Former Chief Returns to DEPD
by. Hitomi Heron
6/11/10
For the Deadend Daily
***
In the wake of last month's siege of the Deadend Police Station by the terrorist group Blue Dawn, Mayor Ephran Ehrler has announced an initative to crack down on crime and increase the effectiveness of the DEPD. To help accomplish these goals the mayor is turning to former Deadend Police Chief Lucy Morrisey who has recently rejoined the DEPD after leading the successful effort to retake the police station from Blue Dawn.
"The days of lax tolerance for crime in our city are numbered", said Mayor Ehrler. "Captain Morrisey has a fresh approach combining vigilance with specifically-tailored tactics, and she and Chief Hultcrantz will of course have the full backing of City Hall in this endeavor."
For her part Captain Morrisey pledged to be aggressive when it comes to hunting down criminals in Deadend. "We need to make sure every officer knows that violence of acceptable levels will not be frowned upon when dealing with the criminal element in this town. The DEPD used to be good at scaring the hell out of the scum in this town but right now it seems these roles have been reversed."
Morrisey went on to say that the current DEPD has become "a bunch of nancy boys and pussy whipped social workers" but refrained from directly criticizing the job of Police Chief Tiffany Hultcrantz.
No stranger to tense standoffs, Morrisey has a reputation for taking to direct approach to fighting crime and was also instrumental in ending another siege of the Deadend Police Station last summer by Juggles the Clown (aka. Sick Lee).
"Her impressive record in days past ensured that she had the necessary talents to end the siege and restore safety to the city" said Mayor Ehrler when asked why he turned to Morrisey for help during the Blue Dawn siege. "As you can see, my beliefs were well-founded."
The mayor also confirmed rumors that two Blue Dawn members were captured following the siege but have sense escaped. Neither Mayor Ehrler or Captain Morrisey were willing to say more as details surrounding the escape are sketchy and the incident is still under investigation.
When asked if she believed Blue Dawn would continue to threaten the city, Captain Morrisey declared, "As far as I am concerned, as far as my division, the department and the city are concerned, Blue Dawn is out of business."
Friday, June 11, 2010
Tuesday, July 7, 2009
Transformers 2 Review
With a few notable exceptions (such as the Lord of the Rings triology) movie series tend to get worse with each sequel. While Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen was, in my opinion, not nearly as good a movie as its predecessor, it is by no means a bad movie and was still a fine piece of science fiction...Michael Bay style.
On the subject of Michael Bay, his respect for and accurate portrayal of the United States military has made his one of my favorite movie directors. Both Pearl Harbor and Armageddon count as some of my favorite movies. However those of you who watched the Director's Commentary of the first Transformers Movie found out that Michael wanted to have many more effects and also more robots involved but was reigned in by Steven Spielberg and others and in the end the first Transformers movie was made relatively cheaply. In my opinion the first movie was a perfect balance between story and action. I am eager to listen to the director's commentary on the Transformers 2 DVD because after seeing the film it looks like Michael Bay was basically given free reign as there are many more robots in the second film and subtly is widely abandoned by the end of the movie which kinda defeats the terms "robots in disguise".
On the subject of the robots, I am happy to see so many of them. Both Peter Cullen and Hugo Weaving return to give the perfect voices to Optimus Prime and Megatron respectively (I dont care what anyone says, Hugo Weaving was the perfect choice to voice Megatron in these movies). Other returning robots include Ironhide, Ratchet, Starscream, Scorponok and Bumblebee (who, despite finding his voice at the end of the first movie is still mute for reasons that are never explained). Although I am happy to see that there are more robots in this movie it would not be accurate to say that the new robots are "introduced" rather most of them just happen to pop up on the screen as if they need no introduction. Granted for most diehard Transformer fans, most if not all of the robots really do not need an introduction. However for the general public this is not the case.
Lets get one thing straight first, I have seen the original transformers movie (the one where Eric Idle of Monty Python voices one of the characters), I know a few basics about the original plot, and Beast Wars was, and still is one of my favorite animated shows. The amazing thing about the previous Transformer's movie was that it made the plot and characters accessible to all fans, both new and old. Anyone could go in and see Transformers and walk away having some sense of what they saw without too many questions (those they did have were likely eagerly answered by their children during the car ride home). In Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen, several robots appear with little or no introduction:
-Arcee, the only female autobot is briefly named and featured early on though the fact that she is actually a single conciousness that controls three motorcycle robots is never addressed in the film. Still this really isnt that bad since she doesnt really show up much once the plot gets goin.
