Wait, so he's suggesting that your average Iraqi soldier on the front lines was reading his email on his Blackberry that morning and found this email among the herbal viagra and fake rolex spam?
Why does that not seem likely to me? I mean, I was under the impression that most of these guys were lucky to have water or guns that worked.
Something needs to happen -- apparently he's decided that he can somehow treat himself if only he can get his hands on enough antibiotics.
We have doctors for a reason, and this is it! Go to the HOSPITAL or you're going to DIE. Insurance or not, it's not worth it to save yourself the cost of a freakin' ER admission!
Don't wait until Friday! Are you nuts? Go to the ER right now or call 9-11 if you can't drive yourself. Hell, post your address and a Slashdotter will be there in 5 minutes to give you a lift.
Helpful tip: If you're feeling like you might die, you just might. Seek immediate medical attention, not advice from/.'ers.
I was thinking about asking them something like this (except for the pathetic how-do-I-meet-women bit at the end), but then I realized that these guys do PA for a living. It's a lot easier to find a few hours to play games when you're not spending 8 hours a day filling out TPS reports. Trust me -- I tried it a few years back on a non-voluntary basis.
I'd be more interested to hear about how getting older has affected their views on the games themselves. I'm roughly the same age and frankly I find myself less and less tolerant of the BS that surrounds gaming, particularly in terms of online play.
I mean, there are always losers playing any online game, but the ubiquity of online gaming across both platforms and titles and innovations like the Xbox Live! headphone have lifted these guys out of their little troll caves and brought them out into the open to a degree where even a fairly unique and exciting online game like Pandora Tomorrow quickly became not worth my time. Listening to a stoned 15 year-old ramble on about his personal worldview or try to be shocking just to piss off his teammates just isn't my idea of fun anymore (hint to the 15 year olds out there: I've actually heard words like "cunt" and "jew" enough times and in enough variations that it's just not very interesting anymore. Sorry to pop your bubble).
So gaming has devolded into either being stuck playing one of the few basic offline games (Quake clones, Warcraft clones, Tekken clones, GTA clones, etc. Oh, and minesweeper) or dealing with the combined stupidity of the internet.
I know they've done comics about this sort of thing, but apparently they don't find it obnoxious enough to keep them offline for any real length of time.
Yeah, because what could possibly go wrong with non-anonymous voting?
Oh wait, yeah: vote-selling, retribuition, targetted disenfranchisement, harrassment, intimidation, etc. Forgot about those. But hey, otherwise you make a really great point.
The article does a good job at repeating all the real issues with electronic voting.
And nobody outside the geek community will ever, ever give a shit. I was talking to a nontechnical coworker last week about it, conversation went something like this:
Her: So, turns out your fears about electronic voting weren't anything after all, eh?
Me: Why do you say that?
Her: Well, there were no problems...
Me: Yeah? How do you know?
See, the lovely thing here is that this whole issue is just going to fade away because people by and large aren't sophisticated enough to realize that voter fraud can be taking place unless they see people squinting at punchcard ballots. And the media ain't going to look into it for the exact same reasons.
I'm Skyshadow and I approved this little ray of morning sunshine. Now go about your business.
I think you're basically misunderstanding the point of my post.
Peace does not spring from treaties. Hitler said that his agreements were just worthless pieces of paper, and he was exactly right -- there's nothing in any treaty that prevents either side (especially the last remaining superpower) from breaking it when it becomes inconveniant. In most cases, there isn't even a lot of pressure to stick to our word, even in democracies where the people are in a good position to exert influence over their government.
Any lasting peace, then, is only attainable when people no longer view war as being an attractive option. Until you can make this shift, we'll see war without end in each new battleground no matter how we advance technologically or where we go as a species. Simply crying over each step as it happens is a useless waste of effort, since without real change in attitudes this encroachment is absolutely inevitable.
