What concerns me most is the ability of this administration (or the potential of any future ones) to pull a veil over the collective US public to go to war against an enemy that was a perceived threat, not a real one. What worries me most is that this could very well happen again, if we let this one slide. That in the future, a Republican or democrat white house could choose to shift its focus on a nation that it deems to be evil and take its own young men and women in to a hail of bullets and ill will.
Bush was brilliant or clueless enough to have his administration divert the public's gaze from Afghanistan or Iraq, forcibly or otherwise and even the critics in the media remained largely silent over the unjust war the country was being dragged in to. The esteemed Bob woodward said it himself that he finds himself guilty of ignoring stories that were of relevance, that could have proven to the public time and again that this war was being fought in the name of lies, that this was an unjust war. But men, who shirked their duties when their country asked of them to fight, chose to send young men and women in to harms way.
It were a crime then to question the legality of this war, it was unpatriotic to do so, it was simply wrong to doubt on the ability of our Commander in Chief, who chose to surround himself with yes men instead of criticism, like a clueless King who was fed what he needed to know by his courtiers, and never the truth.
It happened once, and it will happen again. And its a shame that it does, in this age when media remains omnipotent, the public has access to information of any nature, that a group of men and women could pull a veil over our collective judgement and lead many a mother's kid in to a nation in peril and a war that never end.
The difference is what you and I view as reputable news sources, but even then, in the excerpt that you cut and pasted, there are provisions that could be abused with no regard for any judicial oversight. For e.g., "pre-trial detention of terrorist suspects" sounds an awful lot like "we will hold you as an enemy combatant till as long as we please, till we can find any evidence that can stick, or if we ultimately cannot prove your guilt, we can still deport you for your dissent". This is what has been happening, and it doesnt take much effort to dig up evidence of these flagrant violations of civil liberties and justice from all over the media. How does "we will hold you as long as we please" sound any different from what totalitarian regimes do to its citizens and non-citizens? How can you justify that? Most of the high profile terror suspects we held so far, have either pleaded their case and won when subjected to judicial review or have been released/deported for minor immigration violations. These are the same individuals who have been purportedly planning to hit us from the inside, and the administration failed miserably to prove there was any merit to those accusations. Now maybe you would prefer these men to be tried in military courts and shot against the wall and to hell with judicial overview..
And dont start with the "terrorist hit us because of our freedom" bit again. They do not hate us for our progress, our equality rights for women (though I cant really see how you could claim that when the culture glorifies sleaziness). If these people hated the culture, the porn, freedom of speech, they would have turned their guns at Europe more than any other place. They would have turned to Egypt or other nations in the middle east where some of these hold true. Atleast Europe has far worse decadent lifestyles and less gent policies on freedom of speech and religion, compared to US.. Why dont they go after them? Radical islam went against US for very few reasons, Radical islam hates the jewish state, they direct the same hatred on to the nation which deliver arms and ammunition to the Jewish state. They look at US as the opressor in Palestine, not as an impartial observer, how could they when Isreal is firing US made missiles in to the heart of their homes, killing young and old alike along with handful of terrorists. The day, the situation in Palestine gets better, the season of normalcy would begin world over
When you admit that US screwed up in foreign policy and created monsters, but then quickly accuse them of wanting to obliterate our infectious western culture, I cannot imagine how you can connect between the two. They hate us not for our culture (they may dislike it), but they hate us for the screwups we made world over, they equate us with totalitarian regimes, brute opressors like Saddam who Rumsfeld shook hands with, they dont see any difference between us and Saddam or any other regime. Thats why they hate us, not because of our freedom. And every american is to blame for our screwups, because they slept through the cold war, they when lied to by their govt did not wake up and rebel, they hated the communists and going to bed with totalitarian regimes who hated USSR was ok till it served our interests.
And now you think that wiping these cretins off the face of the earth is the only solution. This is what i call as the republican mindset, that if we cant turn you on to democracy, then we can blow you up. Terrorism is like a virus which stays dormant for ever in the system, rearing its head when the appropriate time arrives. Fighting it only gives it more strenth, more recognition for its cause, more followers to its cause. Nations world over has fought terrorism way before US did, and islamic terrorism too. In India, we fought Islamic fundamentalists in Kashmir, pouring through a porous border from Pakistan controlled Kashmir, it started in the 90s and we are still fighting them. Thousands of civilians have been killed and the end is nowhere in sight. Fighting islamic terrorism i
Neither. Search for "Patriot Act" on news.google.com and you would find it on reputable media websites like NYTimes, Reuters etc. So seriously, be knowledgeable of what you speak or be silent.
And as far as radical islamic terrorists, this play has just begun, its Act 1. Also they dont want you to bow to Islam, most of them just want the US to leave them the fuck alone. But nope, we need to shine the beacon of democracy down every nook and cranny. And along with it, we also like to stick our guns in there as well. Meanwhile, we do kill quite a bit of civilians because they are collateral damage for our precision guided bombs. And when men who lost their parents, kids, wives, sisters, brothers and friends take up their arms to fight their opressor, they turn in to terrorists.
To a certain extent, US is reaping what it did sow, in the middle east, in Afghanistan. Its trying to clean up a mess which it created, by being in bed with Mujahid Warriors and with the Saudi and other Royal families across the middle east for their oil. If these nations were democratic or at the very least moderate islamic nations we would not find Middle east to be as messed up as it is. I am not pointing a finger at US for creating this mess. But let it not start pretending that it woke up one day and were attacked by these evil men because of our freedom.
Well the parent post was not intended to be trolling, but it has been deemed such. I can only complain.