-The twins Mudflap and Skids, while they sort of just appear on the scene early on, end up getting more screen time than any of the other robots (including Optimus Prime). The two (relatively) small robots provide comic relief and are on hand to add to the plot when needed so the lack of a true introduction for these characters can be forgiven.
-Sideswipe in contrast is one the biggest offenders in this category. He appears with almost no introduction (I dont even remember if his name was mentioned, I had to go to wikipedia to get it) and like Arcee he appears only a few times outside the film's opening.
-Jolt is another autobot whose name I could only find on wikipedia. I honestly dont even remember him in the movie. I can understand putting robots in the movie to please the fanbase but at the very least give us some introduction.
The Decepticons are worse offenders when it comes to ambiguity so I wont bother listing all of the ones that appear but I would like to make a few gripes:
-Both Soundwave and Ravage appear in the movie. Both characters were G1 favorites (as I understand it) so it is unfortunate that they are not given a larger role. Soundwave does appear multiple times but to my knowledge he never actually lands on Earth itself and not once do we get to see him in battle. Ravage on the other hand is never even called by name (if he was then I dont remember it). I was able to recognize Ravage since he also appeared in two episodes of Beast Wars but he only appears in one scene of Revenge of the Fallen (although he does play an important role in advancing the plot in that scene).
-Grindor, a robot which was easily mistaken by many (me included) for Blackout from the first movie was another dubious inclusion and brings up a major gripe I had...too many robots looked too much like other robots, some of them were almost identical to robots who were killed in the first movie. Grindor was the only example of this I could find named online but in the climactic battle of the movie several decipticons seem to return from the grave including a twin of Bonecrusher (the decipticon who was decaptitated by Optimus Prime during the highway chase scene in the first movie).
I could go on about the robots but despite my lengthy gripes about them you may have noticed that many of the issues I took are quite petty. The reason is that the movie is still enjoyable on its own without knowing the backstory of some of the robots. In fact Transformers 2 is on its own a good movie. Taken in contrast with its predeccessor Transformers 2 is still a good movie but is just not quite as good.
Moving on to the human cast, both Shia LaBeouf and Megan Fox do a good job once again as Sam and Mikaela. Josh Duhamel as Lennox as plays a good character (although by the end of the movie his character seems to be involved in almost the exact same scene as in the first movie, I swear at one point stock footage is used). Outside these three though the cast is not as compelling as in the first movie. John Voight is absent but John Turturro was somehow worked into the movie as former Agent Simmons. Turturro does a good job but his comic additions to the movie are not as funny as in the previous film (personally I blame the writers for this more than Tururro himself since there was little reason his character had to be in the movie).
Speaking of characters that didnt really even need to be in the movie was Leo Spitz, Sam's college roomate played by Ramon Rodriguez. I have given the matter much thought but I still cannot understand exactly why his character needed to be included. It is no fault of Rodriguez (who gives a decent performance) Leo Spitz could easily have been cut from the film and it would still be possibile to make the movie without altering the storyline much at all. My only conclusion is that his character must have been in G1 and was included for the benefit of the fans.
One thing I really found peculiar was how much Ron and Judy Witwicky (played by Kevin Dunn and Julie White respectively) were included in the movie. Early on the two are featured in a completely unnecessary action scene where a fragment of the All Spark transforms the Witwicky's kitchen appliances into hostile (though largely harmless) robots. The scene started as a plot establishment scene about Sam moving to college while his parents commented. There was absolutely no reason for the kitchen robots other than to establish that Sam still has a fragment of the All Spark and that Bumblebee was being kept at the Witwicky house, both of which would still have become apparent shortly after without the business about the killer kitchen ware. Later on the Witwicky parents again are featured in the sequence where Sam arrives on the college campus. During this unnecessarily long and somewhat racy sequence (racy in the sense that at its heart Transformers is supposed to be a movie based on a children's cartoon about alien robots so parents will likely be taking their kids to see this movie), Judy Witwicky become intoxicated and proceeds to stumble around the campus embarassing Sam and being pursued by her husband. The scene, while somewhat humorous, is largely unneccesary, and like many of the scenes involving the parents, could have and should have been cut. The biggest issue I took was when the Witwicky parents show up during the final battle in Egypt almost inexplicably (ok there is some vague plan to use them to get Sam to give them the *spoiler erased here*) but considering the fact that Rampage is a hostile alien robot with advanced weaponry, I hardly think that a Decipticon like him needs leverage to negotiate with an 18 year old boy.