PS: I'd refrain from using terms like "moron" or "fool", especially since your reading skills are in obvious need of work. I'll be keeping an eye on you for a while, so I'd recommend developing a more civil tone.
Oh, it's in violation of a treaty? I'm sure the Bush Administration will back off
immediately once they find that out given their consistant respect for international law
and unwavering dedication to peace in our time.
Seriously, though: Space was never any different than all the other areas that
man has adapted to -- sooner or later it was always going to be used to fight wars.
That shouldn't be vaguely shocking to anyone. People settle their disputes by killing
each other (or, more accurately, sending 18 year olds as proxies to kill each other).
Peace doesn't come from treaties. It comes from the realization that war itself is almost
never worth fighting.
This is probably far enough down the thread that it'll never get read, but:
Congrats, Bush supporters. You side won, and won relatively definitively compared with 2000. You also picked up some house seats and a Senate seat (two if you count Zell Miller as a Dem). It's your day, and despite my personal views I honestly hope that the US electorate made the right decision.
To my fellow dems, well, here we are. Take a couple of days to lick your wounds and feel shitty -- it's always tough to lose, especially when it's a close one. But no matter what, and especially no matter how much crap you take in the next couple of days, don't lose faith. There are two things I've learned about politics: (a) there's always another election and (b) things are never as bad as they seem.
In retrospect, I believe it was to our detriment that we didn't lose the popular vote in 2000 because it gave us and excuse to not stop, admit defeat and regroup -- instead, we figured we could just steamroll to the next election and win. Well, now we know better.
Back in 1992, the GOP suffered the same sort of defeat we're facing now (actually, a worse defeat). They did the right thing with it, though, and in '94 they came back and were able to be highly successful by presenting a new look and new promise.
I know. I was a Republican back then. I was at a victory party for a GOP house member named Scott Klug whose campaign I'd worked on when the wind shifted. You could *feel* it happening -- it was the dawn of a new day for a party that had strayed away from its roots during Bush I.
Well folks, this is our 1992. Even now, the GOP is drifting away from its core ideas of fiscal responsibility and keeping its nose out of people's business. It's our opportunity to retake the soul of our party and demand a new look and better people, and they're out there right now -- Russ Feingold in Wisconsin, Barak Obama in Illinois and dozens of other good Americans around the country ready to be the new face of our party. It'll happen, but it can't happen without our determination and our hard work.
I won't give up, and neither should you. At the risk of sounding cheesy, we'll pull this off for the same reason the GOP did a decade ago because of a fundemental commonality we share with them: We're Americans. We don't give up, we don't quit, we don't go quietly.
So far as I can tell, City of Heros is unique among major online games in that
it uses its in-game mechanics to discourage people from spending every last waking
hour in the warm glow of their monitor plugging away at their character instead of
rewarding obsessively constant attention to the game.
I'd like to hear about this decision since it's so obviously 180 degrees away from
what other designers have been up to. What was the reason for this decision? Was it a public
health consideration, a method of letting more casual players keep up with the no-life crowd,
a way of reducing load on your servers, or are there other more significant reasons that
I'm not seeing? Do you think that this decision has impacted the playerbase of your game
considerably in terms of who picks up the game and who is still playing a few months in? In
hindsight, should you have structured this aspect differently?
I realize it goes against "lighten up", but how did Kerry exploit Cheney's daughter again?
In the third debate, Kerry was asked if homosexuality was a choice (the unspoken bit there was "and therefore okay to discriminate against"). Taking what Kerry said in response to this question as some sort of attack exposes a latent homophobia -- it assumes that being gay or having a gay family member is something to be ashamed of.
Mary Cheney wasn't in the closet. She isn't a private figure. Kerry didn't out her or expose her to sudden scrutiny. She's a prominant gay American who advises the Vice President and has worked as an advisor on GLB issues to, among others, Coors. The VP himself has talked about her as a reason for disagreeing with the anti-gay marriage amendment.