Yes, it is the neoconservatives who initially steered the Republican party so far to the right that questioning their direction or leadership was unpatriotic. But Republican party on a whole is clueless if they dont wake up and realize where they will end up in the near future. The party is so tunnel minded that they cant see beyond George Bush, heck, GW cant see beyond GW. Thats the folly. This country is not looking to its past at the mistakes made in foreign policy, it is looking to solve the problems in the present with narrow minded, short term solutions with no clear idea as to how to tackle the future. This administration is blatantly campaigning in fear hoping that the public wont realize they govern in obfuscation.
I blame the whole house for passing the Patriot Act. The Act itself was everything the Justice dept was salivating for the past few years, but never getting enough proponents to get safe passage. In the aftermath of Sept 11, there was enough fear, enough pseudo-patriotism in the air that to question the absence of oversight would have been deemed unpatriotic. And everyone fell under the notion that Patriot Act would ride in on a white horse and save the day. The sad truth is though initially flaunted as the cure for domestic terrorism, it is slowly but surely being used to spy on our own citizens with no judicial oversight at all. That is scary. And anyone who say otherwise has lived a sheltered existance their whole life which is about to be a memory. Slowly but surely our personal freedoms would erode, and we will look back on these days and wonder what went wrong..
Its an uphill battle against bureaucracy, against the thirst for more power and its fought by decent civil libertarians amidst others who are running the risk of being labeled as unpatriotic girly men by Fox news and the Republican party.
ACLU has been moderately successful in chipping away provisions of the Patriot Act, desperately trying to limit its broad sweeping powers acquired during the aftermath of Sept 11, when the notion of security drew a shadowy veil over our eyes and across measures of oversight and provided us with the promise of a secure land but taking away our freedom in its place. The people behind it were clever enough to threaten us with more attacks and a terrible outcome if these measures were not passed, but put nothing in place to provide oversight, nothing in place to limit its ever stretching arm, reaching out to our private lives.
Now, the Republican party is getting ready with "Patriot Act II" in response to the findings of the Sept 11 commission, but in stark contrast to what's required, has granted far greater power and reach to the security agencies while dramatically eroding constitutional protections and providing a fraction of added security.
Republicans now more than ever seem to be under the belief that they could throw any dissenting american in to prison and blow up anyone voicing their dissent outside the US and are on a collission course with the stark reality that while we may never die from a terrorist attack, we will surely feel the ever tightening grip of a police state.
No, I believe the parents do know whats best for their children. I believe they should be able to home school them if they wish. I believe Govt's ability to mess with my family should be reduced or eradicated.
My problem is when the community or the school or the Govt starts enforcing the beliefs of the majority on its minorities. I dont think Religion needs to be taught at schools, it should be taught at home. Its not to be flaunted, it is something very private, a bond between one's soul and his beliefs/God/Diety/Allah.
I studied in a Private Catholic school, we had school prayers, morality classes and mandatory prayers in the school chapel. I cant imagine how discriminatory these events were, how alienated my friends from other belief's must have felt. But we were too young to question, we were too young to hold a grudge.
(2)Voted YES on giving federal aid only to schools allowing voluntary prayer
What part of the above did you not comprehend? The bill punishes schools that do not allow voluntary prayer. The bill favors FINANCIALLY ones who do. Which part of your brain shut down when you read that? If this is not coercion or strong arming schools in to allowing prayer, then I dont know what to tell ya.
I have no problem against religion, just state sponsored ones. The Govt should stay the fuck out of my religion, my sexuality and the four walls of my humble abode.
is known to make party line stance on virtually all of the issues ever to encounter, that its hard to envisage this guy has ever in his life, thought for himself, used his god given intelligence to seperate himself (or others) from the party line rhetoric, or to atleast understand the laws he is responsible for passing in the house.
A few of his noted yes/no votes can shed a lot of light on where he stands on the issues:
(1)Voted YES on allowing school prayer during the War on Terror - Yes praying as a collective does help in cleansing terrorism. (2)Voted YES on giving federal aid only to schools allowing voluntary prayer (3)Voted NO on raising CAFE standards; incentives for alternative fuels - Wants to rely on Oil and dont want the Automobile industry to answer to better environmental standards. (4)Voted NO on prohibiting oil drilling & development in ANWR. - Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, enough said! (5)Voted YES on speeding up approval of forest thinning projects - Apparently want the rest of the US start looking like Texas (no offense). (6)Voted YES on Permanent Normal Trade Relations with China - Yes, Cuba - BAD, China - GOOD!! (7)Voted NO on $156M to IMF for 3rd-world debt reduction - Handouts are good when its to your automobile industry cronies and to big corporations, bad idea when its to third world countries. (8)Voted NO on campaign finance reform banning soft-money contributions - No Finance Reform!! Period! (9)Voted YES on decreasing gun waiting period from 3 days to 1 - By God! Yes, we all know how excruciatingly painful it is to wait 3 days for appropriate checks to be made.. (10)Voted NO on allowing reimportation of prescription drugs - We really believe you should pay 20$ for that tylenol pill instead of 30 cents if you were importing it from Canada.
What pisses me off is that even if Kerry wins this November, the senate and the house under Republican control will end up making him an acting president and not a real one. Not that I think a Democrat controlled house and senate is any better. I just want politicians to really understand the bills they sign and talk to people who these laws ultimately affect.
You are one more reason Pentagon and its cronies are able to sell the idea of Missile Shield to the american people. The threat of a dirty bomb is far more greater than that of "axis-of-evil" lobbing a few nukes your way.
Seriously, we are going back to the cold war era, when everyone lived in perpertual fear of the commies nuking the heck out of us. Later we realized that Russians love their kids too, but now we just cant be sure about the terrorists (do they have kids too?).
