Wednesday, June 2

Rants Page is Up!

Click on the link! Go!

Disclaimer has been updated!

Wh00p!

America, the Republic

Until now, my 'set in stone' quote was, "America is a Republic, NOT a Democracy". People are all a flutter with Democracy. It is proclaimed to be the optimum government. "That is why America is so great," they say. "Because of our Democracy." But then you say, "But the US is a Republic, NOT a democracy." Then they shut up. :)

Ever notice how people refer to our government as 'the government'. What is odd is that a century ago and ever so on before, people did not refer to their government as 'the government'. Instead, they said, "the monarchy" or "the republic" or "the commonwealth".

Now, we just say 'government'. The government has become this political mass, outside of its original roots. People don't even know what type of government they have! So when they say 'government', it very well could be any government. But notice if someone started referring to our government as 'the republic'. The Republic today has decided that spanking should be banned. Hmmm Notice that? Notice the absurdity of saying the 'Republic' is banning spanking? When we think of the word 'Republic', we think of an honorable government, of a representative government. The Republic is lowering the speed limit. See how absurd it sounds? Perhaps that is why no one says 'republic' in in place for government. For when you do say 'Republic', you realize that the government is stepping out of his bounds.

Now lets try Democracy. Go ahead. Say it. "The Democracy has decided that spanking should be banned." "The Democracy is lowering the speed limit." When you say Democracy in place of government, what the Democracy does is as a result of popular vote. When you say that the Democracy, not the 'government', is banning spanking, what is implied is that the popular vote is banning spanking. And popular votes can change. When you say Democracy, you imply the actions are as the result of the citizens. When you say Government, you imply that the actions are the result of the government itself, not the citizens.

Now lets try Fascist State. "The Fascist State has decided that spanking should be banned." Notice the absence of errors? Perhaps people say 'government' blankly because they do not want to say the above, no matter how accurate it may be.

Tuesday, June 1

Frusteration Leads to Errors

Its time to respond to that intellectual sloth, Frusterated, Its not the errors that are surprising, but today's errors need to be addressed. Take a look at her site to see what I'm responding to.

To me chocolate cake is good. But only if I have not had it for ten days in a row. There is only one thing that can be said to be good without qualification. A good will.

This is her definition of 'good'. Her comparison of choclate cake and 'goodness' means that what goodness should be taken only in moderation. After all, if choclate cake is not good ten days in a row, then she means that goodness is, also, not good ten days in a row. Fully applying this, if over ten consecutive days, a child is ran over, Frus is saying it is not good to rescue a child for all of those ten days. Moderation is needed. So Frus will rescue the child seven out of the ten days.

My definition of good. To put it simply: good is the production of joy and life.

If you read Frus's rant, then you'll notice how, aside from the above quote, that she does not define what is goodx. Instead, she goes into 'good will's. What is a good will? Why, its...

A good will is good because it is willing. Willing to do what? Willing to do good.

This doesn't help us if we still do not know what 'good' is... All we know so far is that she means 'moderation' (with her reference to choclate cake). So the only conclusion one can come up with is that good will is a will done by moderation.

But lets stop for a moment at will. What is 'willing'? People are willing to do lots of things. But willing is not the same as acting, as accomplishing. Marx might of been 'good willed' in that he wanted to uplift the poor, but his idealogy birthed the most murderous and tyrannical governments that have existed in the history of man. According to Frus, Marx is considered to be 'good' because his will was 'good'. Willing is another word for intending. Politicians all over intend good things. Do they accomplish them? Nope. But they have 'good will' so they must be considered 'good'.

The good willed person thinks in terms of "must do" first.

This is a gigantic error on Frus's part. The good willed person has good intentions. There is no prerequisite for a good intended, a good willed, person to act to be considered 'good willed'.

We all have a moral responsibily to one another.

On what grounds!? We are not a continent. We are not a mass of humanity. Society is not a unit.

This line is used so much for justification of extreme taxation (yes, our current taxation is, and can only be, considered extreme when compared to this nation's founding). "How dare you wish to keep the money you earn! You have moral responsibility to give that money up to our good willed government!" Of course it doesn't matter if the government will destroy the wealth it takes from us and create huge deficits, what matters is that the government is 'good willed'. The results do not apply.

Everyone wants to make up their own definitions of right and wrong.

