I have isolated six major issues with religion (there may be more but upon writing this, I had six in mind). These six issues hurt any religion in which they exists. They are listed below:
Sanctimoniousness. Fundamentalists for some reason believe that they are divinely inspired and that everyone should follow them or they won't be saved and accepted by the grace of God. Their views are the only possible correct views. As such, they push their views on everyone else and try to force everyone to conform to these view points.
Look at gay rights. The religious right is so concerned over how two consenting adults act in the privacy of their own rooms. They believe that since the Bible declares homosexuality to be an abomination (Leviticus), they have the right to tell the gays how to live. Somehow, they have authority over other people.
This does not work in a free society because of the diversity of religions. People may believe in different ethical codes and as such, any authority must base their codes from values that transcend religion (Obama made a speech about this.) Authority from god is not an acceptable source of authority in a free society unless that authority can be applied to everyone, including non-believers. Which god is the right god?
The religious right do not have any authority on how to tell me how to live or behave.
Fanaticism. Most religions have fanatics within who take religions ecstasy to an extreme. Look at Islam. How many people have been killed by fanatics who strap themselves to bombs for a hypothetical heaven? It is revolting. But fanaticism isn't only violence. It is also fundamentalism and the refusal to compromise any belief for any rationality. Fred Phelps is a religious fanatic. He doesn't kill anyone, but he refuses to accept that what he does is immoral because he believes so strongly in it. Fanaticism leads to irrational, and often violent behavior, that does nothing but turn rational people away from religions.
Blind Faith. The most amazing sin of religion is blind faith. We are expected to believe, on the words of an old man at a pulpit or the words of a 5000 year old book, that there is some god out there meddling in human affairs. But we are given no basis of proof. No rational reason as to why we should accept these things as fact. But we are told to believe anyways. We are told to question our faith, but at the same time, we are told to believe in god and how to believe in god. And no rationality is given other than emotional experience and unexplained phenomenon. There is nothing that concretely states that there is a god, that Mohamed was inspired by Gabriel, that Jesus was divine, etc, etc. We are simply suppose to believe it.
This leads to a lack of critical thinking. If people are brought up to believe in a god because some authority told them to, how can we teach them to question the actions of authority figures?
Superstition. The world is still only six thousand years old in the minds of millions of people. A mountain of evidence, hundreds of thousands of scientific journals all support Darwin's theory of evolution and yet Creationism still lives. In fact, it lives so much that some states in the US, especially in the Bible Belt, are trying to push Creationism into a science class.
Superstition is the belief in supernatural phenomenon. All religions have some superstition. But superstition is faulty. Typically, supernatural acts are only supernatural due to being unexplained by science or by merely being coincidence. Something unexplained by science isn't supernatural, it simply means science doesn't yet have a working theory on that. There wasn't always a theory of gravity, for example. It doesn't mean that five thousand years ago, gravity was a supernatural phenomenon, it just meant no one could explain it. And being coincidental doesn't mean anything either. Correlation is not causation. Imagine that I pray to a milk jug for twenty million dollars and then I go and win millions in the lottery. Did the milk jug have anything to do with my winning the lottery?
Superstition leads to blind faith and belief in irrational statements because one refuses to accept that superstition is silly and irrational. It rejects empirical evidence in favor of faith-based "evidence" which isn't evidence at all.
Stubbornness. Religion is stubborn. It took the Roman Catholic church almost 500 years to apologize to Galileo. When something occurs, such as the theory of evolution, religion resists the tides of change furiously, to the point of recklessness. Religions refuse to adapt. In the Middle East, Islamics are still trying to impose 12th century values and laws (Sharia) on nations, laws that have long since been regarded as human rights violations. But the fundamentalists refuse to see this, it may make them recognize that their religion is faulty and they might have to think rationally. But it is easier to stupidly hold on to some values and drag a society down with you rather than to progress. The Catholic church is doing a little better these days. They have accepted Evolution and came to a compromise between genesis and science. But most baptist churches are still pulling back. Its a wonder that South baptist churches have accepted the round earth theory. Islam, unfortunately, is even further back in time than fundamentalist Christianity. To point this out, just a few weeks ago in Afghanistan, a Muslim was on trial for translating the Koran from Arabic to Farsi. Fundamentalists cried out that he be beheaded for such a dreadful act. Christianity hasn't executed someone for translating the bible for 400 years.
Biblical Buffet. The religious right in the US enjoys quoting Leviticus where it states that a man who lies with another man, as if he is a woman, is an abomination, shall be put to death. When they do this, I wonder, do they eat shrimp? Same book, different chapter. Leviticus has a load of dietary laws. Don't eat shrimp, shellfish, pigs, some birds, etc, etc. So, do any religious nuts who argue profusely against gay rights, argue against the consumption of shrimp and shellfish? It is a biblical buffet. They point out which passages are relevant to their interests and ignore ones that are irrelevant. I wonder if religious righties also beat their wives and children when they disobey. This is also in the Bible.
If you accept the bible as an authority, you can't pick and chose passages at whim.
