week destroying bridges, power plants, water plants, airports, highways, and otherwise crippling the infrastructure of the country. Afterwards, they started moving ground troops, who should have been able to defeat Hezbollah’s guerilla fighters easily. Instead, Hezbollah lost about 1 man for every 3 Israeli troops. Civilian-wise, however, the Lebanese suffered greater losses, with about 10 times more than Israel. One might point out that Israel told the Lebanese people to leave their homes, but didn’t the Israelis stay put whenever they were attacked in the past? Exactly. Unfortunately, Israeli’s goal of rescuing its troops was not accomplished and now they are in the process of withdrawing their ground forces from southern Lebanon. Hopefully the UN negotiators sent by Kofi Annan, Secretary-General of the UN, can do something about the captives. Oh, and speaking of the UN, they actually did something more than just talking. A UN peacekeeping force is being deployed along the Israeli-Lebanese border, mostly comprised of French, Italian and Turkish soldiers.

Ok, that’s it from me. I’ll go be anti-social now.

I am disgusted by France

But my respect to the Italians has gone up.

US and France, are the two leading figures in the Israel-Hezbollah problem. However, we know that the US army is currently locked up in its own affair, so they won't be able to fight. The US has enough problems with warm bodies already. But France I believe hasn't seen a major engagement since the Vietnam War. So when France said they would go help settle the fight between Hezbollah and Israel, I thought it was something good.

France is taking on a role against a major dispute. France is actually going to help. France has lost it's snobby attitude. And I'm wrong. So far, France has pledge 200 soldiers.

What the crap.

France was expected to supply between 2,500 to 4000 troops to the campaign, due to the fact that they're the leading figure to the conflict. The US deployed the majority of their troops to Iraq, because they're the major player. Some countries only deployed maybe 1 company of men, but that's expected coming from a teir 3 country. But the French deployment of UN Peacekeeping forces falls short of the countries with a weaker army.

Right now it seems, that Lebanon is in need of a peacekeeping force more than before. It would seem that with Lebanon deploying 15,000 troops to combat Hezbollah, a civil war is imminent. In order to save this country from becoming a basket case (again), they need a peace keeping force, and not one that's bent on demolishing anything that movies (America, Israel).

As the leading figure in the role against the Hezbollah/Israeli conflict, France should be commiting at least a quarter of their army to mediate the conflict. That's a 3 month tour for the French military, which I believe is more than enough.

Bottem line is, that if you want to stop a war, your going to have to donate a large amount of troops in order to do so. By not doing so, you only prove that you're merely talk but no action.

I however, tip my had towards Italy. While you're not the leading figure, nor the best army, you are still willing to take the responsiblity. I wish you luck.

RIAA and other industries

It's been a while since I've written something about a company. Well, anything about corporations for that matter. And republican readers (who pass by this thread), can also agree with me on my strikes against the RIAA.

Recording
Industry
Association of
America

Seems to be one of the most demonic, manipulative corporations out there. I'm not kidding about the demonic part either. If I had to guess who the spawn of Satan was, I'd either say Cheney, Karl Rove, or the CEO of the RIAA. Now, pushing away all the law stuff, I would like to say that the RIAA are a bunch of unethical pricks. Recently, the sympathetic RIAA pushed back a file-sharing trial for 60 days because the defendant DIED (I would not be surprised if it was because of stress).

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20060815/015216.shtml

Of course, after the HATE mail started flowing in, they dropped the case. Alright, so it was the step son who did it. But the fact remains, they didn't drop it until their public relations was in jeopardy. "Abundance of Sensitivity," if I may quote. For the lack of better terms, what a bunch of pricks.

This isn't the first time the RIAA has suggested these things. An MIT student, who was forced to pay 3750 in settlement fees. In the process of, "negotiations," one of them actually had the GUTS to say, “In fact, the RIAA has been known to suggest that students drop out of college or go to community college in order to be able to afford settlements.”

http://www-tech.mit.edu/V126/N15/RIAA1506.html

First thing, puthing ethics aside, you DON'T screw your intelligent. It's not something you do(I'm against malpractice costs). And it's MIT, one of the best colleges out there to date. If I had a say in ranking, they would Rank third, TokyoU coming first and Cal Tech coming second. Especially as something as small as filesharing.

