Faux News recently gave the President some flak for saying "we can absorb another terrorist attack" claiming that he was inviting more terrorist attacks, that he wanted us to be attacked. This, from a network that claims to be "fair and balanced."
This has got to be one of the stupidest things someone on Fox has said. I think it was pretty clear what Obama was saying and that his comment was in no way an invitation for another terror attack. What he said was, in a nutshell, if we get attacked, we will survive and recover, and we will be stronger because of it. Please tell me, how this invites an attack. If an attack makes us stronger, why would the terrorists want to attack us? If we're going to survive and recover, why would the terrorists want to attack us? All he is saying is that the US can absorb an attack and recover perfectly healthy and be stronger because of it.
Look at 9-11. For a little while, we were stronger. We were united and we rallied together in support of this country and its president after the attacks. Everyone was ready and willing to do what was necessary to destroy Al-Qaeda so such a thing could never happen to us again.
The conservative outrage over this comment makes me wonder if they're afraid that the next terror attack (god forbid there is one) could destroy us. I wonder what makes them so frightened. A terrorist attack is terrible thing, don't get me wrong, and no one wants one, but are they seriously frightened that if one happened, we wouldn't survive?
That's all Obama is saying. If an attack happens, we will survive and recover. It is a statement of our strength, not an invitation for attack.
But it was okay for George Bush to challenge the terrorists directly and say "Bring 'em on?" Not only is that an invitation, but a challenge for them to accept. It was a cowboy attitude that lead to both middle east wars and claimed the lives of millions. Bush actively invited them to attack us, Obama simply stated we were strong enough to survive and recover from one.
J Kuhl Signing Off
Monday, September 27, 2010
Monday, September 13, 2010
I Am Pissed
As is all the rage in the news, a large portion of Americans are protesting over a "ground zero mosque (that is neither on ground zero, nor a mosque)" and ignorantly equating ALL muslims to the same extremist terrorists who attacked us on 9-11. At the same time, in Florida, some mustachioed idiot insists on banning a bunch of Korans with his fundamentalist extremist church. Across the world, Muslims in the middle east are protesting this event, burning American flags and blaming ALL Americans for the pastor's book burning idiocy.
Interesting. Interesting how both groups are ignorantly judging an entire group by the actions of the extremist few, how the protesters here in America are just as ignorant as those over in the Middle East. The tea baggers and Parks51 opponents would be shocked to read this I'm sure, learning that they're just as ignorant as the protesters in the Middle East.
You see, this entire thing is stupid. And it is pissing me off. Why are we so goddamn frightened of Islam that were going to violate our own freedoms? The people who died on 9-11, died for the freedoms that America holds dear and those freedoms include freedom of religion and freedom to do what you wish with your own property. I think rather than being insulted by a "ground zero mosque" they'd be more insulted by stripping freedom of religion from the Muslims over bigotry and fear.
Are we going to let Osama Bin Laden win?
The behavior here in the US is disgusting and abhorrent. The media and the right wing are fanning the flames of hatred for their own political and financial purposes and the teabaggers are silly enough to blindly go along with it, frothing at the mouth with the next rightwing talking point.
And then they have the gaul to freak out when they're called "bigots"
Gee, a quick google search and you see tea baggers carrying signs comparing Obama to monkeys, references to Kenya or his "Islamic birth," signs about how Islam is evil and murdered 3000 people on 9-11, calling the Parks51 project evil, claiming it supported by Hamas, and none of it is true.
This is as stupid as saying "All Christians hate gays because the Westboro Baptist Church protested at a soldier's funeral." Islam did not attack us on 9-11. We are not at war against Islam. The people who attacked us on 9-11 were Islamic, but attacked us for their own extremist religious viewpoint, not by a viewpoint shared by the majority of Islam. If Fred Phelps blew up a gay bar, would people be protesting against Christianity as a whole? If after the gay bar was destroyed, would people get pissed off if someone built a church next to the rubble?
Of course not, this is a god fearing Christian country according to these teabagger idiots, never mind the fact that this nation was founded on the idea of religious liberty for all.
Oh and in other news, do the teabaggers even know what "tea bagging" is? I'll give them a hint:
It has nothing to with tea
But if they want to be known as tea baggers, I'll keep calling them that.
J Kuhl Signing Off
Interesting. Interesting how both groups are ignorantly judging an entire group by the actions of the extremist few, how the protesters here in America are just as ignorant as those over in the Middle East. The tea baggers and Parks51 opponents would be shocked to read this I'm sure, learning that they're just as ignorant as the protesters in the Middle East.
You see, this entire thing is stupid. And it is pissing me off. Why are we so goddamn frightened of Islam that were going to violate our own freedoms? The people who died on 9-11, died for the freedoms that America holds dear and those freedoms include freedom of religion and freedom to do what you wish with your own property. I think rather than being insulted by a "ground zero mosque" they'd be more insulted by stripping freedom of religion from the Muslims over bigotry and fear.
Are we going to let Osama Bin Laden win?
The behavior here in the US is disgusting and abhorrent. The media and the right wing are fanning the flames of hatred for their own political and financial purposes and the teabaggers are silly enough to blindly go along with it, frothing at the mouth with the next rightwing talking point.
And then they have the gaul to freak out when they're called "bigots"
Gee, a quick google search and you see tea baggers carrying signs comparing Obama to monkeys, references to Kenya or his "Islamic birth," signs about how Islam is evil and murdered 3000 people on 9-11, calling the Parks51 project evil, claiming it supported by Hamas, and none of it is true.
This is as stupid as saying "All Christians hate gays because the Westboro Baptist Church protested at a soldier's funeral." Islam did not attack us on 9-11. We are not at war against Islam. The people who attacked us on 9-11 were Islamic, but attacked us for their own extremist religious viewpoint, not by a viewpoint shared by the majority of Islam. If Fred Phelps blew up a gay bar, would people be protesting against Christianity as a whole? If after the gay bar was destroyed, would people get pissed off if someone built a church next to the rubble?
Of course not, this is a god fearing Christian country according to these teabagger idiots, never mind the fact that this nation was founded on the idea of religious liberty for all.
Oh and in other news, do the teabaggers even know what "tea bagging" is? I'll give them a hint:
It has nothing to with tea
But if they want to be known as tea baggers, I'll keep calling them that.
J Kuhl Signing Off
Tuesday, August 24, 2010
Fareed Zakaria and the "Terror Mosque"
When I was in grade school, some 10-15 years ago, I was taught, somewhat naively, that the US was the beacon of freedom and justice in the world. And I still believe that, in comparison to other nations, it still, in many ways, is, even if we are plagued by corruption and greed at every level of government.
Yet even as I grew older and became more disillusioned with the world around me, I still believe in the American idea, the nation of freedom and opportunity, where anyone, of any creed and any faith, can succeed.
Which is why I am deeply disgusted by the behavior of Americans in light of the Cordoba House in New York City, some two blocks away from where the World Trade Centers once stood. Many Americans feel that such a "mosque" (and I put mosque in quotations because it is not a mosque, it is more of a YMCA type of place with a room for prayer) is offensive to the victims of that terrible Tuesday morning. Yet, the Cordoba House is only offensive if you equate all Muslims to the type of Jihadist Islam that Osama Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda embrace!
Islam, like Christianity, has many different sects and Al-Qaeda is only part of it. Claiming that all Muslims are supporters of anti-American, anti-Western terrorism, is nothing more than bigotry and ignorance. Many Muslims died on 9-11, other than the 19 hijackers, innocent Muslims, hated by Osama because they lived and worked in the United States and did not ascribe to his strict interpretation of Islam.
Fareed Zakaria, a political commentator on CNN.com explained this very well and below is a clip of his show hosted on Crooks and Liars.
As Zakaria explains, Al-Qaeda hates Sufi Islam. The Muslims building the Cordoba House are Sufi Muslims. It is asinine, stupid, and ignorant, to equate the Cordoba House with the terrorists who attacked us on 9-11, especially since those terrorists would glady kill Imam Faisal Rauf for the simple reason that he is a Sufi. There is absolutely no reason why anyone would be against this project.
And yet, these protesters are everywhere now. Not only in New York, but across the nation. According to Time Magazine, the city of Wilson Wisconsin had an ugly, hate-filled town meeting when a prominent doctor, Dr. Mansoor Mizra proposed construction of a mosque (Time Magazine, Aug 30, 2010, page 23.) One man even asked Dr. Mizra if there would be weapons training at the mosque.
Weapons training.
How stupid and bigoted can you get? The article goes on to describe some of the other idiotic statements brought up at the town meeting, such as "the political objective of Islam is to dominate the world with its teachings." Which is not true of all sects of Islam, as much as such a saying would not be true of all sects of Christianity or any other major religion. Its a sweeping generalization that does NOT describe moderate Islam and ignorantly mixes the every day moderates with the extremist Jihadist whom we are fighting in Afghanistan.