Kerry didn't insult her. He didn't, for instance, suggest she was just faking gay for attention (like Bush seemed to suggest all gay people might be doing). He didn't call for discrimination against her to be written into the Constitution of the United States. He didn't talk about her any differently than either Candidate talked about each others families in that debate. If Jenna Bush were happily married and Kerry mentioned that, would there be this outcry? Of course not.
Some people say Kerry cynically mentioned her being gay as a way to turn off the homophobes at the extreme right of the GOP. This is suggesting that Kerry should have somehow tempered his answer to a direct question in the debate in order not to piss off bigots in the other party. Yeah. Hey, if the right wants these small-minded assholes on their team, that's their deal and they can get back to work recuiting them. Me, I'm happy to be on the other side.
Now, I take this a little personally because I have friends and family members who are gay, and I love them. Seeing some dickless excuse for a politician suggest they don't deserve the sort of rights that my wife and I have and then try to pass if off as "defending marriage" makes me very, very angry. So if my tone seems a little harsh and uncharacteristically unfunny, you'll excuse me for this one post.
The difference between Afghanistan and Iraq is that one of those countries was harboring and supporting folks who were directly responsible for 9-11 and other attacks on America, and one was run by a guy with a moustache.
Hell, I even give Bush a 20-20 hindsight pass on failing to get OBL at Tora Bora. What I won't forgive him for is diverting troops, resources and attention away from the area before the job was complete and for buddying up with the #1 global nuclear proliferator (Pakistan) in the process.
Okay, this is a really fucking stupid discussion to be having, but seeing as it's a Tuesday morning and my only other alternative is to actually *work*, allow me to provide a comparison:
One candidate has messed up the score of the Bosox series a couple of times, keeping in mind that the series is also taking place during the busiest most demanding time of his life.
The other candidate traded Sammy Sosa for Harold Baines and Fred Manrique, and as a sidenote also rushed us into a terrible protracted destablizing and unnecessary war in the middle east while running up record deficits and presiding over a massive job loss.
The real problem with the 3rd parties is that the people who are active in them tend to be nutcases. I mean, I can sympathize with positions from a certain party, but when I get worked up enough to go to one of their meetings I always end up getting cornered by some guy with a handlebar moustache who'll chew my ear off for hours about the importance of disbanding the federal reserve or whatever.
I don't want to be associated with that, myself.
IMO, the only way a third party is really going to get launched is if a couple of high profile guys from the two major parties decide they've had enough and walk. I wouldn't waste a vote on Badnarik just to "send a message" (especially after being so forcefully reminded that there is a pretty big difference between the republicans and the dems), but I'd give serious consideration to a party running one of the men in Washington who I have real respect for.
This afternoon while I'm sitting in some useless status meeting, I'll be hating myself for checking that out.
Although it will be nice to never again see John Ashcroft's scary face again without picturing a Pride shirt under his suit....
Seriously, though, none of JibJab's stuff this year as been as good as the couple they did in 2000 with the rapping Al Gore/Dubya or (my personal favorite) the monster-sized Hillary, Guiliani and Rick Lazio attacking New York. I can't find any of those online anyplace now -- does anyone know if they're out there someplace?
I vote on these issues, in this order: abortion (against it), homosexual agenda (against gay marriage or special rights for people just because they're gay), and the character of the candidate. In this election, Bush has the edge over Kerry in all three of these categories, so I'll be voting for him.
Okay, so lemme get this straight:
On the basis of a couple of social issues that won't change (abortion's a Constitutional right and the "God Hates Fags Amendment" can't even pass Congress), you're voting for a President who:
pulled the nation into a pointless misadventure of a war, wasting the lives of 1000+ American soldiers, billions of dollars and the US's credibility in the world community while letting the real dangers to our homeland (Al Queda and N. Korea) grow and prosper.
has presided over a fantastic amount of job loss and failed to do anything about it except passing tax cuts targetted at the super-rich.
constantly switches position on the important issues, such as the need for a homeland security department, the 9-11 investigation, etc.
lets his religious views drive his policies, hurting science and cutting proven social programs to give tax money to churches.