Modern religions would do much better and garner larger and more accepting audiences if they would work harder at avoiding these six issues. If religion cannot compromise and fix these issues, religion might be gone in a century or two.
"Rawr" - some bear in the forest.
J Kuhl Signing Off
Friday, February 20, 2009
Tuesday, February 17, 2009
Highly Skilled Air Traffic Controller
There is a storm coming towards an airport in Arkansas. All the black dots are airplanes. Watch as the controllers move the airplanes to the airport without getting them into the storm (the red area.)
A few go through the green, but I imagine that the green areas are just heavy rain and nothing too serious that an IFR flight can't handle.
"My wife told me that she wanted something sleek, shiny, and could go from zero to 150 in three seconds. So I bought her a scale. That's when the fight began."
J Kuhl Signing Off
Monday, February 09, 2009
Half Full Glass?
Joe Biden said a day or two ago, that the stimulus package has a 30% chance of failing. Which is interesting because in all of this economic hubbub, its been mostly republicans who've been saying the package won't work.
It kind of scares me that Biden said this, whether or not it was true, because it hints that even the democrats aren't optimistic. Biden could have said the package has a 70% chance of success. Its a true statement, given that Biden's assessment of failure was true, but it is more optimistic and kinda runs along the theme of Hope, which Obama and Biden ran on. I'm not saying they should lie to us, but this is the future of our nation right here. A little optimism won't hurt.
All in all, words like equity and mortgage and liquidate turn my brain into jelly, so I don't really understand the whole mess, I just hope to god the Congress is doing the right thing.
"I wouldn't describe any numerical percentage to any of this…given the magnitude of the challenges that we have, any single thing that we do is going to be part of the solution, not all of the solution," Obama
J Kuhl Signing Off
It kind of scares me that Biden said this, whether or not it was true, because it hints that even the democrats aren't optimistic. Biden could have said the package has a 70% chance of success. Its a true statement, given that Biden's assessment of failure was true, but it is more optimistic and kinda runs along the theme of Hope, which Obama and Biden ran on. I'm not saying they should lie to us, but this is the future of our nation right here. A little optimism won't hurt.
All in all, words like equity and mortgage and liquidate turn my brain into jelly, so I don't really understand the whole mess, I just hope to god the Congress is doing the right thing.
"I wouldn't describe any numerical percentage to any of this…given the magnitude of the challenges that we have, any single thing that we do is going to be part of the solution, not all of the solution," Obama
J Kuhl Signing Off
Wednesday, February 04, 2009
Too Good to be True
I didn't trust Obama during the campaign. I voted for him, but I didn't trust him. Everything he said was simply too good to be true.
Now its three weeks into his administration, and I'm beginning to trust him.
It scares me because I'm too cynical to trust a politician, but I want to trust him.
So I start feeling good about him and he goes off and pulls this stunt:
Obama Apologizes about Daschle
He owned up and apologized to a mistake! Bush NEVER did that! Not ONCE (alright, fine, he did say that he should not have put a Mission Accomplished sign on an aircraft carrier). And Clinton, Clinton had to be caught with his pants down before admitting to his big mistake, note that he lied to us before hand (I did not have a sexual relationship with that woman!).
I mean, Obama's a politician! You can't trust him! But he keeps doing things that garner trust. He's closing down Gitmo, he's putting up bills up on the internet for 5 days for the public to view before he signs/vetos them. He's ensuring that when a terror suspect undergoes rendition, they do NOT go to a country that uses torture. He's spoken out against torture. He's making government transparent, moral, and accountable and he's actually admitting to his own mistakes!
Its like some sort of wonder dream. It's too good to be true! I'm still waiting for the suck that Republicans say he's full of.
"We are not about to send American boys 9 or 10 thousand miles away from home to do what Asian boys ought to be doing for themselves." -LBJ, another untrustworthy president.
J Kuhl Signing Off
Now its three weeks into his administration, and I'm beginning to trust him.
It scares me because I'm too cynical to trust a politician, but I want to trust him.
So I start feeling good about him and he goes off and pulls this stunt:
Obama Apologizes about Daschle
He owned up and apologized to a mistake! Bush NEVER did that! Not ONCE (alright, fine, he did say that he should not have put a Mission Accomplished sign on an aircraft carrier). And Clinton, Clinton had to be caught with his pants down before admitting to his big mistake, note that he lied to us before hand (I did not have a sexual relationship with that woman!).
I mean, Obama's a politician! You can't trust him! But he keeps doing things that garner trust. He's closing down Gitmo, he's putting up bills up on the internet for 5 days for the public to view before he signs/vetos them. He's ensuring that when a terror suspect undergoes rendition, they do NOT go to a country that uses torture. He's spoken out against torture. He's making government transparent, moral, and accountable and he's actually admitting to his own mistakes!
Its like some sort of wonder dream. It's too good to be true! I'm still waiting for the suck that Republicans say he's full of.
"We are not about to send American boys 9 or 10 thousand miles away from home to do what Asian boys ought to be doing for themselves." -LBJ, another untrustworthy president.