Soon we will start looking in fear at the shadows, look with suspicion at our fellow human beings, believe everything our Govt tells us and close our mind to everything else. I wish we cease to exist by then, it would be a shame to live on like that..
I studied in a Convent school, went to Church every Sunday and went to Sunday school every Sunday afternoon. I turned out ok:).
Jokes aside, if the parents prefer, Religious education may be part of their kids upbringing, there is nothing wrong with that. State sponsored Religious education must be discouraged in a democracy. But then again, the same viewpoint may not be carried by a non-secular society. And we should not barge in trying to dictate to them how democracy works either.
There is nothing wrong with Religion, as long as you know where your freedom ends and someone else's rights begin. No religion preaches violence, even Islam doesnt. Every religion and its tenets are open to interpretation and unscrupulous men would find ways to interpret them to justify their actions, their beliefs.
This topic will soon be relegated to the archives and there is a good chance this post wont be read, but I have to say it for the sake of posterity (of future topics that is).
Education is good. Education teaches a child to think, to pick out his fights, his goals, his aspirations. Despite what Pink Floyd told us, education, atleast in the less developed corners of the world, is a must. Else we run the risk of religious dogma being fed to these children, we run the risk of them being taught by unscrupulous leaders who do not value scientific thinking, who seeks to find answers in the religious texts and lives in the past while sucking tomorrow's future down in the drain with them.
I am proud that India has been kicking it up a notch, in the field of education. When a country truly cares about the intellect of its citizens and aspires to leave its future generation with the power of thought, only then it can shine among the rest of the world. I only can hope Pakistan and other of its neighbours do the same. Religious education is good, in moderation. It should be balanced by education that teaches a child to question his beliefs and that of the society and to work towards making his life and that of around him, better.
The Western world should be glad for India and anyone else who decides to take such paths.
Hope someone would integrate this in to Celestia or the other way around. Explore the deepest corners of the galaxy and be in your neighbourhood in a splitsecond.. Nice..
"I swear it was armageddon when me in my beat up single engine crop duster saw those little martians in their flying saucer trying to make it to the good ole US.. I didnt think twice before blasting their damn little chute as it opened sending those tiny bastards to their desert grave.. Muuuaaahhhahhh!"
Now, I havent seen this game, I havent played his earlier creations, though I have seen people play Populous (and tried to get my hands on a copy) and Black and White.
A bit in to the NYT article, it is said that the actions define the characters. It definitely does interest, but fail in the face of scrutiny since it is still too thin, too amateurish which leads me to believe it was a design choice to leave it less complex. For e.g., the characters tend to look their part, defined by the direction they take when presented with choices throughout the game. That is, one looks godlike, when said character chooses to be pious and honest, where as the same character look like a devil (with horns) when he consistently choose the wrong path. Why would Peter Molyneux decide to make a mockery of who the character is, is what stopping this game from achieving its full potential. Why cant the character look the same, act the same and still be good/evil? We certainly do not see people or beings among us with horns or wings?
The picturisation of these characters and giving them a blessed or cursed look depending on their choices kind of trivializes or cheapens the whole experience in my opinion. I read a while ago that in the fairy tales and tales of kings long ago lived and fallen, one could clearly draw a line between those who were good and those who were evil. Yet, if we attempt to do the same now, that line will fall across the souls of each of us as that line will not seek to divide one from the other, rather it will show how that line which differentiates the good from evil is now resting upon our own soul.
But think of it, HP will use resellers such as Staples, Officemax, Office Depot and other outlets which gives us a reason to use those 30$ off of 150$ coupons and other 10/20% Off coupons to buy these expensive players. For people who may balk at the 300$ price, cutting it down to 250$ sometimes is all the reason for them to spend the moolah. So repeat after me, its good for the consumers. who gives a flying fuck about whether HP had innovated or not?
Background on Mola Ram aka Amrish Puri
on
PG-13 Rating Turns 20
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Not many know the actor who played Mola Ram is a Bollywood actor who has the badguy act down to the dot. Some info on how this talented actor landed this role can be found here
However the first time I saw Temple of Doom, I specifically didnt enjoy the manner in which Speilberg sought to portray the culture and traditions of India and Hinduism. Thanks to movie such as Temple of Doom, a big part of Western Hemisphere thought this sad portrayal was still true of India until the Indians started stealing their jobs:).
But heck, its a movie and though not as good as the other two, it is still enjoyable. I hope Speilberg and Ford gets around to making one more and I wouldnt complain if they threw Sir Sean in to the mold as well..
Waited, shuffled my feet today morning, hoping my wife wouldnt notice, waiting till 9:30 to leave home so that I could pick up the game at 10:00 from the nearest store.
Store opened at 10:00, saw a bunch of people waiting for it to open, thought they all would be in line for the game. Felt like an old geek after realizing I was the only one to pick the game up. Felt real old waiting at the counter to pay for it.
Read reviews/previews/salivate over old screenshots all day. Didnt feel a bit guilty at getting paid for nothing.
Firearms turn ordinary people into extaordinary killers in the same way that keyboards turn ordinary people into extraordinary coders. Not at all.
I dont agree. Coding is a skill that requires some effort. Pulling a trigger at a crowd doesnt take skill, just misdirected anger.
I agree with your point on making sure that the society produces less criminals, instead of distributing less guns. Once again, I am not against your right to own a gun for protection.
To be honest, I hadnt researched much about the Ban on Assault weapons, mainly drawing my information from media sources. However, as I was typing up the above response, I proceeded to google for it and found two sites (http://www.gunsandcrime.org/asltweps.html) and (http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcassaul.html) which talks about the ban (admittedly from the Gun Owners perspective). Reading further, I realized my idea of an Assault weapon was more "Fully automatic" and not "Semi". Ofcourse, the idea of a maniac emptying a full magazine in to a bus full of kids frightens me, but I realize thats not it.