Another citizen said "I just think its not America." And this pissed me off. This was the inspiration of my opening paragraph. I was brought up to believe that America was a land of freedom, free expression, free religion, free speech, etc. America is strong because we stand behind its principles, we stand behind its freedoms. It isn't freedom for all, provided that you are a white christian, it is freedom for all, of any creed, ethnicity, faith, and so on. This freedom is the America I was taught about in grade school, not the America we have become, an America of fear and bigotry.
Its disgusting, and I am disgusted. 61% of Americans oppose the Cordoba House (Time, Aug 30, 2010, pg 23) and for what reason? Because it would be an 'insult to those who died on 9/11.' Muslims died on 9-11, Sufi Muslims who are not extremists, are not terrorists, died that day because they did not follow Bin Laden's strict beliefs. I think they'd be insulted. As well as everyone else who died that day, would be insulted to see us throw away Constitutionally protected rights that they died for. These people died because we have freedom of religion and now we're going to strip it away because we're afraid of some Islamic boogieman?
We are not Saudi Arabia. We are better than Saudi Arabia. Our Constitution is stronger than their monarchy. We shouldn't be stooping to their level. Saudi Arabia, where Mecca is located, does not believe in freedom of religion, a fundamental human right. This is immoral, but what can we do about it? The US has no jurisdiction over Saudi Arabia. But the US has jurisdiction over itself. It takes pride in its freedoms, it takes pride in its cultural diversity and so it should embrace the Cordoba House as a symbol of our religious tolerance, and not rejected it out of bigotry, fear, and hatred.
But no. Fareed Zakaria, I suppose, will be ignored, not only because he's rational and logical, but because he has brown skin and Arabic looking name, kinda like how 24% of Americans STILL BELIEVE OBAMA IS A MUSLIM (Time, Aug 30, 2010, pg 26) because his middle name is 'Hussain.' No, I suppose we'd rather live in ignorance and fear than actually learn about other cultures and learn to coexist with other people. I suppose we'd rather reject our Bill of Rights because we're afraid.
Thank you America for giving in to terrorism. Osama bin Laden has won. This is exactly what he'd want us to do, destroy our very freedoms ourselves.
I am disgusted.
Oh and before I finish, let me dispel some myths.
J Kuhl Signing Off
Yet even as I grew older and became more disillusioned with the world around me, I still believe in the American idea, the nation of freedom and opportunity, where anyone, of any creed and any faith, can succeed.
Which is why I am deeply disgusted by the behavior of Americans in light of the Cordoba House in New York City, some two blocks away from where the World Trade Centers once stood. Many Americans feel that such a "mosque" (and I put mosque in quotations because it is not a mosque, it is more of a YMCA type of place with a room for prayer) is offensive to the victims of that terrible Tuesday morning. Yet, the Cordoba House is only offensive if you equate all Muslims to the type of Jihadist Islam that Osama Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda embrace!
Islam, like Christianity, has many different sects and Al-Qaeda is only part of it. Claiming that all Muslims are supporters of anti-American, anti-Western terrorism, is nothing more than bigotry and ignorance. Many Muslims died on 9-11, other than the 19 hijackers, innocent Muslims, hated by Osama because they lived and worked in the United States and did not ascribe to his strict interpretation of Islam.
Fareed Zakaria, a political commentator on CNN.com explained this very well and below is a clip of his show hosted on Crooks and Liars.
As Zakaria explains, Al-Qaeda hates Sufi Islam. The Muslims building the Cordoba House are Sufi Muslims. It is asinine, stupid, and ignorant, to equate the Cordoba House with the terrorists who attacked us on 9-11, especially since those terrorists would glady kill Imam Faisal Rauf for the simple reason that he is a Sufi. There is absolutely no reason why anyone would be against this project.
And yet, these protesters are everywhere now. Not only in New York, but across the nation. According to Time Magazine, the city of Wilson Wisconsin had an ugly, hate-filled town meeting when a prominent doctor, Dr. Mansoor Mizra proposed construction of a mosque (Time Magazine, Aug 30, 2010, page 23.) One man even asked Dr. Mizra if there would be weapons training at the mosque.
Weapons training.
How stupid and bigoted can you get? The article goes on to describe some of the other idiotic statements brought up at the town meeting, such as "the political objective of Islam is to dominate the world with its teachings." Which is not true of all sects of Islam, as much as such a saying would not be true of all sects of Christianity or any other major religion. Its a sweeping generalization that does NOT describe moderate Islam and ignorantly mixes the every day moderates with the extremist Jihadist whom we are fighting in Afghanistan.
Another citizen said "I just think its not America." And this pissed me off. This was the inspiration of my opening paragraph. I was brought up to believe that America was a land of freedom, free expression, free religion, free speech, etc. America is strong because we stand behind its principles, we stand behind its freedoms. It isn't freedom for all, provided that you are a white christian, it is freedom for all, of any creed, ethnicity, faith, and so on. This freedom is the America I was taught about in grade school, not the America we have become, an America of fear and bigotry.
Its disgusting, and I am disgusted. 61% of Americans oppose the Cordoba House (Time, Aug 30, 2010, pg 23) and for what reason? Because it would be an 'insult to those who died on 9/11.' Muslims died on 9-11, Sufi Muslims who are not extremists, are not terrorists, died that day because they did not follow Bin Laden's strict beliefs. I think they'd be insulted. As well as everyone else who died that day, would be insulted to see us throw away Constitutionally protected rights that they died for. These people died because we have freedom of religion and now we're going to strip it away because we're afraid of some Islamic boogieman?
We are not Saudi Arabia. We are better than Saudi Arabia. Our Constitution is stronger than their monarchy. We shouldn't be stooping to their level. Saudi Arabia, where Mecca is located, does not believe in freedom of religion, a fundamental human right. This is immoral, but what can we do about it? The US has no jurisdiction over Saudi Arabia. But the US has jurisdiction over itself. It takes pride in its freedoms, it takes pride in its cultural diversity and so it should embrace the Cordoba House as a symbol of our religious tolerance, and not rejected it out of bigotry, fear, and hatred.
But no. Fareed Zakaria, I suppose, will be ignored, not only because he's rational and logical, but because he has brown skin and Arabic looking name, kinda like how 24% of Americans STILL BELIEVE OBAMA IS A MUSLIM (Time, Aug 30, 2010, pg 26) because his middle name is 'Hussain.' No, I suppose we'd rather live in ignorance and fear than actually learn about other cultures and learn to coexist with other people. I suppose we'd rather reject our Bill of Rights because we're afraid.
Thank you America for giving in to terrorism. Osama bin Laden has won. This is exactly what he'd want us to do, destroy our very freedoms ourselves.
I am disgusted.
Oh and before I finish, let me dispel some myths.
- The Cordoba House is NOT a mosque, it is a community center with a prayer room.
- The Cordoba House is NOT on Ground Zero, it is two blocks away in an abandoned Burlington Coat Factory that was damaged on 9-11
- The Cordoba House is NOT opening on 9-11-11, that is an unsubstantiated rumor
- Imam Faisal Rauf is NOT a radical, he is a Sufi Muslim "well known for supporting interfaith dialogue" (Time, Aug 30, 2010, pg 22)
J Kuhl Signing Off
Wednesday, August 11, 2010
America is a Land of the Free
Before I even begin, let me fully quote my favorite part of the US Constitution.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Now, in New York, there's a bunch of stupid ignorant crap going on about a mosque being built within the vicinity of Ground Zero. The ignorant bigots claim that it'll be opened on 9-11-11, to mock Americans, but that rumor has never been substantiated at all.
And now they've gone further. A conservative group has called to ban all mosques in the US. And there have been numerous protests lately over other planned mosques in the US.
This frightens me because another guy in another nation tried banning a religion, some sixty years ago.
His name was Hitler.
Last I checked, America promised freedom of religion, freedom to believe whatever you desire. Muslims have every right to practice their religion, as much as any other religion. The vast majority of the Muslims do not profess the radical beliefs that the 19 hi-jackers from Al-Quaeda did on 9-11. Most are disgusted by the acts of the Taliban, Al-Quaeda and other extremists and many came here for American freedoms.
Now that they've come, we're going to betray them with bigotry? We're going to ignore our most sacred Amendment, the one protecting our most valued freedoms because we're scared? We're going to turn to ignorance and hate because we're frightened of some bogey man from the middle east? Is the (F)Right Wing out of their ever-loving minds? We built this nation on the idea of freedom and we don't need to go tearing that down because we've become so ignorant as to be afraid of some Muslims. 90% of the Muslims here in the US are ordinary people.
Sure, we have our fair share of radicals. We got the guy who failed to blow up a car bomb in times square and the major who gunned down several servicemen in Fort Hood, and so on, but they represent a radical extremist view point that most muslims do not share.
Some people argue that all Muslims are extremist because the Koran tells them to murder people who aren't Muslim. By this logic, Judeo-Christains are also murderers. The Old Testement is filled with Hebrews killing non-Hebrews in the name of God.