The real horror of this is that we are potentially facing an *extinction* of the real films. These "special editions" are already becoming the versions you see on TV and they're the only versions you can really buy anywhere. The original might exist someplace, but if you can't see it, it might as well not.
Back when I was in college, I got the letterbox VHS versions (this is right before the first "special editions" were reissued) and my college ACM chapter had a fund-raiser where we showed the films on a big-screen TV with a big sound system and pizza and whatever.
To my surprise, the main people who showed weren't students, but parents who were bringing their little kids to watch Star Wars for the first time. It was really cool to watch someone's first reaction to this stuff that a lot of us knew by heart.
I have to wonder: Will my kids be able to see the real version of the films, or are they going to be stuck with these inferior versions? How long can my VHS versions last? I watched 'em again last month -- they're already showing wear.
It's a cultural loss on the same level as if Wells had burned "Citizen Kane" after it got a few bad reviews. These are *the* defining movies of that generation.
Guns are problematic. First, there's the obvious safety issue of having a gun in the house. Second, there's the fact that if you miss (or even if you don't), you could toss a bullet through a wall and kill your kid sleeping in the next room or the neighbor down the block.
Pepper spray is good stuff. It's effective over any range you'll encounter in your house. It's nonlethal, so you can use it without being 100% sure of your target (is that shadow an intruder or my 16 year old sneaking back into the house?). It's even effective if you don't have a clear shot -- spray it into the hall and you'll deny access to a section of the house while you dial 911. And if your kids find it, the worse that can happen is they'll spray themselves and need an eye wash. Painful, but beats a bullet in the head.
Given the real risks of even keeping a handgun, in most realistic scenarios (aka, 35 gang members probably aren't going to rush your house), pepper spray is a far better solution given the overall risk/rewards.
IMO, this isn't an area where there's going to be some trick that's
going to magically solve the problem. The best solutions are the time-honored
solutions.
It sounds like you're concerned primarily with property crime, yes?
That's actually pretty darn easy to prevent if you think about it logically.
Don't leave anything in your car if you park it outside. Keep your garage
door closed even during the day so people can't see in. Plant thorney bushes
under the windows. Put up a couple of flood lights to take out the shadows
in your yard. Keep your yard neat so it's obvious somebody lives there.
In terms of detection, nothing beats a well-trained dog. Train 'em to give
a couple of barks whenever someone enters the yard (although just a couple so
it doesn't get irritating).
This isn't a complicated problem, but as with a lot of things the best
solutions are the obvious solutions.
One, two, three, four, I declare a flame-war!
on
Assault Weapons Ban
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
See, the best part about paying for Slashdot is that I see articles like this
coming and have time to don my aesbestos underoos.
This is one of those issues which wouldn't be complicated if we could sit
down and work out a reasonable comprimise, but of course that's not how we
work in America anymore. Gotta stick with either-or's, and the other side
are a bunch of wackos or nutcases. But, even though I know it's gonna get
my ass flamed, I'll take a swing at it. I'm not scared. I got my aesbestos
underoos on.
Obviously guns don't cause people to shoot each other, there are more
complex reasons for it. That said, however, it's the access to
high-capacity weapons (like the ones that were banned) that enables these
folks to go out and kill half their highschool. Preventing gun makers from
building these guns obviously makes it tougher for people to get them, which
is a Good Thing -- nobody has a legitimate reason for owning a 30 round clip.
But the GOP are all a bunch of whores to the NRA, who don't let reason creep
in on their paranoia about pinko lefties coming to take away their guns and
kick over their stills or whatever. They, combined with a few people on the
extreme left who don't think people ought to be able to hunt or whatever, combine
to paralyze the whole damn debate.
But then we're down to the apparently unresolvable gun control back and forth.