Rather than going on about other things such as how Megan Fox's white pants somehow manage to remain nice and clean even as she is running through a battlefield in which giant alien robots are blasting away at each other along with the US (and briefly Jordanian) military in the sands of Egypt, I would like to come to a conclusion. My final verdict on Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen is this; if you saw the first movie, go and see this movie (money says you will need if and when Unicron shows up in Transformers 3). If you did not see the first Transformers movie, then watch it before you see Revenge of the Fallen because you will likely be lost otherwise. As I said earlier, Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen is a good movie on its own, its just not as good as the first movie (even though Linkin Park still gets to play during the credits).
On a scale of 1 to 5 (5 being the best) I give Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen 3.5 out of 5 stars.
On the subject of Michael Bay, his respect for and accurate portrayal of the United States military has made his one of my favorite movie directors. Both Pearl Harbor and Armageddon count as some of my favorite movies. However those of you who watched the Director's Commentary of the first Transformers Movie found out that Michael wanted to have many more effects and also more robots involved but was reigned in by Steven Spielberg and others and in the end the first Transformers movie was made relatively cheaply. In my opinion the first movie was a perfect balance between story and action. I am eager to listen to the director's commentary on the Transformers 2 DVD because after seeing the film it looks like Michael Bay was basically given free reign as there are many more robots in the second film and subtly is widely abandoned by the end of the movie which kinda defeats the terms "robots in disguise".
On the subject of the robots, I am happy to see so many of them. Both Peter Cullen and Hugo Weaving return to give the perfect voices to Optimus Prime and Megatron respectively (I dont care what anyone says, Hugo Weaving was the perfect choice to voice Megatron in these movies). Other returning robots include Ironhide, Ratchet, Starscream, Scorponok and Bumblebee (who, despite finding his voice at the end of the first movie is still mute for reasons that are never explained). Although I am happy to see that there are more robots in this movie it would not be accurate to say that the new robots are "introduced" rather most of them just happen to pop up on the screen as if they need no introduction. Granted for most diehard Transformer fans, most if not all of the robots really do not need an introduction. However for the general public this is not the case.
Lets get one thing straight first, I have seen the original transformers movie (the one where Eric Idle of Monty Python voices one of the characters), I know a few basics about the original plot, and Beast Wars was, and still is one of my favorite animated shows. The amazing thing about the previous Transformer's movie was that it made the plot and characters accessible to all fans, both new and old. Anyone could go in and see Transformers and walk away having some sense of what they saw without too many questions (those they did have were likely eagerly answered by their children during the car ride home). In Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen, several robots appear with little or no introduction:
-Arcee, the only female autobot is briefly named and featured early on though the fact that she is actually a single conciousness that controls three motorcycle robots is never addressed in the film. Still this really isnt that bad since she doesnt really show up much once the plot gets goin.
-The twins Mudflap and Skids, while they sort of just appear on the scene early on, end up getting more screen time than any of the other robots (including Optimus Prime). The two (relatively) small robots provide comic relief and are on hand to add to the plot when needed so the lack of a true introduction for these characters can be forgiven.
-Sideswipe in contrast is one the biggest offenders in this category. He appears with almost no introduction (I dont even remember if his name was mentioned, I had to go to wikipedia to get it) and like Arcee he appears only a few times outside the film's opening.
-Jolt is another autobot whose name I could only find on wikipedia. I honestly dont even remember him in the movie. I can understand putting robots in the movie to please the fanbase but at the very least give us some introduction.
The Decepticons are worse offenders when it comes to ambiguity so I wont bother listing all of the ones that appear but I would like to make a few gripes:
-Both Soundwave and Ravage appear in the movie. Both characters were G1 favorites (as I understand it) so it is unfortunate that they are not given a larger role. Soundwave does appear multiple times but to my knowledge he never actually lands on Earth itself and not once do we get to see him in battle. Ravage on the other hand is never even called by name (if he was then I dont remember it). I was able to recognize Ravage since he also appeared in two episodes of Beast Wars but he only appears in one scene of Revenge of the Fallen (although he does play an important role in advancing the plot in that scene).
-Grindor, a robot which was easily mistaken by many (me included) for Blackout from the first movie was another dubious inclusion and brings up a major gripe I had...too many robots looked too much like other robots, some of them were almost identical to robots who were killed in the first movie. Grindor was the only example of this I could find named online but in the climactic battle of the movie several decipticons seem to return from the grave including a twin of Bonecrusher (the decipticon who was decaptitated by Optimus Prime during the highway chase scene in the first movie).