J Kuhl Signing Off
Monday, February 02, 2009
Patriotic Drunk Rednecks and Shopping Carts
I can't tell if this is funny or sad.
In other news, some random idiots left a shopping cart in the middle of the parking lot and Stop and Shop. Come on folks, the corral is ten feet away. It takes a total of ten seconds, maybe, to walk the cart to the corral.
US Legislature should increase the income tax on people who are caught leaving carts out. That'll teach 'em.
"Why would we vote for someone with a name like Ba-rack Hoosane Obama when we are at war with the ay-rabs?"
J Kuhl Signing Off
The Perfect MMO
Blizzard Entertainment, a favorite company for many gamers, achieved fame with three games, or rather, three universes. Starcraft, Warcraft, and Diablo. Starcraft and Warcraft were two best selling RTSs, which are still being sold, a decade or so after their release. And Diablo was a bestselling RPG, along with its sequel, Diablo 2.
Then Blizzard took Warcraft, and made it into the most successful MMO of all time. The geekfest World of Warcraft, which I admit, I've played. I had a level 70 rogue and 70 paladin (Horde, Ghostlands.) A few months ago, I quit the game.
Now I'm in Warhammer. This time around, it isn't on my PC, so I can't play it all the time, sort of a way to force myself into time management. But Warhammer took a lot of things from WoW, and improved upon it. Unfortunately, they also made somethings worse. Overall, my opinion is that Mythic made a game superior to WoW.
The following are what I believe would make the perfect MMO:
1. Give us slots for all our buttons and a method for which we can very easily and quickly access abilities without spending time, on the battlefield, scrolling through different action bars. In WoW, some classes, such as the Hunter, had more abilities than the interface could handle. Warhammer wins this one, as with a four action bar interface, every ability, and health pots, and everything else, fits on the screen with room to spare.
2. A global cool down (GCD) interface on the action bar. The GCD is a one second (or so) delay on all abilities, so that players cannot spam an ability or make a macro using that ability 500 times in one second (I'll cover macros in a moment.) Both War and WoW tie on this.
3. A button to main assist. Assist means that I target what my target is targetting. So if I click on a player named Bob, and Bob has a player named Job, I'll have Bob selected. Then I hit assist, and I have Job selected. WoW wins by default, because Warhammer requires the player to make this into a macro.
4. Macros. Give us an interface to make macros. A macro is a predefined group of actions. Tie.
5. The mailbox should automatically pick names from our friends list when we want to send something to them. The mailbox should also enable us to send multiple items at once. WoW wins
7. Every class should be able to quest efficiently and solo. Not all quests should be soloable (after all, this is a multiplayer game), but most should be. Tanking classes should have a means of doing damage while questing so killing a mob (an enemy creature is known as a mob, this comes from the days of MUD gaming) doesn't take an hour. And classes that are squishy, such as the Warhammer Sorceress (mine is Rank 31) need to be able to survive. A tie for both games.
8. Respawns. Being an MMO, you can't avoid respawns. But the spawn timer needs to be balanced. If it is too fast, then you can't complete quests because mobs are spawning faster than you can kill. If it is too slow, than you can't complete quests if someone else shows up. Personally, the respawn rate should be about twice as long as it takes for the weakest class to kill that mob (assuming that that class is at the same level of that mob), which is around 30 seconds. WoW wins. Most of the time, the mobs in WoW respawned at a decent rate. Warhammer, the respawn rate is a bit too fast and is the primary reason why I hate caves.
9. Caves and other interiors. Caves are difficult areas in MMOs. Caves are narrow, with little room to maneuver. If you see a mob patrolling (a 'pat') near you, and you're already fighting another, there is often no where to go. Caves need to be designed with a relatively low respawn rate, so that you don't get stuck unable to get out because you can't kill things. Pats add a level of challenge, but should not be over done. WoW wins because Warhammer's respawn rate makes caves a PITA.
10. There should be more than enough quests to hit max level. I never played the game, but I heard stories that in Age of Conan, once you hit 20, there was nothing to do, no more quests. And 20 was not the level cap. War and WoW had plenty of quests. Tie.
11. Escorts. Escort quests are terrible. The escort never pays heed of what he is walking into, usually walking into a group of mobs that could have easily been avoided. Rather, if you are going to install escort quests, make the escort follow the player, not the other way around. Warhammer wins for not even putting in these terrible quests.
12. Travel quests. Sometimes these are great. A decent amount of xp for going to another land. But don't over do it. Don't send me back to the original point, and then send me a hundred miles somewhere else, and then send me a hundred miles somewhere else. Come on. Warhammer wins, there are very few annoying travel quests.
13. Quest rewards should benefit the player and the class he plays. Being a rogue in WoW, it was truly annoying to do a quest, only to get a magical staff as a reward. My character is a rogue. She uses swords, daggers, and maces. No staffs. Warhammer wins.