But that's okay, 'cause I got my fireproof underoos. Flame away.
Here we have a prime example of why this sort of irrelevant debate comes up in the first place: The seemingly willing lack of sophistication of the American voter. Of course, this exists on both sides of the aisle, but that doesn't make it any less destructive.
It is damaging to our system of government to have people voting based on a bumper-sticker understanding of the issues. Take your rather bizarre belief that Kerry, his boatmates, the Navy and everybody *but* the SBVFT are lying about what happened in Vietnam. Obviously, you couldn't believe this slander if you'd bothered to research any of the evidence -- the first hand accouts, the Navy's records, the previous statements of some of the SBVFT who have suddenly changed their stories -- instead, you're selectively choosing to buy into it because it happens to fit your harshly partisan views.
Elections are about ensuring that the USA remains in the best hands possible, not about always having your guy win and the other guy lose. To that end, it's your duty as an American Citizen to seek out and use the facts rather than swallowing the vicious lies of those who cynically disregard the truth.
Opposing war is not automatically unpatriotic. Supporting a certain candidate is not unpatriotic, despite what you might think. The true failure of patriotism is you blowing off your fundemental obligation to our political system to vote in a thoughtful, well-considered way -- that's more harmful to the United States than any asshole living in a cave in Afghanistan or a palace in Baghdad.
Slashdot Mirror
Why does that not seem likely to me? I mean, I was under the impression that most of these guys were lucky to have water or guns that worked.
We have doctors for a reason, and this is it! Go to the HOSPITAL or you're going to DIE. Insurance or not, it's not worth it to save yourself the cost of a freakin' ER admission!
Interesting how I tried to type "911" and it automatically came out "9-11", eh? Too much election makes Skyshadow something something.
Helpful tip: If you're feeling like you might die, you just might. Seek immediate medical attention, not advice from /.'ers.
I'd be more interested to hear about how getting older has affected their views on the games themselves. I'm roughly the same age and frankly I find myself less and less tolerant of the BS that surrounds gaming, particularly in terms of online play.
I mean, there are always losers playing any online game, but the ubiquity of online gaming across both platforms and titles and innovations like the Xbox Live! headphone have lifted these guys out of their little troll caves and brought them out into the open to a degree where even a fairly unique and exciting online game like Pandora Tomorrow quickly became not worth my time. Listening to a stoned 15 year-old ramble on about his personal worldview or try to be shocking just to piss off his teammates just isn't my idea of fun anymore (hint to the 15 year olds out there: I've actually heard words like "cunt" and "jew" enough times and in enough variations that it's just not very interesting anymore. Sorry to pop your bubble).
So gaming has devolded into either being stuck playing one of the few basic offline games (Quake clones, Warcraft clones, Tekken clones, GTA clones, etc. Oh, and minesweeper) or dealing with the combined stupidity of the internet.
I know they've done comics about this sort of thing, but apparently they don't find it obnoxious enough to keep them offline for any real length of time.
Oh wait, yeah: vote-selling, retribuition, targetted disenfranchisement, harrassment, intimidation, etc. Forgot about those. But hey, otherwise you make a really great point.
And nobody outside the geek community will ever, ever give a shit. I was talking to a nontechnical coworker last week about it, conversation went something like this:
Her: So, turns out your fears about electronic voting weren't anything after all, eh?
Me: Why do you say that?
Her: Well, there were no problems...
Me: Yeah? How do you know?
See, the lovely thing here is that this whole issue is just going to fade away because people by and large aren't sophisticated enough to realize that voter fraud can be taking place unless they see people squinting at punchcard ballots. And the media ain't going to look into it for the exact same reasons.
I'm Skyshadow and I approved this little ray of morning sunshine. Now go about your business.