Why don't we start living up to our own standards and behaving as if we believed in the strength of our own Constitution? A mosque 2 blocks from 9-11 (actually, Islamic culture center) is not anything to throw a fit about. We should welcome it really, and show the world we really do believe in freedom of religion.
And we definitely do not want to be this:
Oh and if Sarah Palin wishes to profess to be a lover of the Constitution, she needs to embrace the construction of this Islamic center, not condemn it.
Then again, if she ever says anything with an iota of intelligence, I'll eat my hat.
J Kuhl Signing Off
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Now, in New York, there's a bunch of stupid ignorant crap going on about a mosque being built within the vicinity of Ground Zero. The ignorant bigots claim that it'll be opened on 9-11-11, to mock Americans, but that rumor has never been substantiated at all.
And now they've gone further. A conservative group has called to ban all mosques in the US. And there have been numerous protests lately over other planned mosques in the US.
This frightens me because another guy in another nation tried banning a religion, some sixty years ago.
His name was Hitler.
Last I checked, America promised freedom of religion, freedom to believe whatever you desire. Muslims have every right to practice their religion, as much as any other religion. The vast majority of the Muslims do not profess the radical beliefs that the 19 hi-jackers from Al-Quaeda did on 9-11. Most are disgusted by the acts of the Taliban, Al-Quaeda and other extremists and many came here for American freedoms.
Now that they've come, we're going to betray them with bigotry? We're going to ignore our most sacred Amendment, the one protecting our most valued freedoms because we're scared? We're going to turn to ignorance and hate because we're frightened of some bogey man from the middle east? Is the (F)Right Wing out of their ever-loving minds? We built this nation on the idea of freedom and we don't need to go tearing that down because we've become so ignorant as to be afraid of some Muslims. 90% of the Muslims here in the US are ordinary people.
Sure, we have our fair share of radicals. We got the guy who failed to blow up a car bomb in times square and the major who gunned down several servicemen in Fort Hood, and so on, but they represent a radical extremist view point that most muslims do not share.
Some people argue that all Muslims are extremist because the Koran tells them to murder people who aren't Muslim. By this logic, Judeo-Christains are also murderers. The Old Testement is filled with Hebrews killing non-Hebrews in the name of God.
Why don't we start living up to our own standards and behaving as if we believed in the strength of our own Constitution? A mosque 2 blocks from 9-11 (actually, Islamic culture center) is not anything to throw a fit about. We should welcome it really, and show the world we really do believe in freedom of religion.
And we definitely do not want to be this:
Oh and if Sarah Palin wishes to profess to be a lover of the Constitution, she needs to embrace the construction of this Islamic center, not condemn it.
Then again, if she ever says anything with an iota of intelligence, I'll eat my hat.
J Kuhl Signing Off
Monday, June 28, 2010
BP Oil Spill is NOT Katrina is NOT 9-11
Stop comparing BP to Katrina and 9-11. This is getting tiresome, and its idiotic rhetoic coming from both the left, the right, and the media. These three disasters are unique. One was a terrorist act, one was the weather, and one was the result of gross negligence.
9-11 was caused by murdering jihadest terrorists bent on destroying not only Americans but anyone who doesn't follow their strict beliefs. It occured because the federal government failed to put the pieces together and see that such an incident was going to occur. The pieces were there but the CIA and the FBI did not communicate thus the puzzle was never put together. The BP oil spill had nothing to do with Jihad, was not an act of terror and its insulting to those who died on 9-11 to compare it to the BP oil spill.
Katrina was the weather. No one could have stopped it. However, we could have better mitigated before it by ensuring the integrity of the levees in a Cat 5 storm and we could have responded afterward better through FEMA. The key difference between Katrina and the BP oil spill is that the government does not have a federal agency with expertise in oil spills. We did however, have one to respond to Katrina (FEMA.)
The BP oil spill was caused because BP was too cheap to actually pay for good cement work. They ignored Haliburton's warnings when they were constructing the site and did not perform safety tests. Then after the spill, they kept underestimating the severity of the leak, which hampered clean up efforts. Most of the clean up is done by corporations with expertise in oilspill clean up. The government on the other hand has no such expertise and no agency to help out. There is little the government can do but pass legislation to regulate the oil industry so this doesn't happen again.
The BP oil spill's fault rests entirely on BP. Stop blaming Obama. Stop claiming that the government isn't doing enough. This is not something the government specializes in or had prepared for.
And for the love of all that is holy stop comparing this oil spill to events in the past to which it is NOTHING alike.
J Kuhl Signing Off
9-11 was caused by murdering jihadest terrorists bent on destroying not only Americans but anyone who doesn't follow their strict beliefs. It occured because the federal government failed to put the pieces together and see that such an incident was going to occur. The pieces were there but the CIA and the FBI did not communicate thus the puzzle was never put together. The BP oil spill had nothing to do with Jihad, was not an act of terror and its insulting to those who died on 9-11 to compare it to the BP oil spill.
Katrina was the weather. No one could have stopped it. However, we could have better mitigated before it by ensuring the integrity of the levees in a Cat 5 storm and we could have responded afterward better through FEMA. The key difference between Katrina and the BP oil spill is that the government does not have a federal agency with expertise in oil spills. We did however, have one to respond to Katrina (FEMA.)
The BP oil spill was caused because BP was too cheap to actually pay for good cement work. They ignored Haliburton's warnings when they were constructing the site and did not perform safety tests. Then after the spill, they kept underestimating the severity of the leak, which hampered clean up efforts. Most of the clean up is done by corporations with expertise in oilspill clean up. The government on the other hand has no such expertise and no agency to help out. There is little the government can do but pass legislation to regulate the oil industry so this doesn't happen again.
The BP oil spill's fault rests entirely on BP. Stop blaming Obama. Stop claiming that the government isn't doing enough. This is not something the government specializes in or had prepared for.
And for the love of all that is holy stop comparing this oil spill to events in the past to which it is NOTHING alike.
J Kuhl Signing Off
Tuesday, June 22, 2010
World of Warcraft and Human Nature
You may have noticed that there is a feed on this site that links the activity of my level 80 Paladin, Orissa, in the game World of Warcraft (WoW). I put that there because I wanted to see how it would work, which leads me to this post.
I've played this game since 2007 and Orissa has always been my main character (typically refered to as a 'main') and she has always been the character I use to participate in the hardest raids. There are several things about human nature that I've noticed while playing this game that I want to describe in this post, but first, some background information or my post won't make a lot of sense to people who have never played this game.
WoW is a Massively Multiplayer Online Role Playing Game (MMORPG) made by Blizzard Entertainment. Massively meaning that it takes place in a fantasy world some 15 square miles (which is enormous for a virtual environment) and is broken into some 200 servers each with 5-20 thousand players (and usually 3-10k online at one time.) And I'm not even counting the Asian and European versions of this game. It is multiplayer. At end game, you either find yourself fighting other players, other real people spread across the US (since I have the North American version of WoW, I typically only meet other Americans, a few Canadians and the occasional Mexican) or you cooperate with them to defeat difficult bosses. Also, the economy is player driven, with an in-game auction house, where players trade with each other, using gold as a virtual currency. It is online, obviously. It is also role-playing (RP) in that you pick a class and a particular role to play in the game and its a game. Each of these roles has its own function in the game.
Orissa is a Level 80 Protection Paladin with a Retribution off spec, on the US-Ghostlands server, and an officer in the guild Tribute to Insanity. There are 80 levels of character advancement. Protection is her primary talent specialization, which defines her role as a tank and Retribution is her secondary and when activated, defines her role as melee dps. And a guild is basically a group of players who have come together under one name to work together. As an officer, I help make policy decisions and occasionally lead raids.
Raiding in Wrath of the Lich King, the second expansion of the game, is broken down into two levels: 10 man and 25 man. 10 man raids are for the smaller guilds (such as mine) and 25 man raids are for the larger guilds. 25 mans are typically a bit harder to succeed at, harder to organize and drop better loot. However, each raid can be run as a 10 man or a 25 man. The reason Blizzard designed the game this way was because they wanted people to see the raid content. Before Wrath and Burning Crusade came out, all the raids were 40 man raids and thus only the largest and most hardcore of guilds could get in. A grand total of 3% of the game's population saw the interior of the Naxxramas 40 man raid, which was, during Vanilla WoW, the last and the hardest raid. Now 40 mans are gone, and every raid in Wrath has a 10 and 25 man setting.
Wrath of the Lich King, starts at Tier 7 (T7) for loot and goes up to T10 and raid progression looks like this:
Naxxramas (Naxx): 14 bosses, T7 (Naxx was brought back in Wrath as a 10/25 man and entry level raid)
Eye of Eternity (EoE): 1 boss, T7
Obsidian Sanctum (OS): 1 boss, T7
Ulduar (Uld): 14 bosses, T8
Trial of the Crusader (ToC): 7 bosses, T9
Onyxia's Lair (Ony): 1 boss, T9
Icecrown Citadel (ICC): 12 bosses, T10
Ruby Sanctum (RS): 1 boss, T10
Each raid with 1 boss takes about 45 minutes to an hour, ToC takes about 90-120 minutes, and the rest take 4-6 hours. However, you have one week, from Tuesday to Tuesday, to finish a raid and raids are usually scheduled by guilds and spread across a week. My guild will do about 2 hours of ICC on Tuesday, another 2 hours on Wednesday, and then finish it on Friday. Then we do it again, starting on Tuesdays. The reason for Tuesdays is that Blizzard takes down all the servers for a few hours each Tuesday for maintenance and they decided that was a good time to do raid resets as well.