I do agree with that. But defining right and wrong is not enough. The enforcement of right and wrong, of a moral absolute, is necessary and vital to a free nation. And what is the moral absolute of this nation's government? The Constitution.

The bad willed person might not save the child to preserve what they percieve to be their own well being. Their own happiness.

Another gigantic flaw. I can tell you that if I was on a street corner, and I saw a child get killed by a car, and I didn't act, I would be extremely unhappy with myself. I would attempt to save the child for my own happiness's sake. My values dictate that I do something. If I go against those values, I lack the joy that those values produce. So being selfish is not a vice.

We all have a duty to be human to each other simply because we ourselves are human.

The error in this quote is that Frus is trying to bridge together two different definitions of Human. One definition is that human is to be civilized. This may or may not mean 'compassionate'. The other definition is that we are flesh and blood. Thieves and scounderals are flesh and blood, but they certainly are not civilized. They are and they are not 'Human'.

"To Err is Human." The basis of the truth in that statement is when you follow its mirror quote, "Perfection is not Human." You could even toss up Adam and Eve as reasoning for this. In the 20th century, this quote has changed. As evident by liberals like Frusterated and countless politicians now present, the new quote is...

"To Err is Divine."

Monday, May 31

Just Shut Up About Microsoft

I am getting really sick and tired of people bashing MS. Their products do become standard. And don't deny it, the computer industry is the most competitive. And MS is even being attacked by the republic (the government's anti trust).

Why am I so mad? Because by bashing MS, the real culprit is getting free. AOL. Translated. Army of Lamers. Why do I hate AOL? Even though I don't use its products, for what reason am I bashing AOL?

AOL is the main force behind getting the Internet regulated.

Why is this? Phone lines for internet connection are being replaced by cable lines. Competition is fierce in the Internet services. AOL, the current leader, knows the huge move going on to cable lines. So AOL wants the government to subsidize cable lines for AOL. All the regulation that AOL wants is not for the 'glory of the Internet' but, rather, 'the glory of AOL'. AOL, the bastard company, wants to preserve its spot as current king of the Internet.

So now comes the question. Which is of more threat, in your opinion? Microsoft, who just makes products and sells them or AOL, who is pressing Congress to regulate and tax the Internet?

A company like Microsoft will not last forever. One day the competitors will best them. And then Microsoft will go away. But taxes and regulation... Well, they will never go away. And once started, they will increase and increase.

So far, don't worry. The chairman of the FCC has promised no regulation or taxing of e-commerce as long as he is chairman. Why? Because he recieves 6000 emails everyday asking for him not to place controls on the Internet. If this is what it takes, lets do more.

Lets make it 12000 a day.

Purpose of this page

I could thump my chest and proclaim, "I will not pull down this page until each and everyone agrees with me." But that will never happen. Feel free to disagree with me. Just know why you disagree me. There are just so many people out there who look at things not as a reasoned position but as a religous faith. I want you to understand where I am coming from. Everything I say on this page will be the Truth as I see it. I won't cower and hide my beliefs.

Thus, time for another quote from my book...

"The Truth will do more then make you free. The Truth will make you different and odd... The Truth will make you obcene...." The [character] laughs. "The Truth will make you.... extreme."

Prayer in Schools

This is a controversial subject but there is no reason for it to be so. But lets get the false premises out of the way. What the first amendment really says...

The seperation of church and state is not to protect people from religon, but, rather, to protect people from government.

Someone religious being elected as a politician is not an establishement of a church. It is accurate representation. If there exists a large enough body of religious people, is it or is it not just for them to elect someone who shares in their viewpoints? Is it not proper for religious people to elect a religious representative?

On to the schools. The reason why prayer must be banned (i.e. God has been found by the Supreme Court to be unconstitutional) is said to be because of those minority of athiests and/or muslim, etc. Those people would be considered to be 'embarresed' and would lose their 'self worth'. The twin thrusts behind this reasoning is due to the recent emphasis on student's self esteem and culture 'diversity' (not accepting, but celebrating people's differences.