Peace does not spring from treaties. Hitler said that his agreements were just worthless pieces of paper, and he was exactly right -- there's nothing in any treaty that prevents either side (especially the last remaining superpower) from breaking it when it becomes inconveniant. In most cases, there isn't even a lot of pressure to stick to our word, even in democracies where the people are in a good position to exert influence over their government.
Any lasting peace, then, is only attainable when people no longer view war as being an attractive option. Until you can make this shift, we'll see war without end in each new battleground no matter how we advance technologically or where we go as a species. Simply crying over each step as it happens is a useless waste of effort, since without real change in attitudes this encroachment is absolutely inevitable.
PS: I'd refrain from using terms like "moron" or "fool", especially since your reading skills are in obvious need of work. I'll be keeping an eye on you for a while, so I'd recommend developing a more civil tone.
Seriously, though: Space was never any different than all the other areas that man has adapted to -- sooner or later it was always going to be used to fight wars. That shouldn't be vaguely shocking to anyone. People settle their disputes by killing each other (or, more accurately, sending 18 year olds as proxies to kill each other).
Peace doesn't come from treaties. It comes from the realization that war itself is almost never worth fighting.
Congrats, Bush supporters. You side won, and won relatively definitively compared with 2000. You also picked up some house seats and a Senate seat (two if you count Zell Miller as a Dem). It's your day, and despite my personal views I honestly hope that the US electorate made the right decision.
To my fellow dems, well, here we are. Take a couple of days to lick your wounds and feel shitty -- it's always tough to lose, especially when it's a close one. But no matter what, and especially no matter how much crap you take in the next couple of days, don't lose faith. There are two things I've learned about politics: (a) there's always another election and (b) things are never as bad as they seem.
In retrospect, I believe it was to our detriment that we didn't lose the popular vote in 2000 because it gave us and excuse to not stop, admit defeat and regroup -- instead, we figured we could just steamroll to the next election and win. Well, now we know better.
Back in 1992, the GOP suffered the same sort of defeat we're facing now (actually, a worse defeat). They did the right thing with it, though, and in '94 they came back and were able to be highly successful by presenting a new look and new promise.
I know. I was a Republican back then. I was at a victory party for a GOP house member named Scott Klug whose campaign I'd worked on when the wind shifted. You could *feel* it happening -- it was the dawn of a new day for a party that had strayed away from its roots during Bush I.
Well folks, this is our 1992. Even now, the GOP is drifting away from its core ideas of fiscal responsibility and keeping its nose out of people's business. It's our opportunity to retake the soul of our party and demand a new look and better people, and they're out there right now -- Russ Feingold in Wisconsin, Barak Obama in Illinois and dozens of other good Americans around the country ready to be the new face of our party. It'll happen, but it can't happen without our determination and our hard work.
I won't give up, and neither should you. At the risk of sounding cheesy, we'll pull this off for the same reason the GOP did a decade ago because of a fundemental commonality we share with them: We're Americans. We don't give up, we don't quit, we don't go quietly.
Yup, my bad. Hey, they came out around the same time, I just mixed up the features.
I'd like to hear about this decision since it's so obviously 180 degrees away from what other designers have been up to. What was the reason for this decision? Was it a public health consideration, a method of letting more casual players keep up with the no-life crowd, a way of reducing load on your servers, or are there other more significant reasons that I'm not seeing? Do you think that this decision has impacted the playerbase of your game considerably in terms of who picks up the game and who is still playing a few months in? In hindsight, should you have structured this aspect differently?
We all know that the NFL really determines the outcome of the elections! And I gotta say, things are not looking up for King George at this point.
In the third debate, Kerry was asked if homosexuality was a choice (the unspoken bit there was "and therefore okay to discriminate against"). Taking what Kerry said in response to this question as some sort of attack exposes a latent homophobia -- it assumes that being gay or having a gay family member is something to be ashamed of.
Mary Cheney wasn't in the closet. She isn't a private figure. Kerry didn't out her or expose her to sudden scrutiny. She's a prominant gay American who advises the Vice President and has worked as an advisor on GLB issues to, among others, Coors. The VP himself has talked about her as a reason for disagreeing with the anti-gay marriage amendment.