Zones
14. Walking. It gets boring. I did not buy a game to walk all day. We need a means of transportation, to get from place to place without falling asleep. Each town, or quest hub should have a flight path or a teleport device or something that allows you to travel to other quest hubs. WoW had this, but Warhammer only has flight paths in every other zone and only at Warcamps, until Tier 4, which meant that getting to Altdorf/Inevitable City was a long walk from some places (such as Ellyrion.) However, this is a tie because WoW had the terrible ten minute walk from Orgrimmar to Thunderbluff and Darnassus to Ironforge. If you are making your players walk for more than 5 minutes at a time, something is wrong.
15. High traffic roads should not be covered in mobs. Tie
16. Don't make zones so big that it takes a long time to go from quest hub to the area where the quest actually is. I'm speaking of course, of the Barrens in WoW, so Warhammer wins.
17. Instances should have their loot tables modified to fit the party entering. If a group of five (warrior, warlock, paladin, mage, and rogue) enter an instance, items for, say, druids, should not drop off bosses. Tie, neither Warhammer, nor Warcraft do this.
18. Instance 'trash' (mobs that aren't bosses) are fine, but don't over do it. Don't make the instance one long and boring trash fight. Put some in but not too much. Serpentshrine Cavern was an hour of just killing the same damn things over and over again before you got to Lurker. Boring. I haven't done many instances in War, so no comment.
19. Instances should not take 4 hours to finish. One hour, maybe two. Or allow the instance to be 'saved' and the group can go in and finish it. Warcraft did this with raids. Karazhan for example, reset once a week, so you could spend an hour one night, finish it in a week and be done, and STILL HAVE LIVES outside of the game.
Characters
20. Characters should look unique to their class. I really like the way Warhammer did this. No two classes look alike. In warcraft, any cloth-using class, could look the same. Cloth robes shared the same stats, so you could see a priest, a mage, and a warlock in the same gear. Warhammer wins
21. Classes should be able to defend themselves, even against their anti class. An anti-class is a class that is made to destroy another class (ex, rogues killed mages, mages killed warriors, warriors killed rogues, something like that.) As a Sorceress, my anti-class is the Witch Hunter or the Knight of the Blazing Sun. These guys can literally kill me in two hits. I don't mind that Witch Hunters can kill my squishy class, and I don't mind that I have a distinct disadvantage. But come on, a class should at least have a chance, if not a good one. And survival abilities should not be made null and void by having the other class immune to them. WoW wins. Although rock had a disadvantage against paper, rock at least had a chance to fight and escape paper.
22. Make classes unique across factions and races. WoW had vague classes like 'rogue' or 'warlock.' Warhammer had more specific classes, like 'witch elf' or 'bright wizard.' Even Warhammer lore made vague sounding classes (Sorceress) specific (Sorceresses are a specific group of Dark Elves who use dark magic and who serve Malekith, or something like that.) It makes the game more interesting and it makes the divide between factions more obvious. And you really don't have to make a unique class each time. The Magus (Chaos) has similar abilities to the Engineer (Dwarf) and the Witch Hunter (Empire) has the same mechanics as the Witch Elf (Dark Elf.) Warhammer wins
23. Stats. Don't make a class stack ten or twenty stats. I remember WoW hunters needed to stack ranged attack power, agility, stamina, resilience, intellect, mana regen and so on and so forth. Do away with all of this and compress stats, so there are only 7 or 8 total stats, and each class only needs to stack two or three. Warhammer wins.
24. Give us an interface to find groups for group quests and instances. Tie
25. Death. Death needs a penalty, but not a severe one. Reducing xp, possibly even deleveling, is terrible. It removes the challenge of the game because now no one dares to try to fight mobs they know will be difficult. Resurrection sickness was terrible because it meant you are now disabled (all stats reduced by 75%, that does a lot) for 15 minutes. I like Warhammer's method. You rez at the nearest quest hub, with Rez sickness, but a healer can remove rez sickness. The punishment comes in having to hoof back to the quest, deal with the respawns to get back to what you wanted to do. Nothing so severe that I'm afraid to try a challenge, but enough of a PITA that I don't want to get killed. Warhammer wins.
26. Public Quests!!! Give everyone in the zone an area where they can all work together and get loot. Warhammer wins
27. PvP/RvR. Taking keeps and controlling RvR zones for the glory of *insert faction here* makes the game far more interesting. Being ganked by high levels and camped, does not. Warhammer removed ganking, everyone in an RvR zone that is beneath their level (a level 12 in Teir 1 (ranks 1-11)) gets turned into a chicken until they leave the RvR zone. Warhammer wins. They made PvP/RvR far more fun than it was in WoW.
28. Getting stuck. Walking through a Dark Elf quest hub could get annoying frequently. They have these tents that have spikes and my character often gets stuck on them. In 3D Gamestudio, there is a command called c_move, which moves an entity, and one of the parameters of c_move is GLIDE. This means if you hit something, you'll glide along its surface while trying to still move, according to friction. In Warhammer, its easy to get stuck. In WoW, there were mechanincs like GLIDE. WoW wins.