The problem in this is not a monopoly of religon but a monopoly of schooling. With the state, you lack the choice of going to another school that would fit your beliefs. If religous people go to a religous school, more power to them! If nonreligious people want to go to a nonreligious school, then great! And if nonreligious people go to a religious school, or a school featuring a religion, they do so voluntarily. And voluntarily is what those public prayer supporters are about. They don't want to force a religon down anyone's throats if they don't want it. That would be an invasion on individual liberty. That is what establishing a church of a nation is, forcing a religon, an idealogy, down everyone's throats.

Notice, that the anti-idealogy has been forced down everyone's throats. If a child wants to pray where he wants to, where he chooses (as long as he isn't on his property. And public schools are property of the public. Religous people are members of the public.) then by what right does anyone have to stop him? Notice the breaching of the first amendment already: the establishement of a secular church.

Pro-Control Rhetoric

The Pro-Gun Control folks really are quick to anger regarding to people, like, say Charlton Heston. *Boo! Hiss!* Undoubtfully, they are the ones basing their arguments on emotion. Lets go through what they're saying now....

They say that we shouldn't have more gun laws because they won't 'work'. Then I guess we should get rid of all laws. For people will break the laws against raping, murdering, and stealing!

The error in the above argument is that gun control and laws against murder are nothing the same. And this is why.

There are several reasons why law abiding citizens buy guns. One is for hunting. (Die Bambi, die! Bam! Bam!) And Two, for protection. Against whom? Against thugs. Which type of thugs? All thugs. From the ones on the street to ones in a governmental building. The purpose of the point of the gun to be in hands of a free citizen is to keep that citizen free. Free from both violence and tyranny.

There is no moral justification for murder (note: self defense is not murder). So now we come to the crucial difference between laws against murder, stealing, rape, etc. and gun control.

Laws against murder, theft, and rape punish criiminals. Gun control punishes law abiding citizens. (Yes, law abiding citizens. Criminals steal their guns and/or buy them off the black market.)

There will be some who will then jump up and say, "Hey, gun control does punish criminals. If you don't follow the Brady Bill Law, then you are a criminal!" The question then becomes 'what type of crime?' The answer: a victimless crime. For example, there are laws against gambling. But when people gamble, they may be stupid, they may even be immoral, but, certainly, is such an act criminal? With all the things morally repugnant with adultury, is that a crime? No force is applied against another.

Cataclysm fact: Of all the gun control that has been with us for the past few years, you can count the number of all the people punished for breaking those laws on one hand.

Politicians pass laws to save their career, their political life. But your life is saved only when laws are enforced.

The NRA is just EVIL!

Yeah. Right.

There is a vast NRA conspiracy. Every politician that opposses gun control must of been paid by those devious NRA devils.

It is interesting to think that the gun control crowd, when a politician thinks gun control is a bad idea, immediately thinks that the NRA has giving that politician 'big bucks' to say what he said. Does the idea occurr to them that the politician actually believes in what he says? No. It has to be the non-existant 'big bucks' that the NRA is somehow giving out. Even a comic strip, Mallard Fillmore, has been accused of being paid by Charlton Heston to have the message it did. Don't believe me? Read the letters to to the editorial in the Houston Chronicle.

A think tank, any think tank, can give money to whomever they want. It is not because of "Take this money and say what I want you to say." Rather, its "Since you agree with what I agree, I will support you." Another example of what I'm trying to get across. People do not listen to talk radio because, "I want to become a robot." No. They listen because, "Hey, I agree with what the host is saying!"

Why are they against SENSIBLE laws?

Notice how everything they propose is 'sensible', but desiring the right to protect yourself (which is the essence of anti-gun control folks) is somehow, someway, *extreme*. To put it in perspective, let me use this as an example. We should regulate and control sedition. After all, its a 'sensible' law. It hurts our nation's self worth to allow people to criticize the government whenever and however they choose. We will regulate this sedition. We will allow this sedition only on Mondays and Saturdays. After all, its the sensible thing to do!

The reason why you would, and should, oppose such a law is because it is a violation of our right to free speech. If you allow this sedition law to pass, when does it end? Why not ban sedition of Mondays as well? Or how about on 9 to 5 on Saturdays too? You see, once you let such a law pass, there is no end in site. Eventually, the natural course is that the right to free speech will be ultimately eliminated.

The same applies to the second amendment. The reason why people like me oppose gun control because it is the crack against our right to protect ourselves, whether it be a gun or a baseball bat. The sedition law punishes law abiding citizens as does the gun control laws.