Now, one of the arguments from the RIAA is that, "it deprives them from sales." Now, already they seem to portray music as some sort of heroin that everybody must have (it's not). With that reasoning, me not buying music CDs at all deprives them of sale. Hell, playing the piano for music deprives them of sale. In both cases, they are not making any money off of me. I believe that they also don't realize that people who download music, are just as likely to buy CDs from the next person. When putting something onto the internet, it undergoes a bunch of encoding. Stuff that affects sound quality. .mp3 format is not the best format to have music in. It's just easy and small. But the CD quality is much better. This argument can also be said about pirating movies. I still go to the movies, bust 10 dollars, and watch it because the quality is better.

The people who wouldn't, are people who think everybody else does this because they're the people who won't (For the record, if I see a CD of one of my favorite bands on the shelf, I'll buy it).

Like the what the MIT student said, the RIAA takes those who file share, and go salem-style on it. They noose your neck and hang you up to the public for everybody to see.

Not only that, but the RIAA uses their virtually limitless amount of funds to prey on those who can't afford it. Of course the RIAA is going to win. They have more money, they can hire better lawyers, and they can drag out the case. It's pretty much, either you pay, or your clothes on your back goes to the lawyer defending you. Why don't you think they go after .mp3 making companies under the reasoning, "They influence people to download music?" Because companies like Sony can fight back with just as large a cash pool. But no, they go after the working class, who work their ass off for their life.

I would also like to say that the price of making music is sickiningly cheap. It costs less than a dime to press 1 CD. Movies I can sort of understand, so I won't attack them as vhemently (they cost a ton of money), but making a song is cheap. Music videos are endorsed by MTV, which are then funded by commercials. So what do you have to really pay for? Electricity? The RIAA makes a sicking percentage for every CD you buy.

RIAA, You're now ON NOTICE (wonder's if he can get Steven Colbert to do that).

Finally, it's not illegal to download music. Or file share. Or anything of that nature. Why do I say this? I have NEVER seen a sting operation conducted by the police to take down a torrent server.

hey.mpaa.and.apb.bite.my.shiny.metal.ass.thepiratebay.org

Something that you should be aware as a citizen

=O

Feedback loop

When one side gets a better gun.
The other side gets better armor
which leads to one side to get a better gun
and the opposing to get better armor.
Clean cut, not the way it is, but it serves as an example of the Israeli mindset.

As you know, Israel is going down the war path again, invading Lebanon and attacking the Gaza Strip. While I think it's over reacting with just 2-3 captured soldiers, I believe that in the state Israel is in right now, it is understandable.

You see, Israel is in a powdered keg. Every country around that area hates the Israeli's, and Israel knows about it. Likewise, Israel is willing to attack at any given moment. Any reason is a good reason for the Israeli's to cripple the opponents military, and they will take that reason.

So we ask the question, "Why can't we get along." The answer is back with my gun/armor example. As Israel has the best equipped, best trained military, every country around it feels threatened. So they start building up their military. Israel gets nervous, starts calling for defcom whatever. The other countries start mobalizing their military. Israel hits them with an air strike, crippling their military. The arabs start bitching about it. It's been going this way for some time now. And Israel isn't willing to step down from that position.

Like the old saying, "If you can't beat them, join them." If the arab states stopped pointing their stuff towards Israel, the Israeli's would also let down. This will take time, but the Israeli's need to see that you are no longer a threat. The same goes to the Palestinians. Put down your Quassam rockets, but down your opens, and just sit in the corner for a while. You bitch about how Israel puts curfews on you, but that's because all you do is attack Israel during the night. If you want that curfew lifted, get off the streets during the night. For the lack of better terms, START BEHAVING.

The arab countries around them, start using your brains. Give Israel their demands. Don't make rockets and point them at Israel. And please...PLEASE don't make nuclear weapons. Why? The Israeli's have working ones, and they're all open to using them before you do. Both sides are at fault for the feedback loop, but the Arabs and palestinians should be the ones ending it. You may say I think this way is because I live in a jewish community, but the fact of the matter is, THEY CAN KICK YOUR ASS.

Lack of Current Events

While I may not be the best read person, I'm certainly well read enough to know whats going on behind things. And for the most part, I'm starting to agree with one of Steven Colbert's sarcastic comments.

"THEY'RE SUPER DEPRESSING."

After reading several books about the current US, I agree that it is super depressing. I read about how the global class divide is growing larger. I read about slaughter houses and their conditions. Hell, I've even read about how large corporations use some sort of psychological warfare on their employees who are not in management. Now, I was never one to like the phrase, "Ignorance is bliss." But after reading said books, I realize it, ignorance IS bliss.