29. Make the zones visually stunning to look at. Some of the zones in Warhammer are beautiful or inticing to look upon. Chaos Wastes, I thought, were dark and creepy, like they should be. Altdorf was a beautiful work of art, very much like a German city, but with its own style built in (crooked chimneys, asymmetrical half timbering, winding streets.) WoW isn't ugly, but Warhammer wins for style.
30. The story. WoW started out with a good story, but then everyone went insane. Arthas went insane. Illidan went insane. Maiev went insane. Malygos went insane. Kael'thas went insane. Kael'thas was a good guy, he sided with the Naga and Illidan to save his people. So why are we killing him in the Eye? He went insane. Warhammer has a rich story line. Everything has a story. Every rally master in every town has a story. You get a Tome of Knowledge with the entire story in it as you play the game. The story literally opens up before you as you play. Warhammer wins.
31. Arena. Warhammer wins for not putting such a dumb idea in an MMO.
"WAAAAGH" - some goblin shaman.
J Kuhl Signing Off
Then Blizzard took Warcraft, and made it into the most successful MMO of all time. The geekfest World of Warcraft, which I admit, I've played. I had a level 70 rogue and 70 paladin (Horde, Ghostlands.) A few months ago, I quit the game.
Now I'm in Warhammer. This time around, it isn't on my PC, so I can't play it all the time, sort of a way to force myself into time management. But Warhammer took a lot of things from WoW, and improved upon it. Unfortunately, they also made somethings worse. Overall, my opinion is that Mythic made a game superior to WoW.
The following are what I believe would make the perfect MMO:
1. Give us slots for all our buttons and a method for which we can very easily and quickly access abilities without spending time, on the battlefield, scrolling through different action bars. In WoW, some classes, such as the Hunter, had more abilities than the interface could handle. Warhammer wins this one, as with a four action bar interface, every ability, and health pots, and everything else, fits on the screen with room to spare.
2. A global cool down (GCD) interface on the action bar. The GCD is a one second (or so) delay on all abilities, so that players cannot spam an ability or make a macro using that ability 500 times in one second (I'll cover macros in a moment.) Both War and WoW tie on this.
3. A button to main assist. Assist means that I target what my target is targetting. So if I click on a player named Bob, and Bob has a player named Job, I'll have Bob selected. Then I hit assist, and I have Job selected. WoW wins by default, because Warhammer requires the player to make this into a macro.
4. Macros. Give us an interface to make macros. A macro is a predefined group of actions. Tie.
5. The mailbox should automatically pick names from our friends list when we want to send something to them. The mailbox should also enable us to send multiple items at once. WoW wins
7. Every class should be able to quest efficiently and solo. Not all quests should be soloable (after all, this is a multiplayer game), but most should be. Tanking classes should have a means of doing damage while questing so killing a mob (an enemy creature is known as a mob, this comes from the days of MUD gaming) doesn't take an hour. And classes that are squishy, such as the Warhammer Sorceress (mine is Rank 31) need to be able to survive. A tie for both games.
8. Respawns. Being an MMO, you can't avoid respawns. But the spawn timer needs to be balanced. If it is too fast, then you can't complete quests because mobs are spawning faster than you can kill. If it is too slow, than you can't complete quests if someone else shows up. Personally, the respawn rate should be about twice as long as it takes for the weakest class to kill that mob (assuming that that class is at the same level of that mob), which is around 30 seconds. WoW wins. Most of the time, the mobs in WoW respawned at a decent rate. Warhammer, the respawn rate is a bit too fast and is the primary reason why I hate caves.
9. Caves and other interiors. Caves are difficult areas in MMOs. Caves are narrow, with little room to maneuver. If you see a mob patrolling (a 'pat') near you, and you're already fighting another, there is often no where to go. Caves need to be designed with a relatively low respawn rate, so that you don't get stuck unable to get out because you can't kill things. Pats add a level of challenge, but should not be over done. WoW wins because Warhammer's respawn rate makes caves a PITA.
10. There should be more than enough quests to hit max level. I never played the game, but I heard stories that in Age of Conan, once you hit 20, there was nothing to do, no more quests. And 20 was not the level cap. War and WoW had plenty of quests. Tie.
11. Escorts. Escort quests are terrible. The escort never pays heed of what he is walking into, usually walking into a group of mobs that could have easily been avoided. Rather, if you are going to install escort quests, make the escort follow the player, not the other way around. Warhammer wins for not even putting in these terrible quests.
12. Travel quests. Sometimes these are great. A decent amount of xp for going to another land. But don't over do it. Don't send me back to the original point, and then send me a hundred miles somewhere else, and then send me a hundred miles somewhere else. Come on. Warhammer wins, there are very few annoying travel quests.
13. Quest rewards should benefit the player and the class he plays. Being a rogue in WoW, it was truly annoying to do a quest, only to get a magical staff as a reward. My character is a rogue. She uses swords, daggers, and maces. No staffs. Warhammer wins.