I am going to focus on the 10 man versions of these raids as my guild does not have the people to field a 25 man. Each raid requires three arch-typical roles, which are Tank, Healer and DPS. There are 10 classes, all of them can perform DPS, 4 of which can be Tanks, 4 of which can be healers, 2 of which can be all three.
Each 10 man requires 2 tanks, 2-3 healers and 5-6 DPS. What are these roles? The Tank is the heavily defensive character who's job is to ensure that the boss hits him and not the other, more fragile classes. Orissa as I've said is a Tank. What she does is she gains threat on the boss (threat is a variable in the boss's AI; when a player does something, he gains threat and the person with the highest threat is the person the boss attacks) while using her abilities to reduce incoming damage (for example, keeping Holy Shield up, an ability that increases her chance to block by 30%.) DPS stands for Damage-Per-Second and indicates a player whose job it is to do as much damage as possible while avoiding taking damage as best as possible and the Healer is pretty self explanatory. This is a trinity, if you will. Tanks require healers to stay alive. Healers require tanks to stay alive. DPS is required as most bosses have some sort of mechanic that makes them impossible to kill if the fight goes on too long and thus high dps is needed to kill the boss in a certain time frame. A raid without one of these three roles will fail.
Thus we get into what I wanted to say about this game. Sometimes I wonder if WoW could be a college major with all the crap that goes on in the game, but I digress. The interesting fact about this game is how everyone in this game works together and knows each other but no one in this game really knows each other. Take, for example, the Guild Master (GM) of my guild, a man who plays a Priest named Angoth. I know a few things about him. He's married (to another player in the guild), was in the Navy in nuclear submarines, loves a good joke and is a pretty funny guy and a good GM. But I don't know his real name or what he looks like. All I know is the personality I see when he's online and when he's in Ventrilio (a voice-chat 3rd party program.) And this is true for every guildy. I know them by personality, by voice and by screenname, but I don't know what they don't reveal in Vent or in guild chat.
These are the people I work with and coordinate with however. Since most raids require a great deal of coordination in order to down a boss, it requires that I know how these people will play and how to communicate with them and yet it is difficult to learn anything about them through such an impersonal interface.
Just to get a view on how complicated a boss fight can get, lets look at one of the bosses for a moment. Mimiron is one good example. Mimiron is the 12th boss out of 14 in Ulduar. The raid does not actually fight Mimiron, but the inventions he controls. It is a four phase fight. First phase, Mimiron is in a battletank-like vehicle called Leviathan MKII. It requires that all the melee dps, including the tanks, keep an eye out for land mines and ensuring they have a path to run away from Leviathan. It requires that they keep an eye out for Shockblast and run away from Leviathan when this occurs. The healers must heal the tank through heavy damage from Leviathan, especially when he uses Plasma Punch. Then after Leviathan is defeated, it rolls away and Mimiron goes into an anti-personnel cannon, which then requires that players avoid the five-million damage instant death rockets, that they avoid the Laser Barrage that'll make about a 100 degree arc and instantly kill anyone hit by it. Then if they survive that, the third phase begins in which case a helicopter comes out, again, with Mimiron driving it. A ranged dps has to kite the head, while one tank has to pick up robots that spawn around the room and the other tank has to grab all the little bomb bots that the helicopter drops before they explode and kill the healers. Furthermore, DPS have to loot a magnetic core from dead robots to bring the helicopter down so they can do damage to it before it flies again. Once defeated, you enter phase 4, in which all three earlier vehicles, the Leviathan, the Anti-Personnel Cannon and the Aerial Command Unit, all come together as V-07-TR-0N, a big robot. With the exception of the little robots, everything in the previous phases, occurs again in this phase, all at one time and worst of all, each of the three components MUST die within 10 seconds of each other, or the surviving components will repair the dead one to full health and the raid will wipe (which is slang, meaning "everyone dies") because the berserk timer (which increases Mimiron's damage by 5000%) will be met. The hardmode (which leads to better loot) of this fight is everything I've mentioned, and fire. Lots and lots of fire.
Point being, it takes a lot of coordination, situational awareness and teamwork in order to down the more difficult bosses. Mimiron was, when Ulduar was the final raid in WoW, one of the hardest bosses in game. My guild would be in vent while raiding and we'd be warning each other when a rocket launches or when Mimiron was doing his shockblast or other abilities. Tanks would be calling out for stronger heals during Plasma Punch and DPS would be calling out when they needed to use the magnetic core to bring the Aerial Command Unit to the ground. Strategy would be discussed, failed attempts would be analyzed and we'd be constantly working out how to perform better next time so we can get a kill.
Its teamwork against a difficult objective, with strangers. People whom I've never met in real life, working together for a common goal. But as an officer, it is my job (if you will) to help keep all these people working together, and try to get the guild to fit their needs as best as possible.
And yet there is a serious darkside to this, one that is illustrated by WoW, but also very common on the internet wherever anyone can hide behind a shield of anonymity. On Trade Chat one morning, I was discussing something with another character in the game, when a third character popped up and called me things like 'baddie' and flamed me because I hadn't been past Professor Putricide (7th boss of 12 in ICC and more difficult that Mimiron) at the time. It was a display of immaturity and foolishness and he could get away with it easily because I don't know who he is. He'll suffer no real life repercussions for that, his real life reputation remains untouched and heck, he might be a nice guy in real life, so long as he has a reputation to maintain.
Which frightens me.
This isn't a problem unique with WoW, it is found on every on-line venue, from other multiplayer games to the Fark.com forums to 4chan (which is infamous for their internet hijinks and complete lack of manners, entirely because there is no accoutability.) It makes me wonder then, if people are only decent towards other people because they have a reputation to maintain. Is there any true honesty or is it all play acting? Remove our faces and our real names, and our true personalities emerge.
Not everyone acts like a jerk without a name and a face, but a large number do. And maybe they are just jerks. It is still however, a frightening concept to think that everything we do is simply an act to appease our fellow man.
"We haven't much time, friends! You're going to help me test out my latest and greatest creation. Now, before you change your minds, remember, that you kind of owe it to me after the mess you made with the XT-002!" -Mimiron at the start of Phase 1 (XT-002 is a huge robot and is the fourth boss in Ulduar)
J Kuhl Signing Off
I've played this game since 2007 and Orissa has always been my main character (typically refered to as a 'main') and she has always been the character I use to participate in the hardest raids. There are several things about human nature that I've noticed while playing this game that I want to describe in this post, but first, some background information or my post won't make a lot of sense to people who have never played this game.
WoW is a Massively Multiplayer Online Role Playing Game (MMORPG) made by Blizzard Entertainment. Massively meaning that it takes place in a fantasy world some 15 square miles (which is enormous for a virtual environment) and is broken into some 200 servers each with 5-20 thousand players (and usually 3-10k online at one time.) And I'm not even counting the Asian and European versions of this game. It is multiplayer. At end game, you either find yourself fighting other players, other real people spread across the US (since I have the North American version of WoW, I typically only meet other Americans, a few Canadians and the occasional Mexican) or you cooperate with them to defeat difficult bosses. Also, the economy is player driven, with an in-game auction house, where players trade with each other, using gold as a virtual currency. It is online, obviously. It is also role-playing (RP) in that you pick a class and a particular role to play in the game and its a game. Each of these roles has its own function in the game.
Orissa is a Level 80 Protection Paladin with a Retribution off spec, on the US-Ghostlands server, and an officer in the guild Tribute to Insanity. There are 80 levels of character advancement. Protection is her primary talent specialization, which defines her role as a tank and Retribution is her secondary and when activated, defines her role as melee dps. And a guild is basically a group of players who have come together under one name to work together. As an officer, I help make policy decisions and occasionally lead raids.
Raiding in Wrath of the Lich King, the second expansion of the game, is broken down into two levels: 10 man and 25 man. 10 man raids are for the smaller guilds (such as mine) and 25 man raids are for the larger guilds. 25 mans are typically a bit harder to succeed at, harder to organize and drop better loot. However, each raid can be run as a 10 man or a 25 man. The reason Blizzard designed the game this way was because they wanted people to see the raid content. Before Wrath and Burning Crusade came out, all the raids were 40 man raids and thus only the largest and most hardcore of guilds could get in. A grand total of 3% of the game's population saw the interior of the Naxxramas 40 man raid, which was, during Vanilla WoW, the last and the hardest raid. Now 40 mans are gone, and every raid in Wrath has a 10 and 25 man setting.