I could go on about the robots but despite my lengthy gripes about them you may have noticed that many of the issues I took are quite petty. The reason is that the movie is still enjoyable on its own without knowing the backstory of some of the robots. In fact Transformers 2 is on its own a good movie. Taken in contrast with its predeccessor Transformers 2 is still a good movie but is just not quite as good.
Moving on to the human cast, both Shia LaBeouf and Megan Fox do a good job once again as Sam and Mikaela. Josh Duhamel as Lennox as plays a good character (although by the end of the movie his character seems to be involved in almost the exact same scene as in the first movie, I swear at one point stock footage is used). Outside these three though the cast is not as compelling as in the first movie. John Voight is absent but John Turturro was somehow worked into the movie as former Agent Simmons. Turturro does a good job but his comic additions to the movie are not as funny as in the previous film (personally I blame the writers for this more than Tururro himself since there was little reason his character had to be in the movie).
Speaking of characters that didnt really even need to be in the movie was Leo Spitz, Sam's college roomate played by Ramon Rodriguez. I have given the matter much thought but I still cannot understand exactly why his character needed to be included. It is no fault of Rodriguez (who gives a decent performance) Leo Spitz could easily have been cut from the film and it would still be possibile to make the movie without altering the storyline much at all. My only conclusion is that his character must have been in G1 and was included for the benefit of the fans.
One thing I really found peculiar was how much Ron and Judy Witwicky (played by Kevin Dunn and Julie White respectively) were included in the movie. Early on the two are featured in a completely unnecessary action scene where a fragment of the All Spark transforms the Witwicky's kitchen appliances into hostile (though largely harmless) robots. The scene started as a plot establishment scene about Sam moving to college while his parents commented. There was absolutely no reason for the kitchen robots other than to establish that Sam still has a fragment of the All Spark and that Bumblebee was being kept at the Witwicky house, both of which would still have become apparent shortly after without the business about the killer kitchen ware. Later on the Witwicky parents again are featured in the sequence where Sam arrives on the college campus. During this unnecessarily long and somewhat racy sequence (racy in the sense that at its heart Transformers is supposed to be a movie based on a children's cartoon about alien robots so parents will likely be taking their kids to see this movie), Judy Witwicky become intoxicated and proceeds to stumble around the campus embarassing Sam and being pursued by her husband. The scene, while somewhat humorous, is largely unneccesary, and like many of the scenes involving the parents, could have and should have been cut. The biggest issue I took was when the Witwicky parents show up during the final battle in Egypt almost inexplicably (ok there is some vague plan to use them to get Sam to give them the *spoiler erased here*) but considering the fact that Rampage is a hostile alien robot with advanced weaponry, I hardly think that a Decipticon like him needs leverage to negotiate with an 18 year old boy.
Rather than going on about other things such as how Megan Fox's white pants somehow manage to remain nice and clean even as she is running through a battlefield in which giant alien robots are blasting away at each other along with the US (and briefly Jordanian) military in the sands of Egypt, I would like to come to a conclusion. My final verdict on Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen is this; if you saw the first movie, go and see this movie (money says you will need if and when Unicron shows up in Transformers 3). If you did not see the first Transformers movie, then watch it before you see Revenge of the Fallen because you will likely be lost otherwise. As I said earlier, Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen is a good movie on its own, its just not as good as the first movie (even though Linkin Park still gets to play during the credits).
On a scale of 1 to 5 (5 being the best) I give Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen 3.5 out of 5 stars.
Thursday, June 4, 2009
First Impressions on Obama Cairo Speech
In his speech today at Cairo University, President Obama made a noble effort to try and improve America's image in the Muslim world, unfortunately he stumbled a few times during his speech and some of his mistakes could have consequences later on. Although the speech was well delivered as is characteristic of Obama, and there were a fair number of good lines in it, but at times it was hard to shake the feeling that he was channeling Jimmy Carter in that he was being a nice guy who didnt seem to have any sensible grasp on foreign policy.
Obama was correct for the most part in his overview of Christian and Muslim relations over the course of their history however I fear he gave the wrong impression sometimes when quoting the Koran but the President does have the uncanny ability to be all things to all people as he demonstrated during his campaign, unfortuantely this makes it hard to tell who he really is at times.
Looking over the transcript pdf from CNN.com, I have to admit that the paragraph at the end of page 5 where he talks about the 9/11 attacks and the necessity to pursue Al Qaeda and the Taliban was certainly a high point of his speech. Regardless of their feelings towards the USA, Muslims need to recognize and accept that Al Qaeda is dedicated to the murder of innocents. As Obama correctly stated at the end of that paragraph, "These are not opinions to be debated, these are facts to be delt with."