Gun Control is for responsible governmental agencies!

You know the answer to this one. Look at the picture at the top of this page.

Sunday, May 30

The Gun Pic is Not Coming Down

For many people, a picture of the gun (like the one on top of this site) makes people nervous. They associate the gun EEVIL, *death*, and every other nasty. But the gun, on this site, is a symbol for life, liberty, and the American ideal. "What? The Gun as the American ideal!?" Yep. This nation was founded on individual rights. The gun allows people to preserve their right to live against the murderer, against the rapist, against the thief, and even...

...against a politiican.

Guns are, and will always be, glorius when in the hands of Justice, of individual citizens who love their liberties and refuse to let anyone remove them. Do you want to know why politicians are so hell bent on eradicating guns?

Because the gun is served best when the citizen points the barrel of the gun at the politician, rather then the other way around.

From my book, the Schism of Stars:

"What is it called when the citizens are afraid of their government?"

"Tyranny."

"And what is called when it is the government that fears its citizens?"

The man laughs. "Liberty."

As you can see, Guns are to Liberty as Air is to Fire.

Damn them! Damn the children!

Any politically aware person will realize that our government is centered around the children. Why? Because our society places children on a pedestal. And I saw much of this on Graduation.

We are not the future. We are not going to graduate to have everyone get out of our way. We, children, are nothing at graduation. The future are the people who will endeavor and succeed at great things. And not everyone will be that. What we will do, we will graduate, then we will pollute the job market with our meager skills. We will do that as the class before us has done and as the class below us will do. And the cycle will continue.

I know many people won't agree with this so I'll put it this way. Anyone can be an environmentalist. Anyone can be a Homeless advocate. Anyone can be a compassionate soldier. But not everyone can own a lexus.

Graduation

Yesterday, I ended my twelve year sentence. Everyone says 'congats!' but I know such a diploma is no achievement. How do I know this? For a HS diploma is worthless. It is better then not having one, of course. But does anyone with a stable mind consider someone having a HS diploma to be properly 'educated'?

I'm going to write an editorial to my paper, the Houston Chronicle. Whether they'll print it or not will be interesting. The Houston Chronicle is one of the largest papers in the nation (6th I believe). If they print it I'll be stunned. I'll write up the editorial and post it in the articles section. Trust me. It'll be good :)

Enviro Fanatics

They are cute, aren't they? They may say they're green, but like a radish, you dig underneath the surface and you find the root all red. A quote at the top of the page, by Netslave, was his reaction to my Enviro articles.

Only in the end of the 20th century would the savage living style be illustrated as 'enlightened' (one with 'Nature').

One thing that Netslave said was that people now days are very unhappy. Certainly not with their standard of living! But here is an observation. Almost every environmentalist I have encountered was a bitter, scornful, person. Now Netslave was thumping his chest and proclaiming how wonderful it was to live in our 'niche' of Nature (which these enviros will define for us by governmental mandate). But if he is in Humanity's proper niche, then why did I recieve a impression that he was unhappy? Of course, I might of recieved the wrong impression. But due to his conclusion that the further away you are from being with nature, the more unhappy you are, then wouldn't the closer you are to nature, the more happy you become? By this conclusion, Enviros must be the happiest people around. But they aren't. And why is this?

When you think, the world is a comedy. When you feel, the world is a tragedy.

Thursday, May 27

Articles Page Up!

Check it out.

Wednesday, May 26

The Great Cigerette Burn

I wrote this today on the Junk Science Forum:

This is what I want to do. In college, I want to get a whole bunch of cigerrates (tons of bulk packages) and with other people, we burn them in the night.

Think of it as a modern 'Boston Tea Party'. Instead of tea, its cigerettes. Instead of dumping it, its burning it. But the purpose is the same. To protest against outrageous taxes.

And the grounds for this 'Great Cigerette Burn' would be just as moral as was the 'Boston Tea Party'. It doesn't matter if you smoke (I don't) or not, or if you drink tea or not. This overtaxing of a legal substance has got to stop. Where will it happen next? Will guns become the next cigerrettes? Will they be taxed to death also? Will fatty foods be taxed severely since they are considered to be 'stealing' from the government. (Don't laugh, there are 'intellectuals' now that are proposing this. When you eat those fatty foods, you have more health problems. The more health problems, the more the health care has to spend on you. Thus, you're 'stealing' from the government.)