The true question behind this is, why isn't anyone doing anything about it? Why isn't the government putting more restrictions on the beef industry? Why is the government continuing to spend while cutting taxes? Why is the government pushing laws that are obviously unconstitutional, even by federalist standards? Why is it that nobody sees the entire fight we had to go through to actually set up our constitution and bill of rights? Why is it that nobody actually knows the true meaning behind each statement?

There are a lot of whys. And the reason is because people don't read about important things. Sure, I like trash science fiction as much as the next person. But I will still pick up books such as, Reason. There are books out there that try to reveal the black face behind the government and social classes. Granted, they're SUPER DEPRESSING, but how is the advancement of US citizens going to continue if the government can continue to do such things? I have a good idea about our stances and their problems. But what I cannot figure out is why so many people are oblivious to said fact. (Whichever idiot tells me it's because I keep on taking out all the poly-sci books out of the library deserves to be shot)

For the lack of better terms, catch up on what's happening with the government. While the writer's voice may not say anything, a large crowd of people will. But as the large crowd of people are stuck in the state of bliss, such changes cannot happen. Perhaps I'm the one who'se wrong, and I should be happy as a carefree person. But like the Matrix, "Once you know the truth, you can never go back."

The era of moral Americans

Abortion. Many democrats believe this to be perfectly fine. We believe that it's not life until it actually comes out (with some variations). Republicans believe it is immoral. They believe that life starts straight when the two cells meet. Something about the World Health Organization says the same thing.

Gay Marriage. Many people believe this to be a mental disease. Many people believe that marriage should be between a man and a women. Many people believe that the union of homosexuals is completely immoral. Many people believe that such a thing cannot be legalized.

Iraq War. Many republicans believe this is fully just. They believe that such a thing should be done, because Saddam was a dictator and a sadistic bastard (I think his sons are worse). And many people believe that we should finish off the war, and install a great democracy in Iraq. Furthermore, they are willing to give up certain rights for this protection against terrorism.

"Those who would trade safety for freedom deserve neither" __Thomas Jefferson

"Those who would sacrifice a little freedom for temporal safety deserve neither to be safe or free" __Benjamin Franklin


Anyways,
You my countrymen, have been manipulated by the wealthy class of citizens. Those who tell you that gay marriage is immoral. That abortion should be illegal. Those who tell you that we should finish the Iraq war. People who told you to vote for George W. Bush. People who even funded his campaign.

When I ask a person about why they voted for Bush, they usually say:

"Because I believe in his views."
"I believe he is doing what is right for the moral community."

Since when does abortion, Iraq war, gay marriage, take greater precedance than that of fiscal responsibility? As a republican said after being shown the results of Regen and the steel industry,

"Oh, we know about that. We lived through that time. We just voted for Bush because he gives tax cuts."

A little pinch of reality for you people. The rich are trying to make money. They do not care about abortion. They do not care about gay marriage. They don't even care about the troops dying on the other side. All they care about is their money. Their tax cuts. Their investment taxes (Bush cut that too). They don't care about what you people are staging protests about.

I see signs of:
"NO ABORTION! BABY KILLERS!"
"MARRIAGE IS BETWEEN MALE AND FEMALE!"
"GOD CREATED ADAM AND EVE! NOT ADAM AND STEVE!"
(a funny quote)

I also hear things like:
"We should really get in there, kick some ass, and fix that basketcase."

Now, one of the reasons why I don't support the Iraq war is the fact that we can't pay for it. I'm only sixteen. It means sooner or later, the burden of the debt falls on me. If the rich screw it up and the economy collapses, I'm going to be the one who gets hit with the full force. If the economy screws up so much that I cannot attain a living pay, I might not even have kids.

One of the reasons why I'm against the tax cut is because the national debt becomes larger. It becomes heavier. And like I stated above, the burden of that debt will fall on me.

One of the reasons why I'm against free trade is because without tariffs, we're at a huge trade defecit. Again, the burden falls onto my generation. That burden will affect every single generation after that.

So you may ask, what about the rich? They don't care. They have a huge insurance fund stocked away in their bank, under the name of 401k. They're set. Their kids are set. They can live an easy life, and still have more than enough left over for their kids and then their generation.

But you see, most Americans who support Bush are oblivious to the fiscal basketcase America is in right now. I saw the presidental debates, and Abortion was one of the issues. Why the hell is this an issue? Why is it that nobody asks about our financial future? Why is it that nobody asks about investment taxes? It's because you people are too preoccupied with your so called morals. You are distracted from the real problem of America. You're distracted from the future.