Moving on I am glad Obama took the opportunity to remind Muslims that America has no interest in setting up bases and staying in Afghanistan any longer than we have to but it sounded like he was suggesting that we would not leave until there were no more "extremist" ie terrorists in the region, a noble idea but hopelessly idealistic. Hopefully Pakistan can prove that it is capable of defeating terrorist uprisings in its own borders and then we simply need to make sure Afghanistan is capable of the same.
Then Obama moved to Iraq. I am not sure where he was during the years from 1991 to 2003 but I seem to remember many UN resolutions, debates, and Saddam Hussein not cooperating with weapons inspectors. Let me say this again, we tried Diplomacy with Iraq, it didnt work. We tried "diplomacy at the point of a lance" and Saddam Hussein was executed and Iraq is now on its way to being a much better nation that it had any hope of being during the Saddam era. We can talk about WMDs till Obama stops saying the word "change" and it will not change the fact that Saddam had aple opportunity to reach a diplomatic solution with the United States.
As for closing Guantanamo Bay, I believe that decision will be looked upon in the future as a mistake that could easily have been seen with the benefit of retrospect. However due to the press coverage and international perception of Gitmo (in spite of reality) closing the prison may give some boost to America's perception in the world but I have my doubts as to whether the benefits outweigh the cost.
Obama did have another shining moment talking about Israel, calling America's bond with Israel "unbreakable" was very important. Jews have a claim to that land and they are not leaving. The sooner Muslims realize and accept this, the closer we are to reaching something ressembling peace on that front (now if only the Palestinians would stop harassing Israel like a kid poking a bear with a stick).
Obama also scored points in condemning those who deny the Holocaust. "Six-million Jews were killed, denying that fact is baseless, ignorant, and hateful."
Talking about the Palestinians, Obama made them out to be victims more than he should have. The Palestinians are just as much a victim as the Israelis are, Israel however has gotten its act together and is much stronger because of it so it is unfairly seen as the "bully" more often than not. If Palestenians want their state they have to stop using violence in a futile attempt to destroy Israel and they have to recognize Israel's right to exist. Until they do at least those two things Israel stands to lose far more than they could gain by turning over territory for a Palestinian state, case and point, the turnover of the Gaza strip a few years ago solved nothing and in fact may have given Hamas a political victory. The worst thing you can do is reward terrorism.
The ultimate "face-palm" moment in Obama's speech was when he said "Any nation, including Iran, should have the right to access peaceful nuclear power..." to his credit he added "...if it complies with its responsibilities under the nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty." I guarantee you that the first part of that statement is already being quoted out of context in North Korea and Iran is may even help Ahmadinejad score some political points in the Iranian elections. Obama's comment could not come at a worse time.
Obama then talked about his belief that no nation has the right to impose a system of government on another nation. I ask why not? It worked out pretty well for Germany and Japan to name the obvious examples. The fact is Democratic governments have been proven overtime to be the ideal system of government as they provide a people with a free society with a balance between government power and control by the people. Too much government control can lead to Dictatorship, too much power in the hands of the people can lead to anarchy, neither is a desirable result and so Democracy is the ideal balance between the two extremes. If Obama is saying that no system of government is better than any other then he is simply wrong.
Inbetween the image of Hillary Clinton in a Berka and Obama quoting the Koran, I am afraid that the President's visit and speech in Egypt will have some consequences down the road. It was done with the best of intentions but so were many of the things Jimmy Carter did.
Obama was correct for the most part in his overview of Christian and Muslim relations over the course of their history however I fear he gave the wrong impression sometimes when quoting the Koran but the President does have the uncanny ability to be all things to all people as he demonstrated during his campaign, unfortuantely this makes it hard to tell who he really is at times.
Looking over the transcript pdf from CNN.com, I have to admit that the paragraph at the end of page 5 where he talks about the 9/11 attacks and the necessity to pursue Al Qaeda and the Taliban was certainly a high point of his speech. Regardless of their feelings towards the USA, Muslims need to recognize and accept that Al Qaeda is dedicated to the murder of innocents. As Obama correctly stated at the end of that paragraph, "These are not opinions to be debated, these are facts to be delt with."
Moving on I am glad Obama took the opportunity to remind Muslims that America has no interest in setting up bases and staying in Afghanistan any longer than we have to but it sounded like he was suggesting that we would not leave until there were no more "extremist" ie terrorists in the region, a noble idea but hopelessly idealistic. Hopefully Pakistan can prove that it is capable of defeating terrorist uprisings in its own borders and then we simply need to make sure Afghanistan is capable of the same.