I also saw the statistics on how often assault weapons were used in gun crimes and found they were negligible. Now, I am yet to read in detail about the proponents of this ban, so it would not be proper for me to talk for or against this topic anymore. My information on it, was quite limited. Thanks for educating me though.
Now, I must say, when Second amendment proponents talks about "take firearms away from criminals, they will find another way, hence focus on making less criminals", it really doesnt care about the criminals or making sure theres less of them. Gun owners mistrusts law enforcement to protect them and their property and want to defend themselves. Thats it. Anything more they say is fluff. They dont care if another white/black kid grows up to an educated citizen or whether he chooses a life of crime. They just want to be prepared and armed when he breaks through that door. Tell me if I am wrong..
I dont want to ban the right to bear arms.. I just want to prevent making ordinary people in to extraordinary killers by giving them a better instrument to kill.
Assault Weapons just dont fit in to the hands of the general public, no matter how paranoid one might be. If you were an avid gun enthusiast, you still have more than enough to splurge on.
I agree that the drug laws seldom work, in the end inconveniencing some of its legal users. But shooting drugs in to my arm doesnt equate to firing few rounds in to my neighbour. I just dont see how they can be compared.
Call them whatever you like, here is what they stand for:
Apostolic Congress:
Here is their mission statement: Christians are affecting policy in Washington, and bringing about real change in America.
"The Apostolic Congress also SUPPORTS the Sovereign nation of Israel. We work very close with the Embassy of Israel in Washington DC."
This is how they were formed: "In 1981, early in the Reagan Administration, Brother Stan Wachtstetter was able to open the door for Apostolic Christians into the White House." Now, 'Bro Stan' happens to be a big buddy of Rev. Moon (Crown Nut!).
The following is a blog on Apostolic Congress, Rev. Moon and how they are courted by this administration.
Jerry Falwell:
My only remembrance of this guy is when he came on TV and told the rest of the nation that (a) there is no Global Warming and (b) Scientists are blatantly uninformed or lying and (c) he would gladly purchase another SUV the very same day to prove his point. All this in apparent response to "Would Jesus buy an SUV" campaign or something of that nature. Seeing how indignant our dear reverend became on the blatant misuse of the Church's Trademark on "Jesus", I guess his response was justified:)
Also, remember that once Falwell criticized Rev.Moon, the Crown Nut, all the way till the day, Crown Nut bailed him (and his church) financially and now he sings his praise.
So, what do we have here people? Is this the type of people the current administration needs to be in bed with?
That screaming you hear is coming from beyond the graves.. This nation's founding fathers want their country back..
Yes, it is possible that Kerry do a double take and turn out to be someone equally bad in his decisions as the current president. But here is my reasoning that he wont: Kerry, comes off as a thinker, a man who is more idealistic, more willing to listen to others dissenting opinions than Bush. Not because Bush is a bad person, but because his cohorts, his close aides are shielding him from listening to any dissent at all. Unfortunately, the president could have chosen to look beyond these partisan-yes-men and sought out americans and decent men abroad who could convince the president that there is an alternative, but he didnt. The President did not want the trouble of seeking out other perspectives on issues that were confronting him, he just wanted to choose the easiest solutions.
I admit its dangerous when some americans are trying to replace their president not because they love the incumbent, but hate their president. Its a bad judgement and elections have become such a farce. But, how do you voice dissent against your President and the views of his administration in any other manner in today's america? Is there a third choice? Sure, you can decide not to vote, but then you would be hiding from your responsibility. The political system in a whole has to change, for the better.
Finally, I believe the Assault Weapons Ban is a good thing. And I hope it stands, despite what NRA wants me to believe.
becoming the tool for foreign born terrorist geeks to bring our defense down, because we all know how dangerous young pasty white geeks with glasses..
But lets give Accenture billions of dollars to build a major federal IT contract to secure the nations boundaries when they happily turn around and outsource the project to pasty white (or brown for us poor indians) geeks with glasses and pocket the rest of the profit.
Because we all know, Bermuda based Accenture is obviously an honest corporation with its best interests that are aligned with the rest of the nation.
The Patriot Act and its proponents has done a fantastic job in making America feel safer under its umbrella, hence I would not go deep in to why Patriot Act and other regulations wont keep americans any safer (it will probably save the land, but not its citizens who choose to travel beyond its boundaries). What I believe would keep its people safe is when its Govt decides not to trample over the collective will of the rest of the world over starkly contrasting priorities and beliefs.
You are admitting that Kerry does want to take out the obviously scary stuff while leaving some behind. We have an administration who is backing the law in its current state, with all the scary stuff thrown in, and they want to make it Permanent!!!
Bush had his shot at the White House. He could have chosen to unite the country on the wake of 9/11. He took the path of the religious right, choosing to align himself with right wing nuts like Falwell and folks like Apostolic Congress. He chose to wage a crusade, he chose to go to war over vague notions as to what a WMD is. He chose to divide this country, rather than unite it.
Kerry might do a double take like Bush when he becomes President, but my perspective of him is more of a statesman, of a masterful politician, a man who chooses his words wisely, a man who did not have the Presidentship handed to him on a platter. Him, I can trust, atleast for the next 4 years. Bush, I have lost that trust.
Slashdot Mirror
What concerns me most is the ability of this administration (or the potential of any future ones) to pull a veil over the collective US public to go to war against an enemy that was a perceived threat, not a real one. What worries me most is that this could very well happen again, if we let this one slide. That in the future, a Republican or democrat white house could choose to shift its focus on a nation that it deems to be evil and take its own young men and women in to a hail of bullets and ill will.