Wrath of the Lich King, starts at Tier 7 (T7) for loot and goes up to T10 and raid progression looks like this:
Naxxramas (Naxx): 14 bosses, T7 (Naxx was brought back in Wrath as a 10/25 man and entry level raid)
Eye of Eternity (EoE): 1 boss, T7
Obsidian Sanctum (OS): 1 boss, T7
Ulduar (Uld): 14 bosses, T8
Trial of the Crusader (ToC): 7 bosses, T9
Onyxia's Lair (Ony): 1 boss, T9
Icecrown Citadel (ICC): 12 bosses, T10
Ruby Sanctum (RS): 1 boss, T10
Each raid with 1 boss takes about 45 minutes to an hour, ToC takes about 90-120 minutes, and the rest take 4-6 hours. However, you have one week, from Tuesday to Tuesday, to finish a raid and raids are usually scheduled by guilds and spread across a week. My guild will do about 2 hours of ICC on Tuesday, another 2 hours on Wednesday, and then finish it on Friday. Then we do it again, starting on Tuesdays. The reason for Tuesdays is that Blizzard takes down all the servers for a few hours each Tuesday for maintenance and they decided that was a good time to do raid resets as well.
I am going to focus on the 10 man versions of these raids as my guild does not have the people to field a 25 man. Each raid requires three arch-typical roles, which are Tank, Healer and DPS. There are 10 classes, all of them can perform DPS, 4 of which can be Tanks, 4 of which can be healers, 2 of which can be all three.
Each 10 man requires 2 tanks, 2-3 healers and 5-6 DPS. What are these roles? The Tank is the heavily defensive character who's job is to ensure that the boss hits him and not the other, more fragile classes. Orissa as I've said is a Tank. What she does is she gains threat on the boss (threat is a variable in the boss's AI; when a player does something, he gains threat and the person with the highest threat is the person the boss attacks) while using her abilities to reduce incoming damage (for example, keeping Holy Shield up, an ability that increases her chance to block by 30%.) DPS stands for Damage-Per-Second and indicates a player whose job it is to do as much damage as possible while avoiding taking damage as best as possible and the Healer is pretty self explanatory. This is a trinity, if you will. Tanks require healers to stay alive. Healers require tanks to stay alive. DPS is required as most bosses have some sort of mechanic that makes them impossible to kill if the fight goes on too long and thus high dps is needed to kill the boss in a certain time frame. A raid without one of these three roles will fail.
Thus we get into what I wanted to say about this game. Sometimes I wonder if WoW could be a college major with all the crap that goes on in the game, but I digress. The interesting fact about this game is how everyone in this game works together and knows each other but no one in this game really knows each other. Take, for example, the Guild Master (GM) of my guild, a man who plays a Priest named Angoth. I know a few things about him. He's married (to another player in the guild), was in the Navy in nuclear submarines, loves a good joke and is a pretty funny guy and a good GM. But I don't know his real name or what he looks like. All I know is the personality I see when he's online and when he's in Ventrilio (a voice-chat 3rd party program.) And this is true for every guildy. I know them by personality, by voice and by screenname, but I don't know what they don't reveal in Vent or in guild chat.
These are the people I work with and coordinate with however. Since most raids require a great deal of coordination in order to down a boss, it requires that I know how these people will play and how to communicate with them and yet it is difficult to learn anything about them through such an impersonal interface.
Just to get a view on how complicated a boss fight can get, lets look at one of the bosses for a moment. Mimiron is one good example. Mimiron is the 12th boss out of 14 in Ulduar. The raid does not actually fight Mimiron, but the inventions he controls. It is a four phase fight. First phase, Mimiron is in a battletank-like vehicle called Leviathan MKII. It requires that all the melee dps, including the tanks, keep an eye out for land mines and ensuring they have a path to run away from Leviathan. It requires that they keep an eye out for Shockblast and run away from Leviathan when this occurs. The healers must heal the tank through heavy damage from Leviathan, especially when he uses Plasma Punch. Then after Leviathan is defeated, it rolls away and Mimiron goes into an anti-personnel cannon, which then requires that players avoid the five-million damage instant death rockets, that they avoid the Laser Barrage that'll make about a 100 degree arc and instantly kill anyone hit by it. Then if they survive that, the third phase begins in which case a helicopter comes out, again, with Mimiron driving it. A ranged dps has to kite the head, while one tank has to pick up robots that spawn around the room and the other tank has to grab all the little bomb bots that the helicopter drops before they explode and kill the healers. Furthermore, DPS have to loot a magnetic core from dead robots to bring the helicopter down so they can do damage to it before it flies again. Once defeated, you enter phase 4, in which all three earlier vehicles, the Leviathan, the Anti-Personnel Cannon and the Aerial Command Unit, all come together as V-07-TR-0N, a big robot. With the exception of the little robots, everything in the previous phases, occurs again in this phase, all at one time and worst of all, each of the three components MUST die within 10 seconds of each other, or the surviving components will repair the dead one to full health and the raid will wipe (which is slang, meaning "everyone dies") because the berserk timer (which increases Mimiron's damage by 5000%) will be met. The hardmode (which leads to better loot) of this fight is everything I've mentioned, and fire. Lots and lots of fire.
Point being, it takes a lot of coordination, situational awareness and teamwork in order to down the more difficult bosses. Mimiron was, when Ulduar was the final raid in WoW, one of the hardest bosses in game. My guild would be in vent while raiding and we'd be warning each other when a rocket launches or when Mimiron was doing his shockblast or other abilities. Tanks would be calling out for stronger heals during Plasma Punch and DPS would be calling out when they needed to use the magnetic core to bring the Aerial Command Unit to the ground. Strategy would be discussed, failed attempts would be analyzed and we'd be constantly working out how to perform better next time so we can get a kill.
Its teamwork against a difficult objective, with strangers. People whom I've never met in real life, working together for a common goal. But as an officer, it is my job (if you will) to help keep all these people working together, and try to get the guild to fit their needs as best as possible.
And yet there is a serious darkside to this, one that is illustrated by WoW, but also very common on the internet wherever anyone can hide behind a shield of anonymity. On Trade Chat one morning, I was discussing something with another character in the game, when a third character popped up and called me things like 'baddie' and flamed me because I hadn't been past Professor Putricide (7th boss of 12 in ICC and more difficult that Mimiron) at the time. It was a display of immaturity and foolishness and he could get away with it easily because I don't know who he is. He'll suffer no real life repercussions for that, his real life reputation remains untouched and heck, he might be a nice guy in real life, so long as he has a reputation to maintain.
Which frightens me.
This isn't a problem unique with WoW, it is found on every on-line venue, from other multiplayer games to the Fark.com forums to 4chan (which is infamous for their internet hijinks and complete lack of manners, entirely because there is no accoutability.) It makes me wonder then, if people are only decent towards other people because they have a reputation to maintain. Is there any true honesty or is it all play acting? Remove our faces and our real names, and our true personalities emerge.
Not everyone acts like a jerk without a name and a face, but a large number do. And maybe they are just jerks. It is still however, a frightening concept to think that everything we do is simply an act to appease our fellow man.
"We haven't much time, friends! You're going to help me test out my latest and greatest creation. Now, before you change your minds, remember, that you kind of owe it to me after the mess you made with the XT-002!" -Mimiron at the start of Phase 1 (XT-002 is a huge robot and is the fourth boss in Ulduar)
J Kuhl Signing Off
Monday, June 07, 2010
So I Took a Gander at Conservapedia . . .
For anyone who doesn't know, Conservatives have claimed that Wikipedia has a well known liberal bias (Conservapedia) and in response, rather than making an objective and unbiased wiki, made Conservapedia.
This leads to the creation of the most ridiculous, and biased wiki on the net.
Just look at some of this:
On Liberals: "A liberal (also leftist) is someone who rejects logical and biblical standards, often for self-centered reasons. There are no coherent liberal standards; often a liberal is merely someone who craves attention, and who uses many words to say nothing" (Conservapedia)
Because we all know that biblical standards lead to logical standards right? Heck no. Biblical standards lead to idiots like Fred Phelps spreading hate, or creationists spreading lies. Biblical standards do not lead to logic, but science and logic does. And what do they always claim goes against the bible? Science, with its liberal logic and liberal facts.
On Obama: "Barack Hussein Obama II (birth name Barry Soetoro, allegedly born in Honolulu August 4, 1961 . . ."
I chuckled at the word "allegedly." Allegedly, this entry was written by a frothing Birther tea party activist.
"As President, Obama approved offshore oil drilling including the Gulf of Mexico"
Sure, before the oil spill, the Conservatives were like "DRILL DRILL DRILL" and now that its over, they act like they never supported it and that Obama was an evil guy who hates the environment and allowed the BP spill to happen.
Whaaaat? O.o
"Obama depends completely on reading from teleprompters when he talks, even in an elementary school"
As did most other presidents, including the Most Holy Republican Messiah, Ronald Reagan.
Woops, the one below is George H. Bush, but that's alright.