In the end, we must do this for the children. After all, everything (it seems) revolves around them.

Email is Up

For some reason or another, it wasn't possible to email me. Now you can by clicking the below pic.

Star Wars!

I finally saw the Menace. Overall, I enjoyed it. The movie is certainly not worth waiting in line for days though. Below is my 'review'. If you haven't seen the movie, avoid the below rant. It contains spoilers.

I did like how the movie began. The central problem of the Trade Agency and its 'overtaxation' or whatever was very plausible. The special effects were... awesome. However, like any and all special effects, they lose their effect in the later parts of the movie. Everything was going great until the introduction of this particular character:

Jar Jar Binx

When I first saw him, I was like, "Oh my goodness, what a flaming fag." He was! Just listen to his voice! And his 'intereaction' with the two Jedis was stupid. The movie was going fine but a conversation between Jar Jar and that Quagmo whatever fellow took away from the movie then adding to it. I was hoping that Jar Jar would die right then. But, damn it, the Quagmo guy kept saving him.

The Underwater City was interesting to me. I would of liked to of seen it more. But what didn't make sense to me was when the Jedi swim down to the city. Lets say that they can hold their breath that long and swim that deep. But when they arrived in the city they didn't take any breath (did the Forcegive them enough air not to gasp? And why were they not wet?

The 'going through the core' seemed to be a special effects display. That, I don't have a problem with. It was that damn Jar Jar screwing up any good scenes. The fish killing the fish that was about to kill our 'heroes' was ok. But it happening again was stupid.

The Naboo takeover. Nothing worthy to mention. The stuff on 'Tatooine' (sp?) seemed to be a drag to me. I don't give a flip about Anakin 'Yippee' Skywalker and his long dull goodbyes to his mommy. (Although I loved the way how he said goodbye to the gay bot, C3PO. "I'll try to get Mom to not sell you.") To me, they spent much too much time on Tatooine.

And about the Pod Race.

I was disapointed with it. The best scenes was when they show the pod from either behind it or from Anakin's eyes. It was great seeing the twists and turns from first persepective. But you only get a couple of seconds of that before it flips to bird's eye of a canyon and seeing the 'pods' race by. "Oh no! There are raiders on the canyon wall shooting at the pods!" I laughed forever when I saw that. For NASCAR or any other racing, I say we put some 'raiders' up in a tower and have them shoot at the incoming cars. It would make the race more interesting for sure. Also, I recall in my childhood cartoon days of 'races'. Usually the hero's 'car' would be sabotaged by the arch-villian. As the race went on, there seemed no hope for our hero and the arch villian is in the lead. Then, one by one, all the 'cars' get broken down and get out of the race. Then its just the hero and the arch villian going neck to neck. Something happens and the hero 'wins'. Don't deny it. You've probaly seen the same cartoons I have. And this happens. So that is why I wanted to scream out unoriginality for the pod race. And notice how the pods are like the 'horses' while the driver rides in a 'carriage' type mobile? My point is that this seems to be Lucas's version of the grand Chariot Race in the movie Ben Hur.

Of course, the pod race can't even begin to compare.

Lets see, what else should I complain about? Oh yes, the capital world. A 'city covering the planet' is such an old, such a stale sci-fi clique. You can find it in the first Foundation book if you look. But it was cool to see special effects wise. And why is the Senate on crack? The 'platforms' they are on is absurd. I prefer the meeting style of the Jedi Council. And it got annoying how the camera kept on moving along with the platforms.

The 'decoy' Queen seemed like a typical amatuer writer's plot twists. Of course, we know that Lucas isn't going to focus on a Queen's 'helper'. So the Queen being a decoy and the helper being the Queen was no surprise.

Do we have to wait for Episode II for the Queen to get in a gold bikini? Just wondering.

I actually thought Jar Jar was funny at the end. Maybe it was because he became general.