Bush was brilliant or clueless enough to have his administration divert the public's gaze from Afghanistan or Iraq, forcibly or otherwise and even the critics in the media remained largely silent over the unjust war the country was being dragged in to. The esteemed Bob woodward said it himself that he finds himself guilty of ignoring stories that were of relevance, that could have proven to the public time and again that this war was being fought in the name of lies, that this was an unjust war. But men, who shirked their duties when their country asked of them to fight, chose to send young men and women in to harms way.
It were a crime then to question the legality of this war, it was unpatriotic to do so, it was simply wrong to doubt on the ability of our Commander in Chief, who chose to surround himself with yes men instead of criticism, like a clueless King who was fed what he needed to know by his courtiers, and never the truth.
It happened once, and it will happen again. And its a shame that it does, in this age when media remains omnipotent, the public has access to information of any nature, that a group of men and women could pull a veil over our collective judgement and lead many a mother's kid in to a nation in peril and a war that never end.
The difference is what you and I view as reputable news sources, but even then, in the excerpt that you cut and pasted, there are provisions that could be abused with no regard for any judicial oversight. For e.g., "pre-trial detention of terrorist suspects" sounds an awful lot like "we will hold you as an enemy combatant till as long as we please, till we can find any evidence that can stick, or if we ultimately cannot prove your guilt, we can still deport you for your dissent". This is what has been happening, and it doesnt take much effort to dig up evidence of these flagrant violations of civil liberties and justice from all over the media.
How does "we will hold you as long as we please" sound any different from what totalitarian regimes do to its citizens and non-citizens? How can you justify that? Most of the high profile terror suspects we held so far, have either pleaded their case and won when subjected to judicial review or have been released/deported for minor immigration violations. These are the same individuals who have been purportedly planning to hit us from the inside, and the administration failed miserably to prove there was any merit to those accusations. Now maybe you would prefer these men to be tried in military courts and shot against the wall and to hell with judicial overview..
And dont start with the "terrorist hit us because of our freedom" bit again. They do not hate us for our progress, our equality rights for women (though I cant really see how you could claim that when the culture glorifies sleaziness). If these people hated the culture, the porn, freedom of speech, they would have turned their guns at Europe more than any other place. They would have turned to Egypt or other nations in the middle east where some of these hold true. Atleast Europe has far worse decadent lifestyles and less gent policies on freedom of speech and religion, compared to US.. Why dont they go after them? Radical islam went against US for very few reasons, Radical islam hates the jewish state, they direct the same hatred on to the nation which deliver arms and ammunition to the Jewish state. They look at US as the opressor in Palestine, not as an impartial observer, how could they when Isreal is firing US made missiles in to the heart of their homes, killing young and old alike along with handful of terrorists. The day, the situation in Palestine gets better, the season of normalcy would begin world over
When you admit that US screwed up in foreign policy and created monsters, but then quickly accuse them of wanting to obliterate our infectious western culture, I cannot imagine how you can connect between the two. They hate us not for our culture (they may dislike it), but they hate us for the screwups we made world over, they equate us with totalitarian regimes, brute opressors like Saddam who Rumsfeld shook hands with, they dont see any difference between us and Saddam or any other regime. Thats why they hate us, not because of our freedom. And every american is to blame for our screwups, because they slept through the cold war, they when lied to by their govt did not wake up and rebel, they hated the communists and going to bed with totalitarian regimes who hated USSR was ok till it served our interests.
And now you think that wiping these cretins off the face of the earth is the only solution. This is what i call as the republican mindset, that if we cant turn you on to democracy, then we can blow you up. Terrorism is like a virus which stays dormant for ever in the system, rearing its head when the appropriate time arrives. Fighting it only gives it more strenth, more recognition for its cause, more followers to its cause. Nations world over has fought terrorism way before US did, and islamic terrorism too. In India, we fought Islamic fundamentalists in Kashmir, pouring through a porous border from Pakistan controlled Kashmir, it started in the 90s and we are still fighting them. Thousands of civilians have been killed and the end is nowhere in sight. Fighting islamic terrorism i
Neither. Search for "Patriot Act" on news.google.com and you would find it on reputable media websites like NYTimes, Reuters etc. So seriously, be knowledgeable of what you speak or be silent.
And as far as radical islamic terrorists, this play has just begun, its Act 1. Also they dont want you to bow to Islam, most of them just want the US to leave them the fuck alone. But nope, we need to shine the beacon of democracy down every nook and cranny. And along with it, we also like to stick our guns in there as well. Meanwhile, we do kill quite a bit of civilians because they are collateral damage for our precision guided bombs. And when men who lost their parents, kids, wives, sisters, brothers and friends take up their arms to fight their opressor, they turn in to terrorists.
To a certain extent, US is reaping what it did sow, in the middle east, in Afghanistan. Its trying to clean up a mess which it created, by being in bed with Mujahid Warriors and with the Saudi and other Royal families across the middle east for their oil. If these nations were democratic or at the very least moderate islamic nations we would not find Middle east to be as messed up as it is. I am not pointing a finger at US for creating this mess. But let it not start pretending that it woke up one day and were attacked by these evil men because of our freedom.
Well the parent post was not intended to be trolling, but it has been deemed such. I can only complain.
Yes, it is the neoconservatives who initially steered the Republican party so far to the right that questioning their direction or leadership was unpatriotic. But Republican party on a whole is clueless if they dont wake up and realize where they will end up in the near future. The party is so tunnel minded that they cant see beyond George Bush, heck, GW cant see beyond GW. Thats the folly. This country is not looking to its past at the mistakes made in foreign policy, it is looking to solve the problems in the present with narrow minded, short term solutions with no clear idea as to how to tackle the future. This administration is blatantly campaigning in fear hoping that the public wont realize they govern in obfuscation.