Zones
14. Walking. It gets boring. I did not buy a game to walk all day. We need a means of transportation, to get from place to place without falling asleep. Each town, or quest hub should have a flight path or a teleport device or something that allows you to travel to other quest hubs. WoW had this, but Warhammer only has flight paths in every other zone and only at Warcamps, until Tier 4, which meant that getting to Altdorf/Inevitable City was a long walk from some places (such as Ellyrion.) However, this is a tie because WoW had the terrible ten minute walk from Orgrimmar to Thunderbluff and Darnassus to Ironforge. If you are making your players walk for more than 5 minutes at a time, something is wrong.
15. High traffic roads should not be covered in mobs. Tie
16. Don't make zones so big that it takes a long time to go from quest hub to the area where the quest actually is. I'm speaking of course, of the Barrens in WoW, so Warhammer wins.
17. Instances should have their loot tables modified to fit the party entering. If a group of five (warrior, warlock, paladin, mage, and rogue) enter an instance, items for, say, druids, should not drop off bosses. Tie, neither Warhammer, nor Warcraft do this.
18. Instance 'trash' (mobs that aren't bosses) are fine, but don't over do it. Don't make the instance one long and boring trash fight. Put some in but not too much. Serpentshrine Cavern was an hour of just killing the same damn things over and over again before you got to Lurker. Boring. I haven't done many instances in War, so no comment.
19. Instances should not take 4 hours to finish. One hour, maybe two. Or allow the instance to be 'saved' and the group can go in and finish it. Warcraft did this with raids. Karazhan for example, reset once a week, so you could spend an hour one night, finish it in a week and be done, and STILL HAVE LIVES outside of the game.
Characters
20. Characters should look unique to their class. I really like the way Warhammer did this. No two classes look alike. In warcraft, any cloth-using class, could look the same. Cloth robes shared the same stats, so you could see a priest, a mage, and a warlock in the same gear. Warhammer wins
21. Classes should be able to defend themselves, even against their anti class. An anti-class is a class that is made to destroy another class (ex, rogues killed mages, mages killed warriors, warriors killed rogues, something like that.) As a Sorceress, my anti-class is the Witch Hunter or the Knight of the Blazing Sun. These guys can literally kill me in two hits. I don't mind that Witch Hunters can kill my squishy class, and I don't mind that I have a distinct disadvantage. But come on, a class should at least have a chance, if not a good one. And survival abilities should not be made null and void by having the other class immune to them. WoW wins. Although rock had a disadvantage against paper, rock at least had a chance to fight and escape paper.
22. Make classes unique across factions and races. WoW had vague classes like 'rogue' or 'warlock.' Warhammer had more specific classes, like 'witch elf' or 'bright wizard.' Even Warhammer lore made vague sounding classes (Sorceress) specific (Sorceresses are a specific group of Dark Elves who use dark magic and who serve Malekith, or something like that.) It makes the game more interesting and it makes the divide between factions more obvious. And you really don't have to make a unique class each time. The Magus (Chaos) has similar abilities to the Engineer (Dwarf) and the Witch Hunter (Empire) has the same mechanics as the Witch Elf (Dark Elf.) Warhammer wins
23. Stats. Don't make a class stack ten or twenty stats. I remember WoW hunters needed to stack ranged attack power, agility, stamina, resilience, intellect, mana regen and so on and so forth. Do away with all of this and compress stats, so there are only 7 or 8 total stats, and each class only needs to stack two or three. Warhammer wins.
24. Give us an interface to find groups for group quests and instances. Tie
25. Death. Death needs a penalty, but not a severe one. Reducing xp, possibly even deleveling, is terrible. It removes the challenge of the game because now no one dares to try to fight mobs they know will be difficult. Resurrection sickness was terrible because it meant you are now disabled (all stats reduced by 75%, that does a lot) for 15 minutes. I like Warhammer's method. You rez at the nearest quest hub, with Rez sickness, but a healer can remove rez sickness. The punishment comes in having to hoof back to the quest, deal with the respawns to get back to what you wanted to do. Nothing so severe that I'm afraid to try a challenge, but enough of a PITA that I don't want to get killed. Warhammer wins.
26. Public Quests!!! Give everyone in the zone an area where they can all work together and get loot. Warhammer wins
27. PvP/RvR. Taking keeps and controlling RvR zones for the glory of *insert faction here* makes the game far more interesting. Being ganked by high levels and camped, does not. Warhammer removed ganking, everyone in an RvR zone that is beneath their level (a level 12 in Teir 1 (ranks 1-11)) gets turned into a chicken until they leave the RvR zone. Warhammer wins. They made PvP/RvR far more fun than it was in WoW.
28. Getting stuck. Walking through a Dark Elf quest hub could get annoying frequently. They have these tents that have spikes and my character often gets stuck on them. In 3D Gamestudio, there is a command called c_move, which moves an entity, and one of the parameters of c_move is GLIDE. This means if you hit something, you'll glide along its surface while trying to still move, according to friction. In Warhammer, its easy to get stuck. In WoW, there were mechanincs like GLIDE. WoW wins.