And I'll throw in George Bush for giggles:
"However, it is also true that Barack Obama is an evolutionist. Barack Obama told the York Daily Record that "I believe in evolution..."."
I freaking hope so
On Evolution:"The fossil record is often used as evidence in the creation versus evolution controversy. The fossil record does not support the theory of evolution and is one of the flaws in the theory of evolution."
What? Oh you mean all those transitional fossils we have? These facts must have a liberal bias.
"There seems to be a backlash against the strong-arm tactics that have been used in recent years to censor and intimidate scientists, teachers, and students who raise criticisms of Darwin.”"
As opposed to the Creationist lies that are used to try to wedge intelligent design into a biology class?
And one more thing about Evolution. On their page on Barack Obama, I guess they think he's a social darwinist since they have a little paragraph on that. And next to that paragraph, a picture of Charles Darwin, who never ever argued for social darwinism . . .
I don't want to turn this post into another Evolution vsDeluded Fantasyland Beliefs Creationism post however, so I'll move on.
I just don't get why, if Wikipedia has such a liberal bias, they make a wiki with such a conservative bias? How about making a wiki with no bias?
What a bunch of garbage anyways
J Kuhl Signing Off
This leads to the creation of the most ridiculous, and biased wiki on the net.
Just look at some of this:
On Liberals: "A liberal (also leftist) is someone who rejects logical and biblical standards, often for self-centered reasons. There are no coherent liberal standards; often a liberal is merely someone who craves attention, and who uses many words to say nothing" (Conservapedia)
Because we all know that biblical standards lead to logical standards right? Heck no. Biblical standards lead to idiots like Fred Phelps spreading hate, or creationists spreading lies. Biblical standards do not lead to logic, but science and logic does. And what do they always claim goes against the bible? Science, with its liberal logic and liberal facts.
On Obama: "Barack Hussein Obama II (birth name Barry Soetoro, allegedly born in Honolulu August 4, 1961 . . ."
I chuckled at the word "allegedly." Allegedly, this entry was written by a frothing Birther tea party activist.
"As President, Obama approved offshore oil drilling including the Gulf of Mexico"
Sure, before the oil spill, the Conservatives were like "DRILL DRILL DRILL" and now that its over, they act like they never supported it and that Obama was an evil guy who hates the environment and allowed the BP spill to happen.
Whaaaat? O.o
"Obama depends completely on reading from teleprompters when he talks, even in an elementary school"
As did most other presidents, including the Most Holy Republican Messiah, Ronald Reagan.
Woops, the one below is George H. Bush, but that's alright.
And I'll throw in George Bush for giggles:
"However, it is also true that Barack Obama is an evolutionist. Barack Obama told the York Daily Record that "I believe in evolution..."."
I freaking hope so
On Evolution:"The fossil record is often used as evidence in the creation versus evolution controversy. The fossil record does not support the theory of evolution and is one of the flaws in the theory of evolution."
What? Oh you mean all those transitional fossils we have? These facts must have a liberal bias.
"There seems to be a backlash against the strong-arm tactics that have been used in recent years to censor and intimidate scientists, teachers, and students who raise criticisms of Darwin.”"
As opposed to the Creationist lies that are used to try to wedge intelligent design into a biology class?
And one more thing about Evolution. On their page on Barack Obama, I guess they think he's a social darwinist since they have a little paragraph on that. And next to that paragraph, a picture of Charles Darwin, who never ever argued for social darwinism . . .
I don't want to turn this post into another Evolution vs
I just don't get why, if Wikipedia has such a liberal bias, they make a wiki with such a conservative bias? How about making a wiki with no bias?
What a bunch of garbage anyways
J Kuhl Signing Off
Thursday, June 03, 2010
Oh Boy, Mrs. Palin Does It Again
According to talking head (because that's all she is now) Sarah Palin, the off shore drilling oil spill isn't BP's fault, but the fault of, get this, environmentalists. She argues that if the environmentalists had let us drill in ANWR, we wouldn't need to drill in the Gulf and thus this disaster would have never taken place.
Its just jaw dropping how . . . I hate to say this, but how stupid this is. If environmentalists had their way, we wouldn't even be drilling in the gulf. We'd be using alternative energies now (which we have the technology) and no longer dependent on foreign oil or offshore oil. Its stupid to blame environmentalists on a disaster caused by corporate greed and lax regulations.
I really hope that the Republicans run Sarah Palin in 2012, that'll be the comedic event of the century.
Further more, not only is it a stupid argument, but also a lie. Here are several clips where Palin advocates offshore drilling, and calls it safe.
Please, someone, make her go away. She's not only an embarrassment to republicans but to Americans in general. I mean, does she even realize that she's become such a laughing stock?
Drill baby drill.
J Kuhl Signing Off
Its just jaw dropping how . . . I hate to say this, but how stupid this is. If environmentalists had their way, we wouldn't even be drilling in the gulf. We'd be using alternative energies now (which we have the technology) and no longer dependent on foreign oil or offshore oil. Its stupid to blame environmentalists on a disaster caused by corporate greed and lax regulations.
I really hope that the Republicans run Sarah Palin in 2012, that'll be the comedic event of the century.
Further more, not only is it a stupid argument, but also a lie. Here are several clips where Palin advocates offshore drilling, and calls it safe.
Please, someone, make her go away. She's not only an embarrassment to republicans but to Americans in general. I mean, does she even realize that she's become such a laughing stock?
Drill baby drill.
J Kuhl Signing Off
Why We Make Fun of Muslims
Draw Mohammed Day was a few weeks ago, but it brought up an interesting controversy amongst those of us here in Western civilization as to why we simply don't respect the wishes of the muslims and not depict Mohammed in drawings.
The answer is simple: To make a point and that point is, death threats and violence will not intimidate us. If we were to simply stop drawing pictures and cartoons, they'd realize that their violent protesting causes us to react in their favor and they'll do it more. And it leads to a slippery slope. If we give in to their demands and stop drawing pictures, then they'll get violent when we offend them in some other way. And this can continue until in our fear of retribution or fear of offense, we inadvertently strip away the right to freedom of speech.
No.
The more they protest, the more violence and hate they spew, the more we will lampoon their backwards religion and the more silly pictures of Mohammed we'll draw. Is it childish? Perhaps, but consider this: When a child starts screaming in a grocery store because his mother didn't buy him cookies, is she going to buy him cookies? Of course not! She'll tell him to shut up and threaten him with more punishment if he doesn't behave. Its the same concept here. Rather than rewarding their bad behavior, we punish them by continuing to do that which they are throwing a tantrum about.
Ironically, if they want us to stop drawing pictures of Mohammed, if they want us to stop making fun of their religion, then they need to stop reacting so violently to criticism.
Furthermore, this simply goes to illustrate how ridiculous Islam is. Violence over a cartoon? Over a drawing of Mohammed? Banning Facebook and Youtube because these sites were used to dare to criticize Islam? Islam isn't special. Islam, like any other religion, has NO right to try to squash freedom of speech. If they don't like it, tough. No religion is immune to criticism. No religion may deny free speech.
So lets continue to lampoon Islam until they figure it out. Lets teach them how to be adults. If they want us to stop treating them like kids, if they want us to take them seriously, maybe they should learn to be adults and learn to be civil. Maybe once they realize that violence is not the answer to the world's problems, the negative attention directed to Islam would turn elsewhere.
I don't see this happening any time soon though.
J Kuhl Signing Off
The answer is simple: To make a point and that point is, death threats and violence will not intimidate us. If we were to simply stop drawing pictures and cartoons, they'd realize that their violent protesting causes us to react in their favor and they'll do it more. And it leads to a slippery slope. If we give in to their demands and stop drawing pictures, then they'll get violent when we offend them in some other way. And this can continue until in our fear of retribution or fear of offense, we inadvertently strip away the right to freedom of speech.
No.
The more they protest, the more violence and hate they spew, the more we will lampoon their backwards religion and the more silly pictures of Mohammed we'll draw. Is it childish? Perhaps, but consider this: When a child starts screaming in a grocery store because his mother didn't buy him cookies, is she going to buy him cookies? Of course not! She'll tell him to shut up and threaten him with more punishment if he doesn't behave. Its the same concept here. Rather than rewarding their bad behavior, we punish them by continuing to do that which they are throwing a tantrum about.
Ironically, if they want us to stop drawing pictures of Mohammed, if they want us to stop making fun of their religion, then they need to stop reacting so violently to criticism.
Furthermore, this simply goes to illustrate how ridiculous Islam is. Violence over a cartoon? Over a drawing of Mohammed? Banning Facebook and Youtube because these sites were used to dare to criticize Islam? Islam isn't special. Islam, like any other religion, has NO right to try to squash freedom of speech. If they don't like it, tough. No religion is immune to criticism. No religion may deny free speech.
So lets continue to lampoon Islam until they figure it out. Lets teach them how to be adults. If they want us to stop treating them like kids, if they want us to take them seriously, maybe they should learn to be adults and learn to be civil. Maybe once they realize that violence is not the answer to the world's problems, the negative attention directed to Islam would turn elsewhere.