I blame the whole house for passing the Patriot Act. The Act itself was everything the Justice dept was salivating for the past few years, but never getting enough proponents to get safe passage. In the aftermath of Sept 11, there was enough fear, enough pseudo-patriotism in the air that to question the absence of oversight would have been deemed unpatriotic. And everyone fell under the notion that Patriot Act would ride in on a white horse and save the day. The sad truth is though initially flaunted as the cure for domestic terrorism, it is slowly but surely being used to spy on our own citizens with no judicial oversight at all. That is scary. And anyone who say otherwise has lived a sheltered existance their whole life which is about to be a memory. Slowly but surely our personal freedoms would erode, and we will look back on these days and wonder what went wrong..
Its an uphill battle against bureaucracy, against the thirst for more power and its fought by decent civil libertarians amidst others who are running the risk of being labeled as unpatriotic girly men by Fox news and the Republican party.
ACLU has been moderately successful in chipping away provisions of the Patriot Act, desperately trying to limit its broad sweeping powers acquired during the aftermath of Sept 11, when the notion of security drew a shadowy veil over our eyes and across measures of oversight and provided us with the promise of a secure land but taking away our freedom in its place. The people behind it were clever enough to threaten us with more attacks and a terrible outcome if these measures were not passed, but put nothing in place to provide oversight, nothing in place to limit its ever stretching arm, reaching out to our private lives.
Now, the Republican party is getting ready with "Patriot Act II" in response to the findings of the Sept 11 commission, but in stark contrast to what's required, has granted far greater power and reach to the security agencies while dramatically eroding constitutional protections and providing a fraction of added security.
Republicans now more than ever seem to be under the belief that they could throw any dissenting american in to prison and blow up anyone voicing their dissent outside the US and are on a collission course with the stark reality that while we may never die from a terrorist attack, we will surely feel the ever tightening grip of a police state.
No, I believe the parents do know whats best for their children. I believe they should be able to home school them if they wish. I believe Govt's ability to mess with my family should be reduced or eradicated.
My problem is when the community or the school or the Govt starts enforcing the beliefs of the majority on its minorities. I dont think Religion needs to be taught at schools, it should be taught at home. Its not to be flaunted, it is something very private, a bond between one's soul and his beliefs/God/Diety/Allah.
I studied in a Private Catholic school, we had school prayers, morality classes and mandatory prayers in the school chapel. I cant imagine how discriminatory these events were, how alienated my friends from other belief's must have felt. But we were too young to question, we were too young to hold a grudge.
(2)Voted YES on giving federal aid only to schools allowing voluntary prayer
What part of the above did you not comprehend? The bill punishes schools that do not allow voluntary prayer. The bill favors FINANCIALLY ones who do. Which part of your brain shut down when you read that? If this is not coercion or strong arming schools in to allowing prayer, then I dont know what to tell ya.
I have no problem against religion, just state sponsored ones. The Govt should stay the fuck out of my religion, my sexuality and the four walls of my humble abode.
is known to make party line stance on virtually all of the issues ever to encounter, that its hard to envisage this guy has ever in his life, thought for himself, used his god given intelligence to seperate himself (or others) from the party line rhetoric, or to atleast understand the laws he is responsible for passing in the house.
A few of his noted yes/no votes can shed a lot of light on where he stands on the issues:
(1)Voted YES on allowing school prayer during the War on Terror - Yes praying as a collective does help in cleansing terrorism.
(2)Voted YES on giving federal aid only to schools allowing voluntary prayer
(3)Voted NO on raising CAFE standards; incentives for alternative fuels - Wants to rely on Oil and dont want the Automobile industry to answer to better environmental standards.
(4)Voted NO on prohibiting oil drilling & development in ANWR. - Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, enough said!
(5)Voted YES on speeding up approval of forest thinning projects - Apparently want the rest of the US start looking like Texas (no offense).
(6)Voted YES on Permanent Normal Trade Relations with China - Yes, Cuba - BAD, China - GOOD!!
(7)Voted NO on $156M to IMF for 3rd-world debt reduction - Handouts are good when its to your automobile industry cronies and to big corporations, bad idea when its to third world countries.
(8)Voted NO on campaign finance reform banning soft-money contributions - No Finance Reform!! Period!
(9)Voted YES on decreasing gun waiting period from 3 days to 1 - By God! Yes, we all know how excruciatingly painful it is to wait 3 days for appropriate checks to be made..
(10)Voted NO on allowing reimportation of prescription drugs - We really believe you should pay 20$ for that tylenol pill instead of 30 cents if you were importing it from Canada.
What pisses me off is that even if Kerry wins this November, the senate and the house under Republican control will end up making him an acting president and not a real one. Not that I think a Democrat controlled house and senate is any better. I just want politicians to really understand the bills they sign and talk to people who these laws ultimately affect.
Cause by God!! My schwartz is bigger than yours..
You are one more reason Pentagon and its cronies are able to sell the idea of Missile Shield to the american people. The threat of a dirty bomb is far more greater than that of "axis-of-evil" lobbing a few nukes your way.
Seriously, we are going back to the cold war era, when everyone lived in perpertual fear of the commies nuking the heck out of us. Later we realized that Russians love their kids too, but now we just cant be sure about the terrorists (do they have kids too?).
Soon we will start looking in fear at the shadows, look with suspicion at our fellow human beings, believe everything our Govt tells us and close our mind to everything else. I wish we cease to exist by then, it would be a shame to live on like that..
I studied in a Convent school, went to Church every Sunday and went to Sunday school every Sunday afternoon. I turned out ok :).