Then Obama moved to Iraq. I am not sure where he was during the years from 1991 to 2003 but I seem to remember many UN resolutions, debates, and Saddam Hussein not cooperating with weapons inspectors. Let me say this again, we tried Diplomacy with Iraq, it didnt work. We tried "diplomacy at the point of a lance" and Saddam Hussein was executed and Iraq is now on its way to being a much better nation that it had any hope of being during the Saddam era. We can talk about WMDs till Obama stops saying the word "change" and it will not change the fact that Saddam had aple opportunity to reach a diplomatic solution with the United States.
As for closing Guantanamo Bay, I believe that decision will be looked upon in the future as a mistake that could easily have been seen with the benefit of retrospect. However due to the press coverage and international perception of Gitmo (in spite of reality) closing the prison may give some boost to America's perception in the world but I have my doubts as to whether the benefits outweigh the cost.
Obama did have another shining moment talking about Israel, calling America's bond with Israel "unbreakable" was very important. Jews have a claim to that land and they are not leaving. The sooner Muslims realize and accept this, the closer we are to reaching something ressembling peace on that front (now if only the Palestinians would stop harassing Israel like a kid poking a bear with a stick).
Obama also scored points in condemning those who deny the Holocaust. "Six-million Jews were killed, denying that fact is baseless, ignorant, and hateful."
Talking about the Palestinians, Obama made them out to be victims more than he should have. The Palestinians are just as much a victim as the Israelis are, Israel however has gotten its act together and is much stronger because of it so it is unfairly seen as the "bully" more often than not. If Palestenians want their state they have to stop using violence in a futile attempt to destroy Israel and they have to recognize Israel's right to exist. Until they do at least those two things Israel stands to lose far more than they could gain by turning over territory for a Palestinian state, case and point, the turnover of the Gaza strip a few years ago solved nothing and in fact may have given Hamas a political victory. The worst thing you can do is reward terrorism.
The ultimate "face-palm" moment in Obama's speech was when he said "Any nation, including Iran, should have the right to access peaceful nuclear power..." to his credit he added "...if it complies with its responsibilities under the nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty." I guarantee you that the first part of that statement is already being quoted out of context in North Korea and Iran is may even help Ahmadinejad score some political points in the Iranian elections. Obama's comment could not come at a worse time.
Obama then talked about his belief that no nation has the right to impose a system of government on another nation. I ask why not? It worked out pretty well for Germany and Japan to name the obvious examples. The fact is Democratic governments have been proven overtime to be the ideal system of government as they provide a people with a free society with a balance between government power and control by the people. Too much government control can lead to Dictatorship, too much power in the hands of the people can lead to anarchy, neither is a desirable result and so Democracy is the ideal balance between the two extremes. If Obama is saying that no system of government is better than any other then he is simply wrong.
Inbetween the image of Hillary Clinton in a Berka and Obama quoting the Koran, I am afraid that the President's visit and speech in Egypt will have some consequences down the road. It was done with the best of intentions but so were many of the things Jimmy Carter did.
Wednesday, October 31, 2007
Success in Iraq?
For those of you who think the war in Iraq is lost you obviously havnt kept up with the situation:
http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/10/30/iraq.main/index.html
http://www.star-telegram.com/279/story/275344.html
Deaths are down dramatically, the Iraqis are putting aside their old rivalries for the time being in order to push Al Qaeda and Iran out of their country. So how exactly is the war lost again?
I support the troops which means I also support what they do. I want them home too but I want them home the right way, the only way American troops should come home is in victory.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/10/30/iraq.main/index.html
http://www.star-telegram.com/279/story/275344.html
Deaths are down dramatically, the Iraqis are putting aside their old rivalries for the time being in order to push Al Qaeda and Iran out of their country. So how exactly is the war lost again?
I support the troops which means I also support what they do. I want them home too but I want them home the right way, the only way American troops should come home is in victory.
Wednesday, October 3, 2007
Crisis in Burma
I personally am sickened by what is going on in Burma. Protesters being shot, and now people are being dragged out of their homes and carried off into the night to be tortured to death or imprisoned indefinetly. Kind of reminds me of Pre-Invasion Iraq.
I was reading some of the comments on the BBC "Have Your Say" board (see link) and it seems that some people are wondering why America isnt stepping in. Want to know why? Because last time we stepped in to topple a cruel regime, save lives, and establish a Democracy, everyone got mad at us and said we were there for oil or that we were trying to make an empire.