I don't see this happening any time soon though.
J Kuhl Signing Off
Monday, May 24, 2010
A Loud Silence
Islam, I have a message for you. This in particular, goes directly to the moderates, not the extremists, as the extremists are beyond logic and diplomacy. The only action against extremists is warfare. They say do not fight fire with fire, but they have left us no other options.
But this message is for the moderate Muslims, the day to day Muslims who want to be a part of Western culture and enjoy the fruits of our civilization. I had, until now, nothing wrong with moderate Islam. But now, there is one thing about them that really pisses me off.
Islam has been committing major crimes against the Westernized world for the last decade (and a few before that even.) I can list them:
. . . it sparked outrage and violence. When the Pope quoted someone who said 'Islam is violent,' Islam reacted with outrage and . . . violence. When Dutch film director Theo Van Gogh made a documentory that criticized Islam, he was murdered while riding his bike to work. When South Park lampooned Islam and Mohammed, the creators of South Park recieved death threats.
It is apparent to me that the lunatic fringe of the Islamic religion has taken full control. Moderate Muslims in the US often complain about being compared with terrorists. Well guess what, your entire religion is guilty of terrorism, if not by action, then by inaction.
Everytime the Islamic extremists do something terrible, there is a loud and deafening silence from the Muslim moderates. We rarely hear any condemnation from prominent clerics. We never hear anything from the Muslim world that tells us that you are not like them. We never hear anything that tells us that Allah does not support terrorism. You have allowed these lunatics to take control of your religion with nary a peep in protest. You aren't powerless. Say something. Use the blogs, use Youtube, use Facebook. If you want to deliver Islam from the radical extremists, if you want to prove that Islam is the 'Religion of Peace,' if you want to be in Western culture, then use the media and technology of today and denounce the radical Muslims.
But until then, all of you are guilty by association. If it takes a guilt trip to get you into action, so be it.
I'll leave you with this:
J Kuhl Signing Off
But this message is for the moderate Muslims, the day to day Muslims who want to be a part of Western culture and enjoy the fruits of our civilization. I had, until now, nothing wrong with moderate Islam. But now, there is one thing about them that really pisses me off.
Islam has been committing major crimes against the Westernized world for the last decade (and a few before that even.) I can list them:
- 1993 World Trade Center Bombings
- 2000 USS Cole Bombing
- 2001 World Trade Center/Pentagon Bombings
- 2002 Bali Bombing
- 2003 Shoe Bomber attempt
- 2004 Madrid Bombing
- 2005 London Bombing
- 2005 Bali Bombing
- 2006 Gatorade Bomber attempt
- 2008 Mumbai shootings
- 2009 Underwear Bomber attempt
- 2010 Times Square Bombing attempt
. . . it sparked outrage and violence. When the Pope quoted someone who said 'Islam is violent,' Islam reacted with outrage and . . . violence. When Dutch film director Theo Van Gogh made a documentory that criticized Islam, he was murdered while riding his bike to work. When South Park lampooned Islam and Mohammed, the creators of South Park recieved death threats.
It is apparent to me that the lunatic fringe of the Islamic religion has taken full control. Moderate Muslims in the US often complain about being compared with terrorists. Well guess what, your entire religion is guilty of terrorism, if not by action, then by inaction.
Everytime the Islamic extremists do something terrible, there is a loud and deafening silence from the Muslim moderates. We rarely hear any condemnation from prominent clerics. We never hear anything from the Muslim world that tells us that you are not like them. We never hear anything that tells us that Allah does not support terrorism. You have allowed these lunatics to take control of your religion with nary a peep in protest. You aren't powerless. Say something. Use the blogs, use Youtube, use Facebook. If you want to deliver Islam from the radical extremists, if you want to prove that Islam is the 'Religion of Peace,' if you want to be in Western culture, then use the media and technology of today and denounce the radical Muslims.
But until then, all of you are guilty by association. If it takes a guilt trip to get you into action, so be it.
I'll leave you with this:
J Kuhl Signing Off
Sunday, May 23, 2010
Really? Trading Chickens for Healthcare? Really?
In Reno Nevada, the people in charge of the poll booths decided to ban chicken costumes. The reason for this is that the costumes are being used to mock Republican Senate candidate Sue Lowden. I think it is reasonable to ban such costumes as I feel it is necessary that the polling booths remain politically neutral, however the reason this incensed me was the reason why protesters were wearing chicken suits in the first place.
Lowden had commented that people should, in lieu of using money or a gov't run healthcare system, barter with their doctors. She said, and I quote, "Our grandparents would bring a chicken to the doctor."
This made me shake my head in disgust. A chicken. Right. Because my doctor would take, in lieu of a $30,000 bill for a surgery, a freaking chicken. It's a preposterous idea and obviously she doesn't literally mean "bring a chicken" but that only illustrates how a barter system won't help the issue. If my doctor is going to accept something other than money, he'll accept something of equal or greater value, meaning that I'd have to own something worth those thousands of dollars to cover my expenses. Even then, the doctor has to find some means to convert whatever the trade was into cash. It won't help.
Then I noticed something else. This woman is a multimillionaire. If she gets cancer, she has the money to pay for it, the money for the medication and everything. She's all set. But damn, if I get cancer, I've already got college bills, and now a hospital bill? I'd be screwed, really. And how is it fair that someone who is rich has a greater advantage to healthcare than someone who is poor?
This is what really astounds me when people are so adamant against healthcare for everyone. With our current system, poor people are left hung to dry if they get sick. Even if they live, it can still be devastating to their lives, incurring massive debt from hospital bills. I just don't understand how healthcare isn't a right for every American, and not simply a privilege for those who simply afford it?
Tea Partyists and Republicans like to scream 'SOCIALISM' in a loud voice when the idea of public health care comes up but perhaps there are somethings, like life's basic necessities, that shouldn't be in the hands of capitalists. Perhaps we should have a government that takes advantage of both capitalism and socialism. A healthy mix of both ideologies will do much better for our nation than simply ignoring the good that can come from socialism.
I am not arguing that we adopt an all out socialist economy. Of course not. Our economy for the most part should be capitalist. I am simply saying that we can use socialism to level the playing field and ensure everyone in America has their basic needs. What is so immoral and evil about that? What is it about the idea of giving everyone a hand when needed that the conservatives are afraid of?
Healthcare should be an option for everyone, no matter how much or how little money they make. Having access to medication, doctors, surgeries, etc, should not come with a crippling bill to those who do not make money.
And someone who is a multi-millionaire, who either never knew or has forgotten what it is like to live from paycheck to paycheck, has no room to make comments such as this.
Chickens?
Really?
J Kuhl Signing Off
Lowden had commented that people should, in lieu of using money or a gov't run healthcare system, barter with their doctors. She said, and I quote, "Our grandparents would bring a chicken to the doctor."
This made me shake my head in disgust. A chicken. Right. Because my doctor would take, in lieu of a $30,000 bill for a surgery, a freaking chicken. It's a preposterous idea and obviously she doesn't literally mean "bring a chicken" but that only illustrates how a barter system won't help the issue. If my doctor is going to accept something other than money, he'll accept something of equal or greater value, meaning that I'd have to own something worth those thousands of dollars to cover my expenses. Even then, the doctor has to find some means to convert whatever the trade was into cash. It won't help.
Then I noticed something else. This woman is a multimillionaire. If she gets cancer, she has the money to pay for it, the money for the medication and everything. She's all set. But damn, if I get cancer, I've already got college bills, and now a hospital bill? I'd be screwed, really. And how is it fair that someone who is rich has a greater advantage to healthcare than someone who is poor?
This is what really astounds me when people are so adamant against healthcare for everyone. With our current system, poor people are left hung to dry if they get sick. Even if they live, it can still be devastating to their lives, incurring massive debt from hospital bills. I just don't understand how healthcare isn't a right for every American, and not simply a privilege for those who simply afford it?
Tea Partyists and Republicans like to scream 'SOCIALISM' in a loud voice when the idea of public health care comes up but perhaps there are somethings, like life's basic necessities, that shouldn't be in the hands of capitalists. Perhaps we should have a government that takes advantage of both capitalism and socialism. A healthy mix of both ideologies will do much better for our nation than simply ignoring the good that can come from socialism.
I am not arguing that we adopt an all out socialist economy. Of course not. Our economy for the most part should be capitalist. I am simply saying that we can use socialism to level the playing field and ensure everyone in America has their basic needs. What is so immoral and evil about that? What is it about the idea of giving everyone a hand when needed that the conservatives are afraid of?
Healthcare should be an option for everyone, no matter how much or how little money they make. Having access to medication, doctors, surgeries, etc, should not come with a crippling bill to those who do not make money.
And someone who is a multi-millionaire, who either never knew or has forgotten what it is like to live from paycheck to paycheck, has no room to make comments such as this.
Chickens?
Really?