Jokes aside, if the parents prefer, Religious education may be part of their kids upbringing, there is nothing wrong with that. State sponsored Religious education must be discouraged in a democracy. But then again, the same viewpoint may not be carried by a non-secular society. And we should not barge in trying to dictate to them how democracy works either.
There is nothing wrong with Religion, as long as you know where your freedom ends and someone else's rights begin. No religion preaches violence, even Islam doesnt. Every religion and its tenets are open to interpretation and unscrupulous men would find ways to interpret them to justify their actions, their beliefs.
This topic will soon be relegated to the archives and there is a good chance this post wont be read, but I have to say it for the sake of posterity (of future topics that is).
Education is good. Education teaches a child to think, to pick out his fights, his goals, his aspirations. Despite what Pink Floyd told us, education, atleast in the less developed corners of the world, is a must. Else we run the risk of religious dogma being fed to these children, we run the risk of them being taught by unscrupulous leaders who do not value scientific thinking, who seeks to find answers in the religious texts and lives in the past while sucking tomorrow's future down in the drain with them.
I am proud that India has been kicking it up a notch, in the field of education. When a country truly cares about the intellect of its citizens and aspires to leave its future generation with the power of thought, only then it can shine among the rest of the world. I only can hope Pakistan and other of its neighbours do the same. Religious education is good, in moderation. It should be balanced by education that teaches a child to question his beliefs and that of the society and to work towards making his life and that of around him, better.
The Western world should be glad for India and anyone else who decides to take such paths.
Hope someone would integrate this in to Celestia or the other way around. Explore the deepest corners of the galaxy and be in your neighbourhood in a splitsecond.. Nice..
in a shady bar near the local airfield..
"I swear it was armageddon when me in my beat up single engine crop duster saw those little martians in their flying saucer trying to make it to the good ole US.. I didnt think twice before blasting their damn little chute as it opened sending those tiny bastards to their desert grave.. Muuuaaahhhahhh!"
Now, I havent seen this game, I havent played his earlier creations, though I have seen people play Populous (and tried to get my hands on a copy) and Black and White.
A bit in to the NYT article, it is said that the actions define the characters. It definitely does interest, but fail in the face of scrutiny since it is still too thin, too amateurish which leads me to believe it was a design choice to leave it less complex. For e.g., the characters tend to look their part, defined by the direction they take when presented with choices throughout the game. That is, one looks godlike, when said character chooses to be pious and honest, where as the same character look like a devil (with horns) when he consistently choose the wrong path. Why would Peter Molyneux decide to make a mockery of who the character is, is what stopping this game from achieving its full potential. Why cant the character look the same, act the same and still be good/evil? We certainly do not see people or beings among us with horns or wings?
The picturisation of these characters and giving them a blessed or cursed look depending on their choices kind of trivializes or cheapens the whole experience in my opinion. I read a while ago that in the fairy tales and tales of kings long ago lived and fallen, one could clearly draw a line between those who were good and those who were evil. Yet, if we attempt to do the same now, that line will fall across the souls of each of us as that line will not seek to divide one from the other, rather it will show how that line which differentiates the good from evil is now resting upon our own soul.
Yeah, its the same thing. No question.
But think of it, HP will use resellers such as Staples, Officemax, Office Depot and other outlets which gives us a reason to use those 30$ off of 150$ coupons and other 10/20% Off coupons to buy these expensive players. For people who may balk at the 300$ price, cutting it down to 250$ sometimes is all the reason for them to spend the moolah. So repeat after me, its good for the consumers. who gives a flying fuck about whether HP had innovated or not?
Not many know the actor who played Mola Ram is a Bollywood actor who has the badguy act down to the dot. Some info on how this talented actor landed this role can be found here
:).
However the first time I saw Temple of Doom, I specifically didnt enjoy the manner in which Speilberg sought to portray the culture and traditions of India and Hinduism. Thanks to movie such as Temple of Doom, a big part of Western Hemisphere thought this sad portrayal was still true of India until the Indians started stealing their jobs
But heck, its a movie and though not as good as the other two, it is still enjoyable. I hope Speilberg and Ford gets around to making one more and I wouldnt complain if they threw Sir Sean in to the mold as well..
Waited, shuffled my feet today morning, hoping my wife wouldnt notice, waiting till 9:30 to leave home so that I could pick up the game at 10:00 from the nearest store.
Store opened at 10:00, saw a bunch of people waiting for it to open, thought they all would be in line for the game. Felt like an old geek after realizing I was the only one to pick the game up. Felt real old waiting at the counter to pay for it.
Read reviews/previews/salivate over old screenshots all day. Didnt feel a bit guilty at getting paid for nothing.
Reached home, ignored wife completely, popped CD's in, installed, breathless now.
Fired it up on my not so humble box, encountering game freezes during cut screens/ loading textures etc.
Trying to pick up my jaw from the floor ever since.
Game rocks..its dark, deliciously creepy, I have a weak heart and I dont think I will play at night (also slightly considerate towards neighbours).
After two hours of getting creeped out, eaten alive, ass kicked, munched on. pulled down the ever so trusty in-game commandline, typed in the words:
spawn monster_boss_cyberdemon
Holy mother of God! Is that...omg!!...
In the same room???
Where's a cruise missile when you need one..
Disclaimer: Author neither want to imply nor inspire persons of dubious honor to stalk either of above characters with a "shoulder mounted" cruise.
Firearms turn ordinary people into extaordinary killers in the same way that keyboards turn ordinary people into extraordinary coders. Not at all.
) which talks about the ban (admittedly from the Gun Owners perspective). Reading further, I realized my idea of an Assault weapon was more "Fully automatic" and not "Semi". Ofcourse, the idea of a maniac emptying a full magazine in to a bus full of kids frightens me, but I realize thats not it.