29. Make the zones visually stunning to look at. Some of the zones in Warhammer are beautiful or inticing to look upon. Chaos Wastes, I thought, were dark and creepy, like they should be. Altdorf was a beautiful work of art, very much like a German city, but with its own style built in (crooked chimneys, asymmetrical half timbering, winding streets.) WoW isn't ugly, but Warhammer wins for style.
30. The story. WoW started out with a good story, but then everyone went insane. Arthas went insane. Illidan went insane. Maiev went insane. Malygos went insane. Kael'thas went insane. Kael'thas was a good guy, he sided with the Naga and Illidan to save his people. So why are we killing him in the Eye? He went insane. Warhammer has a rich story line. Everything has a story. Every rally master in every town has a story. You get a Tome of Knowledge with the entire story in it as you play the game. The story literally opens up before you as you play. Warhammer wins.
31. Arena. Warhammer wins for not putting such a dumb idea in an MMO.
"WAAAAGH" - some goblin shaman.
J Kuhl Signing Off
Friday, January 30, 2009
Obama Scolds Banks
Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy
Obama treats the banks like the irresponsible children that they are. CEOs: You can do without a bonus for a little while. The American people aren't giving you money so you can buy a fancy car and stuff like that. They are giving you money to try to help the economy.
"There will be a time for them to make profits and there will be a time for them to get bonuses, now's not that time," -Obama
J Kuhl Signing Off
Wednesday, January 21, 2009
Friends of God -- Evolution
Are you kidding me?
Are you seriously kidding me?
Do people actually believe that the Earth, despite overwhelming evidence, is only 6000 years old?
If they take this for fact, they are willfully ignoring thousands of dinosaur bones. Thousands of artifacts man made in caves over 6000 years ago. They are ignoring the fact that we would not be able to see galaxies that exist over 6000 light-years away (which is every single galaxy besides our own.) They are denying the red shift. They are denying most of science by saying that.
Willful ignorance should be illegal. This is stupid.
And why are they citing the Bible but no other source? Have they proved that the Bible is true? Of course they think they have, but have they run the bible through any sort of scientific scrutiny?
The Bible is NOT a scientific book.
This scares me. The fact that these assholes can brainwash children into believing that dinosaurs are either fake, or lived with Noah, scares me. We can't have this being taught in a science class! This will do NOTHING but hurt education.
This is utterly ridiculous.
J Kuhl, Signing Out
Tuesday, January 20, 2009
Dear President Obama
Hope.
As a word, I am getting tired of hearing it. It is said by every pundit, in every speech, muttered by every politician, civilian, soldier, and it was on the minds of everyone, not just today, but since you started running on a platform of "hope and change."
As tiresome as the word is becoming, as the clock hit 12 PM, I was full of hope. A new era arrived and a new President and a new administration. I feel as if America is being lead by people who care about being accountable. I feel that she is being lead by men and women who are competent, who care more for country than for wealth and power and I feel that we can turn the nation around.
Yes We Can.
It was the mantra of the acceptance speech, three simple words. But it shall become the slogan of the next four, maybe eight, years. A slogan of optimism and hope.
But Mr. Obama, I must warn you. My first impression of you is that you are an honest and sincere man. I have a deep mistrust of politicians, so my apologies, but my cynicism gets the best of me. I want to trust you, I really do, but I hesitate to do so until I see you in action.
Do not make the mistakes the Bush Administration made.
Do not lie to us. Be sincere and honest. If a mistake is made, don't cover it up; man up to it, and fix it. Prove to us that you are honest and sincere. Prove to us that you are more than a man who can make brilliant and stirring speeches.
Do not fear monger. It is unnecessary and it is wrong. Fear mongering is dishonest. We are under threat from terror, but to use fear to manipulate the people is a terrible thing to do and leads down the dark road of fascism. Explain to us what the threats are but rather than scaring us, assure us.
Do not strip civil liberties for security. Freedom is first. I'd rather die to a terrorist than live in a police state.
Listen to the people, respond to the people. Give us communication and don't ignore us. Be transparent.
Do not condone acts of torture in the name of security. Torture brings us down to the level of those who terrorize us and it is our duty to maintain the moral high ground. We cannot defeat them by becoming them.
I know you are not a superhuman. I know you are not God. I know you are not the messiah come to save America. You will make mistakes. I accept that. America accepts that. But show us that you are doing what is best for the country. Show us we can trust you. Show us that the government can learn from the mistakes of past administrations. We do not expect the economy be fixed by tomorrow, nor do we expect our troops home within a year. But you must show us, within a year at the least, that you and your administration are doing your best.
I must admit, I was a bit unsure at first. Until around September, I was on the fence, unsure whether to vote for McCain or for you. It was then I decided that I was tired of the GOP and their incessant fear mongering and war hawking. So I voted for you and your administration. And I must say, since the 4rth, I have not seen much to disagree with from you and your administration. Please show me that I, and millions like me did not make a mistake on November 4rth.