Kerry didn't insult her. He didn't, for instance, suggest she was just faking gay for attention (like Bush seemed to suggest all gay people might be doing). He didn't call for discrimination against her to be written into the Constitution of the United States. He didn't talk about her any differently than either Candidate talked about each others families in that debate. If Jenna Bush were happily married and Kerry mentioned that, would there be this outcry? Of course not.
Some people say Kerry cynically mentioned her being gay as a way to turn off the homophobes at the extreme right of the GOP. This is suggesting that Kerry should have somehow tempered his answer to a direct question in the debate in order not to piss off bigots in the other party. Yeah. Hey, if the right wants these small-minded assholes on their team, that's their deal and they can get back to work recuiting them. Me, I'm happy to be on the other side.
Now, I take this a little personally because I have friends and family members who are gay, and I love them. Seeing some dickless excuse for a politician suggest they don't deserve the sort of rights that my wife and I have and then try to pass if off as "defending marriage" makes me very, very angry. So if my tone seems a little harsh and uncharacteristically unfunny, you'll excuse me for this one post.
The difference between Afghanistan and Iraq is that one of those countries was harboring and supporting folks who were directly responsible for 9-11 and other attacks on America, and one was run by a guy with a moustache.
Hell, I even give Bush a 20-20 hindsight pass on failing to get OBL at Tora Bora. What I won't forgive him for is diverting troops, resources and attention away from the area before the job was complete and for buddying up with the #1 global nuclear proliferator (Pakistan) in the process.
One candidate has messed up the score of the Bosox series a couple of times, keeping in mind that the series is also taking place during the busiest most demanding time of his life.
The other candidate traded Sammy Sosa for Harold Baines and Fred Manrique, and as a sidenote also rushed us into a terrible protracted destablizing and unnecessary war in the middle east while running up record deficits and presiding over a massive job loss.
Make your choice, America.
I don't want to be associated with that, myself.
IMO, the only way a third party is really going to get launched is if a couple of high profile guys from the two major parties decide they've had enough and walk. I wouldn't waste a vote on Badnarik just to "send a message" (especially after being so forcefully reminded that there is a pretty big difference between the republicans and the dems), but I'd give serious consideration to a party running one of the men in Washington who I have real respect for.
Although it will be nice to never again see John Ashcroft's scary face again without picturing a Pride shirt under his suit....
Seriously, though, none of JibJab's stuff this year as been as good as the couple they did in 2000 with the rapping Al Gore/Dubya or (my personal favorite) the monster-sized Hillary, Guiliani and Rick Lazio attacking New York. I can't find any of those online anyplace now -- does anyone know if they're out there someplace?
On the basis of a couple of social issues that won't change (abortion's a Constitutional right and the "God Hates Fags Amendment" can't even pass Congress), you're voting for a President who:
pulled the nation into a pointless misadventure of a war, wasting the lives of 1000+ American soldiers, billions of dollars and the US's credibility in the world community while letting the real dangers to our homeland (Al Queda and N. Korea) grow and prosper.
has presided over a fantastic amount of job loss and failed to do anything about it except passing tax cuts targetted at the super-rich.
constantly switches position on the important issues, such as the need for a homeland security department, the 9-11 investigation, etc.
lets his religious views drive his policies, hurting science and cutting proven social programs to give tax money to churches.
can't admit mistakes.
Good plan.
Seriously, someone actually looked at this and decided it was okay?
Back when I was in college, I got the letterbox VHS versions (this is right before the first "special editions" were reissued) and my college ACM chapter had a fund-raiser where we showed the films on a big-screen TV with a big sound system and pizza and whatever.
To my surprise, the main people who showed weren't students, but parents who were bringing their little kids to watch Star Wars for the first time. It was really cool to watch someone's first reaction to this stuff that a lot of us knew by heart.