The Light Saber fight. I have to comment on this. So there they were, our heroes, and they open up a door with Darth Maul standing behind it. 'Why, this is a good time to do a light saber fight that has nothing to do with the plot!' one Jedi says to another. So the Queen and her extras run off to play laser tag while the two Jedi jump around and swing their glowing rods. Q Jedi guy dies. And Kenobi slashes with Darth Maul for a while. Kenobi loses his saber and is hanging at the edge of the pit. But then he jumps out, gets Q's light saber, hits Maul with one slash, and he falls down and down and down. What a pathetic way to end him. Just a slash when Maul was just standing there? Surely there could of been something better. And Darth Maul was an unneccesary character. The movie could of gone along fine without him. Although I really liked Darth Maul, it was such a waste of a good character of the way Lucas used him. He's in only three noteworthy scenes. 1) Besides the Emperor when he says, "This is my apprentice..." 2) When he decides to do a rod fight with Q before they leave Tatooine. And 3) the Light Saber fight at the end. All Darth Maul said was a grunt here or there and he had no relevance to the plot of this film. But he's one of the Sith! Surely killing one of the Sith is important to the plot. Maybe to the overall story arc, but not to this individual movie. He was an awesome character and he was so wasted.

Anakin blowing up that ship was just stupid. The 'blowing up the ship from the inside' is old. The chain reaction from that one explosion was just ludicrous. And what happened to the rest of the fleet? Wasn't there a blockade? And what the hell was with that glowing ball at the end. No, I'm not talking about the ones that the frog people used against the troops, but that one the Queen and Frog King hold up at the end.

I thought I was watching Hell Comes to Frog Town II for a second.

My biggest complaint about the movie was the dialogue. This is what usually happened. One of our 'heroes' does something. Then we see the control room. "Sir! [Enter in anything you'd like to here] is not functioning!" "What!? That's impossible!" Or "Sir, [Blank] is doing [whatever the 'hero' is doing]." "What!? That cannot happen! That is impossible!"

Needless to say, it got old after a while.

Slobo to be charged as a War Criminal

This can't happen. After all, we're not at war. If you're at war, you have to declare it. The POWs couldn't be called POWs for this isn't a war, its a conflict. Hence, the POCs. Therefore, Slobo should be charged as a Conflict Criminal.

Cox Report Out

Well, it came out yesterday but I was in Houston rush hour traffic for hours yesterday (read below). Only 70% of the report has been released and that is damaging and revealing of the holes we have in the security. It makes me wonder what's in the other 30%.

I am pleased how Tumbleweed criticized our present 'leadership'. (Tumbleweed is my nick name for my governor, George W. Bush. He's a small Bush so I used to call him Shrub. But now since he goes whichever way the political wind is blowing, he has to be a Tumbleweed.) If Tumbleweed keeps this up, I may start calling him a Shrub again.

This all happened in the previous administrations! Certainly. Just as it did in the Carter administration. But, they didn't know about it. The difference between our current administration and those of the past is that the Chinese had to steal the technology from them. Now they just buy it. And when Clinton said, "I have not recieved any information on Chinese espionage" (or something like that) why don't the talking heads (you know who they are, those flabbing gums on the screen early Sunday mornings) just say, "The President lied." He's lied before, so what is the harm of pointing out that he lied again? And this is an issue of national security, so what other reason could be more important then saying that our 'leadership' screwed up and demand that it be fixed immediately?

I won't rattle on how we could be entering Cold War: Phase II. What I will rattle on is the neutron bomb. Imagine going to a park. Now imagine someone leaving a brown lunch bag at a park bench. Inside that bag is a neutron bomb. When it goes off, the structures and the city will be the same. Every living thing, Human, pigeon, and puppy dog will be dead within a 500 mile radius. The interesting thing is that the US has never tested the neutron bomb. But the Chinese have. Seven times! If you're not concerned with that, then I'm concerned about you.

Why is it taking so long to fix a national security issue!? I keep on hearing that these suspected spies 'have rights that must be respected'. Screw that! If this nation's security and existence at threat (hence, with the aiming of nuclear warheads at our cities), they have no rights whatsoever! To many, this may seem extreme. But if you know classified secrets, your first amendment rights do not allow you go out and blurt them to anyone you'd like. The government's role is to provide Justice, which in part, is securing the nation against physical threats (which is why we have a military). When something undermines that, that individual has no 'rights' in face of trampling the Government's job. How can a government provide national security while 'protecting' spies who undermine national security by sending out nuclear technology!?

Maybe we'll get lucky. Maybe Washington D.C. will be hit first.

Disclaimer Up!