I dont agree. Coding is a skill that requires some effort. Pulling a trigger at a crowd doesnt take skill, just misdirected anger.
I agree with your point on making sure that the society produces less criminals, instead of distributing less guns. Once again, I am not against your right to own a gun for protection.
To be honest, I hadnt researched much about the Ban on Assault weapons, mainly drawing my information from media sources. However, as I was typing up the above response, I proceeded to google for it and found two sites (http://www.gunsandcrime.org/asltweps.html) and (http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcassaul.html
I also saw the statistics on how often assault weapons were used in gun crimes and found they were negligible. Now, I am yet to read in detail about the proponents of this ban, so it would not be proper for me to talk for or against this topic anymore. My information on it, was quite limited. Thanks for educating me though.
Now, I must say, when Second amendment proponents talks about "take firearms away from criminals, they will find another way, hence focus on making less criminals", it really doesnt care about the criminals or making sure theres less of them. Gun owners mistrusts law enforcement to protect them and their property and want to defend themselves. Thats it. Anything more they say is fluff. They dont care if another white/black kid grows up to an educated citizen or whether he chooses a life of crime. They just want to be prepared and armed when he breaks through that door. Tell me if I am wrong..
I dont want to ban the right to bear arms.. I just want to prevent making ordinary people in to extraordinary killers by giving them a better instrument to kill.
Assault Weapons just dont fit in to the hands of the general public, no matter how paranoid one might be. If you were an avid gun enthusiast, you still have more than enough to splurge on.
I agree that the drug laws seldom work, in the end inconveniencing some of its legal users. But shooting drugs in to my arm doesnt equate to firing few rounds in to my neighbour. I just dont see how they can be compared.
Call them whatever you like, here is what they stand for:
:
:)
Apostolic Congress
Here is their mission statement: Christians are affecting policy in Washington, and bringing about real change in America.
"The Apostolic Congress also SUPPORTS the Sovereign nation of Israel. We work very close with the Embassy of Israel in Washington DC."
This is how they were formed: "In 1981, early in the Reagan Administration, Brother Stan Wachtstetter was able to open the door for Apostolic Christians into the White House." Now, 'Bro Stan' happens to be a big buddy of Rev. Moon (Crown Nut!).
The following is a blog on Apostolic Congress, Rev. Moon and how they are courted by this administration.
Jerry Falwell:
My only remembrance of this guy is when he came on TV and told the rest of the nation that (a) there is no Global Warming and (b) Scientists are blatantly uninformed or lying and (c) he would gladly purchase another SUV the very same day to prove his point. All this in apparent response to "Would Jesus buy an SUV" campaign or something of that nature. Seeing how indignant our dear reverend became on the blatant misuse of the Church's Trademark on "Jesus", I guess his response was justified
Also, remember that once Falwell criticized Rev.Moon, the Crown Nut, all the way till the day, Crown Nut bailed him (and his church) financially and now he sings his praise.
So, what do we have here people? Is this the type of people the current administration needs to be in bed with?
That screaming you hear is coming from beyond the graves.. This nation's founding fathers want their country back..
Yes, it is possible that Kerry do a double take and turn out to be someone equally bad in his decisions as the current president. But here is my reasoning that he wont: Kerry, comes off as a thinker, a man who is more idealistic, more willing to listen to others dissenting opinions than Bush. Not because Bush is a bad person, but because his cohorts, his close aides are shielding him from listening to any dissent at all. Unfortunately, the president could have chosen to look beyond these partisan-yes-men and sought out americans and decent men abroad who could convince the president that there is an alternative, but he didnt. The President did not want the trouble of seeking out other perspectives on issues that were confronting him, he just wanted to choose the easiest solutions.
I admit its dangerous when some americans are trying to replace their president not because they love the incumbent, but hate their president. Its a bad judgement and elections have become such a farce. But, how do you voice dissent against your President and the views of his administration in any other manner in today's america? Is there a third choice? Sure, you can decide not to vote, but then you would be hiding from your responsibility. The political system in a whole has to change, for the better.
Finally, I believe the Assault Weapons Ban is a good thing. And I hope it stands, despite what NRA wants me to believe.
becoming the tool for foreign born terrorist geeks to bring our defense down, because we all know how dangerous young pasty white geeks with glasses..
But lets give Accenture billions of dollars to build a major federal IT contract to secure the nations boundaries when they happily turn around and outsource the project to pasty white (or brown for us poor indians) geeks with glasses and pocket the rest of the profit.
Because we all know, Bermuda based Accenture is obviously an honest corporation with its best interests that are aligned with the rest of the nation.
Ok..
The Patriot Act and its proponents has done a fantastic job in making America feel safer under its umbrella, hence I would not go deep in to why Patriot Act and other regulations wont keep americans any safer (it will probably save the land, but not its citizens who choose to travel beyond its boundaries). What I believe would keep its people safe is when its Govt decides not to trample over the collective will of the rest of the world over starkly contrasting priorities and beliefs.
You are admitting that Kerry does want to take out the obviously scary stuff while leaving some behind. We have an administration who is backing the law in its current state, with all the scary stuff thrown in, and they want to make it Permanent!!!
Bush had his shot at the White House. He could have chosen to unite the country on the wake of 9/11. He took the path of the religious right, choosing to align himself with right wing nuts like Falwell and folks like Apostolic Congress. He chose to wage a crusade, he chose to go to war over vague notions as to what a WMD is. He chose to divide this country, rather than unite it.
Kerry might do a double take like Bush when he becomes President, but my perspective of him is more of a statesman, of a masterful politician, a man who chooses his words wisely, a man who did not have the Presidentship handed to him on a platter. Him, I can trust, atleast for the next 4 years. Bush, I have lost that trust.