Im not surprised by the reaction. Throughout history these kinds of problems have always been brought to the current Superpower, be it England, Rome, or the United States. Well it seems some people in Europe want the United States to intervene and stop the killing in Burma. As much as I want to do that we have learned our lesson Europe. Its wrong to invade other countries isnt it. After all we would only set up a puppet government wouldnt we? Probably just go into Burma and take their oil after all.
Dont worry world the big bad USA will just sit in time out while you deal with the problems of the world yourself.
(Sorry for the rant, its not right considering whats happening in Burma but I just get so pissed now after all the anti-American slurs about what we did for the people of Iraq these same people have the gall to come and ask us to do the exact same thing in Burma. Although I would like nothing more than for the United States to lead some coalition into Burma to establish a Democracy, a. We are already in debt as it is, b. We would probably be made into villains if we tried to play the hero again, c. America historically doesnt fight well in jungle environments anyway.)
I was reading some of the comments on the BBC "Have Your Say" board (see link) and it seems that some people are wondering why America isnt stepping in. Want to know why? Because last time we stepped in to topple a cruel regime, save lives, and establish a Democracy, everyone got mad at us and said we were there for oil or that we were trying to make an empire.
Im not surprised by the reaction. Throughout history these kinds of problems have always been brought to the current Superpower, be it England, Rome, or the United States. Well it seems some people in Europe want the United States to intervene and stop the killing in Burma. As much as I want to do that we have learned our lesson Europe. Its wrong to invade other countries isnt it. After all we would only set up a puppet government wouldnt we? Probably just go into Burma and take their oil after all.
Dont worry world the big bad USA will just sit in time out while you deal with the problems of the world yourself.
(Sorry for the rant, its not right considering whats happening in Burma but I just get so pissed now after all the anti-American slurs about what we did for the people of Iraq these same people have the gall to come and ask us to do the exact same thing in Burma. Although I would like nothing more than for the United States to lead some coalition into Burma to establish a Democracy, a. We are already in debt as it is, b. We would probably be made into villains if we tried to play the hero again, c. America historically doesnt fight well in jungle environments anyway.)
My take on CFR
Several people have shown me so called "evidence" of a conspiracy in which the CFR is attempting to create an NAU. Let me just make one thing clear, I dont trust the CFR any more than the next guy but permit me to be the voice of reason here.
How does it make sense to arrest a man for shoplifting before he tries to leave the store? Neither does it make sense to accuse an organization who has said things that suggest their desire to create a NAU simply because they have made the suggestion. CFR is most certainly worth keeping a very close eye on but dont blow the whistle before a foul. After all arent most of you conspiracy nuts opposed to "Pre-emptive action".
Let me make another thing clear. I am a skeptic and as such its in my nature to only trust my own observations and not simply buy in to what people have told me. I have recieved all kinds of "circumstantial evidence" about CFR and NAU but please stop sending me this cause you are only preaching to the choir here. I already dont like CFR so the idea that they would do something like attempt to form an NAU is not inconcievable to me. Still with all the claims I have still not seen a "smoking gun" something that shows that CFR has used the influence of its members to pass legislation that puts us closer to an NAU. You cannot indict someone for ideas only for actions.
Speaking of CFR members I dont subscribe to this belief that all CFR members are in on it and that all of them are simply puppets who unquestionably do the CFR's bidding. Just look at the membership list. Angelina Jolie, George Soros, Hillary Clinton, Newt Gingrich... Just how is a vast conspiracy like the one many NAU nuts are proposing going to be kept secret with so many people from so many areas of society being in on it? Logic would tell us that it cant so we must conclude that not all members of the CFR are in on the suspected NAU conspiracy.
Likewise I dont buy that all the CFR members are puppets either. Hillary Clinton is a socialist who believes she is destined to be President, she will do anything to become President. Such a person is not easily controlled and neither is a man as brilliantly sly as her husband. On a side note I dont like Bill Clinton as a President or as a human being but I will say this of him, a better politician there is none. Bill Clinton somehow had the ability to look a man in the face, smile, and tell him the most insane lie and that man would be inclined to believe him. No other Politician is capable of being that good of a liar, especially not Hillary Clinton who lacks both the political skill and charisma of her husband. (Again I dont like a thing about either of them).
On the same argument how on Earth does the CFR expect to get people from the far right and the far left to agree on anything? Now days politics is so childish that whatever one side says the other side says the opposite. Politicians can be trusted to do one thing, and that is look out for their own interests. If the interests of the CFR were to compromise their own interests I believe that most of todays rats...I mean politicians would betray CFR in a heart beat.