Actually, I put it up a couple of days ago and just didn't feel like mentioning it. Its not done, but its better then clicking on the link and getting the 104 Missing In Action web screen. (In this case it would be a Fortune City nag screen 'We don't have da page, we're so sorry. We apologize. Etc."

No Apologizing Here

Usually when the webmaster forgets to update his page a day or two ago, he'll say, "I'm really sorry for not updating, but I was busy. Truly, I was. Please forgive me. I will repent and do better next time. Again, I'm so sorry." Hah! Only dweebs apoligize for not posting something every single day. I'm not apologizing. I had $hit to do yesterday. I had to take a four hour job test in Houston. Then, by the time I left, I was caught in rush hour traffic. Worse, I missed an exit. So instead of ending up at home, I found myself in downtown Houston!

Yeah, I'm an idiot sometimes. But at least I don't apologize for it. :)

Monday, May 24

Level with me fellas

This page is still brand new. Call it virgin if you'd like. So today I updated the page. Then I see my counter was at 104! WHAT!? I know I haven't gone to this page over a hundred times. And I haven't given the URL to anyone yet. So who in the heck is coming here?

Or maybe the answer is simpler then that. Perhaps the counter is screwed.

Video Games cause Evil?

The Littleton massacre keeps on hopping around in the news and has spilled out into everything.

Did you know that playing Doom may make you into a murderer? Don't laugh at me, that's what they're saying! I listened to this one k00k on the radio for about an hour of how video games are making me more likely to go around murdering people. He is even suing the media. Usually the error springs when someone reasons from false pretenses but this guy didn't reason at all. I would of called in and told him what I'm saying now but by the time they said the number again, the k00k guest had left.

The modified version of Doom that the military uses to train soldiers is PROOF that video games make young people better killers!

He said this due to this one shooting where the kid fire one bullet at people's head. When you get all pissy and angry, and are untrained with a gun, you just point and keep on firing until the body falls to the floor. Quake, he said, rewards you with greater points when you hit the object's head, etc. Thus, video games TRAIN kids to kill more effectively.

But there are gazillions amount of books (and other things) out there that does this much more detail then a video game ever could. Plus, these books are required reading for many in the military. Yet, no one mentions this. Maybe because it lacks the emotional feel that movies and video games have?

The games provokes the kid to actually commit the act. The Columbine shooters had made the layout of their school on their Doom game.

You can write down in explicit (or non-explicit) detail of how you plan to murder people involving a piece of paper and a pencil. Yet, this foolio isn't suing paper and pencil companies, just video game makers.

Video games desensitize kids to violence!

No video game can ever simulate the feelings of killing somebody, or the fear of being killed. Just because people enjoy the thrill of rollercoasters does not make them desire to be on a runaway train.

There are hundreds of correlation studies that video games causes children to be more aggressive, more violent.

Correlation studies are bunk. Complete nonsense. Correlation does not establish a cause, but only a 'correlation'. Let me give you an example. What causes the sun to rise? People with common sense would say "Earth's Rotation". But if a correlation study was done on why the sun rises each and every morning, the 'cause' would be the rooster's crow. For the rooster's crow correlates (happens at the same time) when the sun rises each and every day. Therefore, we can assume the cause of dawn to be due to the rooster's crow.

So you're just saying that video games and movies can show whatever they want!?

Certainly not. I'm against the idea that games and movies CAUSE violence. If a movie or a video game goes against your morality (such as featuring and glorifying rape) then, by golly, complain! There's no reason why you have to sit back and let something trash your values without uttering a word.

*Gasp* This Site isn't Done.

I just made this page, so it, of course, isn't perfect. A lot of links (all except those at the bottom) won't work.

I know new sites come and go like that. And usually a new site consists of a layout, a fancy title, some purrty pics, and a news post that (always) apologizes that 'Doh, I have no content. Sorry fellas. But look at my nice layout.' That always makes me angry for when you first start on a website, the focus should be on content, content, content. Yes, you need some layout, but why the emphasis on the bells and whistles? Will a newcomer to your page (which everyone will ne since your page is new) care that there is a message board with no messages or a poll with no subject or a random quote generator with no quotes?

So excuse me, but I won't apologize that my site is inadequate, unfinished, and unworked. It WILL all get done, but not today. :) In addition, I suck at making webpage designs (as you can tell already).