I believe that Republicans are either retarded (BURN THE FAGS), or super smart (Tax cuts FTW). So who leads the republicans? Politicians. Rich people. The very people who say, "we voted him for tax cuts."

Listen people. Your morals are not as important as your children. And if the world comes tumbling down on them, and your era's debts becomes theirs, you have failed as a parent.

So I leave you with this, which every good christian should be quite familiar with:
The anti-christ is someone with great financial power

Wouldn't it be ironic if Roger ended up fighting for God?

Flag Burning

I think I'm pretty patriotic when it comes to America. If they call for me to go fight, I'll go without hesitation. If there's a major war going on, depending on where I am, I'll either be designing laser guided bombs (Mencia: It's the ASIANs fault. Who the hell do you think designs those bombs?) or I'll go join the military. Likewise, because I'm patriotic, it means I'm believe in the constitution. Likewise, I believe Flag Burning ammendment is wrong.

First thing is first, most of the people who are burning flags are over there. Not over here.

Second thing:
Since when is it wrong to protest against the government? Sure it's just burning flags, but burning flags is a sign of protest. A sign of discontent. A way to get the government to go, "I wonder what they're protesting about." More specifically, the burning of the flag is like the burning of the government. When someone burns it, it means theres something wrong. By saying we're not allowed to burn flags, means we're not allowed to protest against the government. Why is it that I cannot protest against the government? Does this make my website against the law?

Yes, I know that it's not really protesting against the government, but what you have to realize is that to restrict flag burning, is infringing upon the freedom of speech, the one thing that seperates us from Red China.

I also realize that burning a flag probably means you don't like the government. But because we're in America, we're forced to deal with the bad side of Democracy. The ability to critisize everything and anything. Likewise, we cannot be punished for such actions.

Bush is really starting to scare me

Aside from the incompetence
His thing about, "God told me so."
Abortion
Gays

He's taken a new step towards the breaking of the constitution which really scares me (click link for full story).

"For people to leak that program and for a newspaper to publish it does great harm to the United States of America, makes it harder to win this war on terror."

"The American people expect this government to protect our constitutional liberties and at the same time make sure we understand what the terrorists are trying to do, You try to follow their money. And that's exactly what we're doing and the fact that a newspaper disclosed it makes it harder to win this war on terror."
-Both said by George Bush himself.

Republican Peter King actually suggested Mr. Bush to prosecute the New York Times.

And for all you idiots who can't figure it out yet:
The fact that Bush critisizes a newspaper, saying they shouldn't do it, and then actually having someone urge the administration to cancel it, is a sign of unconstitutional actions. Namely, the Freedom of the Press. Granted, some of the things we release is a little boneheaded (Black Hawk Down: You need night vision goggles to see painted targets), but we can't do anything because of what we call the first ammendment. Quite possibly, the most important ammendmant. Thinking that we should start restricting it, makes us no better than those Red Chinese people I despise. This attacks our very views of liberal democracy, and strikes at the heart of the constitution.

And the last time I checked, the terrorists don't want to attack our constitutional liberties. If anything, the terrorists want to kill us. How can we be opresssed if the terrorists aren't in our government? The only one who can opress us is the government (Such irony, especially with prosecuting NYTimes).

Don't You Know Who I Am?

Games and the slippery slope

As you know, many people support not only the censorship of video games, but the banning of video games. For instance, Jack Thompson blames shooters such as Halo as training toolers for next generation Columbine. He also believes that many of today's world is warped by the world of gaming. Crimes are caused by Grand Theft Auto, etc.

My opinion? It's unjust, and it doesn't affect kids. But that's for another article.

What you may also know is that some states ban the sales of certain rated computer games. By taking these off the shelves, it reflects one things. Censorship. Yes, Censorship. This occurs on TV, since we're not allowed to put in high quality porn during peak hours. The internet is also the same thing with the new .xxx domain. But isn't the freedom of speech, expression, and information what seperates us from the Chinese? I should hope so.

By restricting these things, they rail out against what makes America so great. When is it so bad that I cannot play the games that I want? Call me a warped son of a bitch. Call me the next generation colmbine. Hell, call me a pedophile (RE: The Sims. Apparently Jack Thompson doesn't know anything about computers either). But one thing sets me different than the people who say this: I believe censorship is bad. And by this, I hope that America will understand how this is censorship.

So I leave you with this.
"Censorship started with little things, when the government controlled cartoons and the Radio. Then it went to the regular TV, school system, and finally the print."
-A badly remembered quote from Ray Bradbury Fahrenheit 451.