J Kuhl Signing Off
Saturday, May 15, 2010
Once More, Palin Proves to be a Frothing Lunatic
In a recent speech to the National Rifle Association, Sarah Palin once again showed that she can simply make bullshit up and pass it off as fact.
Sarah Palin claims that Obama will take our guns.
Uh . . .
When the hell has Obama ever said anything like that?
And if a barbie doll started talking, I swear, it would sound just like Palin.
J Kuhl Signing Off
Sarah Palin claims that Obama will take our guns.
Uh . . .
When the hell has Obama ever said anything like that?
And if a barbie doll started talking, I swear, it would sound just like Palin.
J Kuhl Signing Off
Sunday, May 02, 2010
South Park
Recently, the writers of South Park aired an episode which featured Mohammed, but the writers satirized him by making sure the prophet was never shown directly. Instead, he was in a mascot costume of a bear.
Naturally, Muslims have a problem with this. One extremist site even went so far as to direct veiled threats at South Park's writers for offending them, which is pretty stupid as everyone knows that South Park insults any one and everyone and holds nothing sacred whatsoever. Jesus is often portrayed on that show, as is Satan and yet you never hear Christians upset over the show. Most people who don't like the show's juvenile humor, of course, usually elect to change the channel.
But the extremists feel special, like they have the sole right to eliminate free speech if such speech might possibly offend them. Honestly though, they are a very easily offended bunch. Rock music offends them. A barefaced woman in public offends them. A cartoon of Mohammed with a bomb in his hat? Results in more death threats and violence from the "Religion of Peace."
I do not mean to be offensive, but we need to offend them more. Produce more political cartoons, animated shows and whatever lampooning islam (lampoon the other religions too to be fair.) Why? To send a message that we are a nation of free speech and no death threats, no violence is going to stop us. Roll with the punches like the rest of the world does when comedic media turns its attention on you and perhaps your idols and prophets won't find themselves being openly mocked.
One last point before I move on, this is public TV. No one points a gun at one's head and makes him watch. If you find it offensive, get thicker skin and change the channel.
In other news, on my way back from Texas the other day, as I was driving through Massachusettes, I came across a billboard. It had the Earth and a message that said "In the beginning God created the world. . . " and I shrugged it off. Who cares right? Sign isn't making me believe in god, let the religions advertise if they wish. But then, on the otherside was a picture of the evolution of man behind a no-smoking symbol.
This is some BS. I can understand the "In the Beginning" part as that part isn't a direct lie to mislead the public, but a belief and a tenant to a religion that can be interpreted in multiple ways. After all, one cannot prove that God exists or does not exist. However, it is clear that evolution does in fact happen, has been observed both in the lab and in the wild and is wholly supported by the science community, a large number of which are Christian. To say that evolution did not happen is a lie and spreading lies to the public is immoral, evil and illegal.
God could have made this universe. This is why the other part of the sign did not offend me. But if he did, he made it through a scientific method that can be observed and those methods were the Big Bang, abiogenesis and evolution, all of which have been extensively researched and other than abiogenesis, are very strong theories. And even abiogenesis is a well developing theory. All of these theories are supported by strong, researchable evidence. So to say that any of them did not happen or are lies, is downright wrong and to spread lies like this to the public, even on a billboard on the interstate is evil.
Thou shalt not bear false truths.
J Kuhl Signing Off
Naturally, Muslims have a problem with this. One extremist site even went so far as to direct veiled threats at South Park's writers for offending them, which is pretty stupid as everyone knows that South Park insults any one and everyone and holds nothing sacred whatsoever. Jesus is often portrayed on that show, as is Satan and yet you never hear Christians upset over the show. Most people who don't like the show's juvenile humor, of course, usually elect to change the channel.
But the extremists feel special, like they have the sole right to eliminate free speech if such speech might possibly offend them. Honestly though, they are a very easily offended bunch. Rock music offends them. A barefaced woman in public offends them. A cartoon of Mohammed with a bomb in his hat? Results in more death threats and violence from the "Religion of Peace."
I do not mean to be offensive, but we need to offend them more. Produce more political cartoons, animated shows and whatever lampooning islam (lampoon the other religions too to be fair.) Why? To send a message that we are a nation of free speech and no death threats, no violence is going to stop us. Roll with the punches like the rest of the world does when comedic media turns its attention on you and perhaps your idols and prophets won't find themselves being openly mocked.
One last point before I move on, this is public TV. No one points a gun at one's head and makes him watch. If you find it offensive, get thicker skin and change the channel.
In other news, on my way back from Texas the other day, as I was driving through Massachusettes, I came across a billboard. It had the Earth and a message that said "In the beginning God created the world. . . " and I shrugged it off. Who cares right? Sign isn't making me believe in god, let the religions advertise if they wish. But then, on the otherside was a picture of the evolution of man behind a no-smoking symbol.
This is some BS. I can understand the "In the Beginning" part as that part isn't a direct lie to mislead the public, but a belief and a tenant to a religion that can be interpreted in multiple ways. After all, one cannot prove that God exists or does not exist. However, it is clear that evolution does in fact happen, has been observed both in the lab and in the wild and is wholly supported by the science community, a large number of which are Christian. To say that evolution did not happen is a lie and spreading lies to the public is immoral, evil and illegal.
God could have made this universe. This is why the other part of the sign did not offend me. But if he did, he made it through a scientific method that can be observed and those methods were the Big Bang, abiogenesis and evolution, all of which have been extensively researched and other than abiogenesis, are very strong theories. And even abiogenesis is a well developing theory. All of these theories are supported by strong, researchable evidence. So to say that any of them did not happen or are lies, is downright wrong and to spread lies like this to the public, even on a billboard on the interstate is evil.
Thou shalt not bear false truths.
J Kuhl Signing Off
Friday, January 01, 2010
5 Questions for Atheists
This video gives a few basic questions for atheists, questions I can answer myself.
The first one was "How can you be sure there is no God?"
The truth of the matter is, we can't. There is no possible way to prove non-existence. However, there is no empirical evidence that there is a god. Belief in god's existence is a matter of faith, not fact. There is also no possible way to prove the non existence of the unicorn or the leprechaun and yet, very few sane people actually believe in these creatures. The default position for lack of evidence for existence is non existence. But again, you cannot prove non-existence.
Take for example, Pluto. Before it was discovered in the 1930s, astronomers could easily argue that Pluto does not exist, if you went back in time and told them about it. They had no evidence that it did exist and thus no reason to believe that Pluto existed. Obviously this was wrong, but this shows how non-existence cannot be proven.
"Were you born a theist or an atheist? If born a theist, why did you change?"
I was a catholic but then I started looking at facts. I'm not sure what the author is trying to get at here.
"In the beginning there was nothing . . . which exploded"
This short paragraph, riddled with obvious sarcasm shows the author isn't very knowledgeable about high school science that I learned at a catholic school. Ironic isn't it, learning evolution at a Christian school? At any rate, This question asks about the three theories that make up the creation of the universe and life, which are the Big Bang (Origin of the Universe), Abiogenesis (Origin of Life) and Evolution (Origin of Species.) The Big Bang and Evolution are well substantiated and well explained theories found in every high school science textbook in the relevant field. Abiogenesis is still a developing theory (technically, all theories are "still developing, however in this case, scientists are still looking for more substantial evidence) and yet still, the hypothesis that life evolved from lipid vesicles and self replicating polymers is a strong indication that life did arise from non-living organic matter (not all organic matter is alive!)
The Big Bang does not state that the universe came from nothing, it states that the universe started out as a very condensed point of singularity. Imagine, if you will, all the matter of the universe in one single spot, smaller than a subatomic particle. And there was more matter than that, since much of the matter was annihilated by antimatter at the start of the Big Bang. Where did this singularity come from? Is it the result of a big crunch that may occur if the universe begins to collapse? Scientists speculate on this point but no solid theories have come about. Theists usually claim "Ah ha!" and gleefully shove their god into this gap, which is, if nothing else, a simplistic way to explain it. Nonetheless, the Big Bang itself, the expansion of this singularity into our known universe, does not claim the universe came from nothing.
Abiogenesis does not claim that inorganic matter poofed into existence, the complex and modern cells we see today. Ironically, the Bible does. God made man from clay, breathed into it and poof! Adam! Then he made woman out of a rib. However abiogenesis does claim that life came from organic matter and formed very simple replicating systems that weren't alive but could be come increasingly complex and over a peroid of millions of years became life.
Evolution is the theory which explains how simple life became more and more and more adapted to its environment and ultimately brought about the life we see to day, which is still evolving.
"How did morality evolve?"
Simple. Many organisms, including humans, are social and depend on others for their own survival. Thus a code of ethics (thou shalt not kill) develop, which will ensure mutual protection for every member of that species. After all, if there was no morality, how would we survive? We most certainly would not have the civilization we have today.
"Do I believe that a god or afterlife is possible?"
Of course it is possible. But it is also unknown. It is also unknown if there are aliens on other planets or other universes. These are all unknown and I assume it'll either make sense when I'm dead, or I'll just be dead.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