Here is what I advocate. Keep a close watch on CFR, keep a record of their actions, so if they do something decisive (if they ever hope to achieve an NAU they must at some point do something decisive) you can point to a pattern. Simply running out and making outrageous claims based on superstition and circumstantial "evidence" destroys credibility and thus like the boy who cried wolf, would-be whistle blowers will simply be dismissed in the future as conspiracy nuts if they attempt to alert the public to a real threat. Sure you can say "I told you so" but that and $2.70 will by you a gallon of gas in my hometown. So watch and be alert but dont cry wolf until the wolf comes out of the forest.
Also if you want to look at the CFR membership I would advise looking at what each member has done. As I stated earlier not all of them can logically be "in on it". Some of the stances of CFR members contradict the ideals of an NAU. Look for logical patterns in which a member consistently seems to support the ideals of NAU. Keep your personal political bias at home if possible.
When people show me patterns and conclusive evidence that satisfy my natural skepticism then I will do what I can to help you. But until that day I shall continue to refer to NAU as what it currently is; a conspiracy theory.
How does it make sense to arrest a man for shoplifting before he tries to leave the store? Neither does it make sense to accuse an organization who has said things that suggest their desire to create a NAU simply because they have made the suggestion. CFR is most certainly worth keeping a very close eye on but dont blow the whistle before a foul. After all arent most of you conspiracy nuts opposed to "Pre-emptive action".
Let me make another thing clear. I am a skeptic and as such its in my nature to only trust my own observations and not simply buy in to what people have told me. I have recieved all kinds of "circumstantial evidence" about CFR and NAU but please stop sending me this cause you are only preaching to the choir here. I already dont like CFR so the idea that they would do something like attempt to form an NAU is not inconcievable to me. Still with all the claims I have still not seen a "smoking gun" something that shows that CFR has used the influence of its members to pass legislation that puts us closer to an NAU. You cannot indict someone for ideas only for actions.
Speaking of CFR members I dont subscribe to this belief that all CFR members are in on it and that all of them are simply puppets who unquestionably do the CFR's bidding. Just look at the membership list. Angelina Jolie, George Soros, Hillary Clinton, Newt Gingrich... Just how is a vast conspiracy like the one many NAU nuts are proposing going to be kept secret with so many people from so many areas of society being in on it? Logic would tell us that it cant so we must conclude that not all members of the CFR are in on the suspected NAU conspiracy.
Likewise I dont buy that all the CFR members are puppets either. Hillary Clinton is a socialist who believes she is destined to be President, she will do anything to become President. Such a person is not easily controlled and neither is a man as brilliantly sly as her husband. On a side note I dont like Bill Clinton as a President or as a human being but I will say this of him, a better politician there is none. Bill Clinton somehow had the ability to look a man in the face, smile, and tell him the most insane lie and that man would be inclined to believe him. No other Politician is capable of being that good of a liar, especially not Hillary Clinton who lacks both the political skill and charisma of her husband. (Again I dont like a thing about either of them).
On the same argument how on Earth does the CFR expect to get people from the far right and the far left to agree on anything? Now days politics is so childish that whatever one side says the other side says the opposite. Politicians can be trusted to do one thing, and that is look out for their own interests. If the interests of the CFR were to compromise their own interests I believe that most of todays rats...I mean politicians would betray CFR in a heart beat.
Here is what I advocate. Keep a close watch on CFR, keep a record of their actions, so if they do something decisive (if they ever hope to achieve an NAU they must at some point do something decisive) you can point to a pattern. Simply running out and making outrageous claims based on superstition and circumstantial "evidence" destroys credibility and thus like the boy who cried wolf, would-be whistle blowers will simply be dismissed in the future as conspiracy nuts if they attempt to alert the public to a real threat. Sure you can say "I told you so" but that and $2.70 will by you a gallon of gas in my hometown. So watch and be alert but dont cry wolf until the wolf comes out of the forest.
Also if you want to look at the CFR membership I would advise looking at what each member has done. As I stated earlier not all of them can logically be "in on it". Some of the stances of CFR members contradict the ideals of an NAU. Look for logical patterns in which a member consistently seems to support the ideals of NAU. Keep your personal political bias at home if possible.
When people show me patterns and conclusive evidence that satisfy my natural skepticism then I will do what I can to help you. But until that day I shall continue to refer to NAU as what it currently is; a conspiracy theory.
Friday, September 21, 2007
Breaking Ground
First Post. Well I have finally decided to make my own blog. Its under construction right now but I plan to update it whenever I can.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)