I have to wonder: Will my kids be able to see the real version of the films, or are they going to be stuck with these inferior versions? How long can my VHS versions last? I watched 'em again last month -- they're already showing wear.
It's a cultural loss on the same level as if Wells had burned "Citizen Kane" after it got a few bad reviews. These are *the* defining movies of that generation.
Guns are problematic. First, there's the obvious safety issue of having a gun in the house. Second, there's the fact that if you miss (or even if you don't), you could toss a bullet through a wall and kill your kid sleeping in the next room or the neighbor down the block.
Pepper spray is good stuff. It's effective over any range you'll encounter in your house. It's nonlethal, so you can use it without being 100% sure of your target (is that shadow an intruder or my 16 year old sneaking back into the house?). It's even effective if you don't have a clear shot -- spray it into the hall and you'll deny access to a section of the house while you dial 911. And if your kids find it, the worse that can happen is they'll spray themselves and need an eye wash. Painful, but beats a bullet in the head.
Given the real risks of even keeping a handgun, in most realistic scenarios (aka, 35 gang members probably aren't going to rush your house), pepper spray is a far better solution given the overall risk/rewards.
It sounds like you're concerned primarily with property crime, yes? That's actually pretty darn easy to prevent if you think about it logically. Don't leave anything in your car if you park it outside. Keep your garage door closed even during the day so people can't see in. Plant thorney bushes under the windows. Put up a couple of flood lights to take out the shadows in your yard. Keep your yard neat so it's obvious somebody lives there.
In terms of detection, nothing beats a well-trained dog. Train 'em to give a couple of barks whenever someone enters the yard (although just a couple so it doesn't get irritating).
This isn't a complicated problem, but as with a lot of things the best solutions are the obvious solutions.
This is one of those issues which wouldn't be complicated if we could sit down and work out a reasonable comprimise, but of course that's not how we work in America anymore. Gotta stick with either-or's, and the other side are a bunch of wackos or nutcases. But, even though I know it's gonna get my ass flamed, I'll take a swing at it. I'm not scared. I got my aesbestos underoos on.
Obviously guns don't cause people to shoot each other, there are more complex reasons for it. That said, however, it's the access to high-capacity weapons (like the ones that were banned) that enables these folks to go out and kill half their highschool. Preventing gun makers from building these guns obviously makes it tougher for people to get them, which is a Good Thing -- nobody has a legitimate reason for owning a 30 round clip.
But the GOP are all a bunch of whores to the NRA, who don't let reason creep in on their paranoia about pinko lefties coming to take away their guns and kick over their stills or whatever. They, combined with a few people on the extreme left who don't think people ought to be able to hunt or whatever, combine to paralyze the whole damn debate.
But then we're down to the apparently unresolvable gun control back and forth. But that's okay, 'cause I got my fireproof underoos. Flame away.
It is damaging to our system of government to have people voting based on a bumper-sticker understanding of the issues. Take your rather bizarre belief that Kerry, his boatmates, the Navy and everybody *but* the SBVFT are lying about what happened in Vietnam. Obviously, you couldn't believe this slander if you'd bothered to research any of the evidence -- the first hand accouts, the Navy's records, the previous statements of some of the SBVFT who have suddenly changed their stories -- instead, you're selectively choosing to buy into it because it happens to fit your harshly partisan views.
Elections are about ensuring that the USA remains in the best hands possible, not about always having your guy win and the other guy lose. To that end, it's your duty as an American Citizen to seek out and use the facts rather than swallowing the vicious lies of those who cynically disregard the truth.
Opposing war is not automatically unpatriotic. Supporting a certain candidate is not unpatriotic, despite what you might think. The true failure of patriotism is you blowing off your fundemental obligation to our political system to vote in a thoughtful, well-considered way -- that's more harmful to the United States than any asshole living in a cave in Afghanistan or a palace in Baghdad.