I wish you all the luck in the world and I hope for the best. I believe you can do this. I have faith in you. But let that faith be rewarded.
And if there is anything I could do to help, I would.
Yes We Can.
Sincerely
Jonathan Charles Kuhl
As a word, I am getting tired of hearing it. It is said by every pundit, in every speech, muttered by every politician, civilian, soldier, and it was on the minds of everyone, not just today, but since you started running on a platform of "hope and change."
As tiresome as the word is becoming, as the clock hit 12 PM, I was full of hope. A new era arrived and a new President and a new administration. I feel as if America is being lead by people who care about being accountable. I feel that she is being lead by men and women who are competent, who care more for country than for wealth and power and I feel that we can turn the nation around.
Yes We Can.
It was the mantra of the acceptance speech, three simple words. But it shall become the slogan of the next four, maybe eight, years. A slogan of optimism and hope.
But Mr. Obama, I must warn you. My first impression of you is that you are an honest and sincere man. I have a deep mistrust of politicians, so my apologies, but my cynicism gets the best of me. I want to trust you, I really do, but I hesitate to do so until I see you in action.
Do not make the mistakes the Bush Administration made.
Do not lie to us. Be sincere and honest. If a mistake is made, don't cover it up; man up to it, and fix it. Prove to us that you are honest and sincere. Prove to us that you are more than a man who can make brilliant and stirring speeches.
Do not fear monger. It is unnecessary and it is wrong. Fear mongering is dishonest. We are under threat from terror, but to use fear to manipulate the people is a terrible thing to do and leads down the dark road of fascism. Explain to us what the threats are but rather than scaring us, assure us.
Do not strip civil liberties for security. Freedom is first. I'd rather die to a terrorist than live in a police state.
Listen to the people, respond to the people. Give us communication and don't ignore us. Be transparent.
Do not condone acts of torture in the name of security. Torture brings us down to the level of those who terrorize us and it is our duty to maintain the moral high ground. We cannot defeat them by becoming them.
I know you are not a superhuman. I know you are not God. I know you are not the messiah come to save America. You will make mistakes. I accept that. America accepts that. But show us that you are doing what is best for the country. Show us we can trust you. Show us that the government can learn from the mistakes of past administrations. We do not expect the economy be fixed by tomorrow, nor do we expect our troops home within a year. But you must show us, within a year at the least, that you and your administration are doing your best.
I must admit, I was a bit unsure at first. Until around September, I was on the fence, unsure whether to vote for McCain or for you. It was then I decided that I was tired of the GOP and their incessant fear mongering and war hawking. So I voted for you and your administration. And I must say, since the 4rth, I have not seen much to disagree with from you and your administration. Please show me that I, and millions like me did not make a mistake on November 4rth.
I wish you all the luck in the world and I hope for the best. I believe you can do this. I have faith in you. But let that faith be rewarded.
And if there is anything I could do to help, I would.
Yes We Can.
Sincerely
Jonathan Charles Kuhl
Monday, January 19, 2009
Censoring Farenheit 451 is Silly and Ironic
I think it may be obvious now that I'm anti-censorship in every way. It is far too important to allow a free flow of ideas and information to be censoring books because they might be offensive, corruptive, contain bad ideas, promote witchcraft or whatever the reason.
In every case however, the problem with the book is not that the library allows the book on the shelf. The problem is the irresponsible parent who doesn't know how to teach a kid to be responsible. The responsibility of the library is to give access to any idea, any story. The library is NOT responsible for the welfare and education of those reading these ideas and stories, that responsibility lies in the hands of the parents.
A library must be allowed to provide access to every book that will fit on their shelf space in order that this democratic republic, the US of A, can succeed because our citizens are literate and acceptive of ideas, even ideas that are unorthodox or contrary to popular belief. Without the unfettered flow of ideas, this nation will stagnate and eventually become a dysfunctional nation full of zombies muttering mantras from approved books, a fascist state of newspeak and thoughtcrime.
It is funny that 1984 itself was challenged for being 'pro-communist' when the book painted socialism in a pretty ugly light. And it is downright hilarious that anyone wanted to censor Farenheit 451.
There are a myriad reasons why people censor books and none of them are valid. There are no valid reasons to censor anything. None. Not a one. This is the gift and the curse of the right to free speech. You have to take the good with the bad.
The popular rationals are as follows: the book violates my religious beliefs, the book promotes immoral behavior, the book contains nudity/profanity/obscenities, the book promotes dangerous political ideas, or the book might just be controversial.
The book violates my religious beliefs. If you watch the video of Barack Obama I posted a few days ago, you'll notice that he said something important about religion. "Democracy demands that the religiously motivated translate their concerns into universal, rather than specific, values," Obama said. He went on to explain that if I argue that abortion is wrong, I can't simply point to the teachings of my own church, that I have to explain why it violates a principle that is true for people of all faiths and to those that do not believe.
Harry Potter and the Wizard of Oz were challenged for witchcraft. And why is witchcraft wrong? Because somewhere in Deuteronomy, God said it was wrong. They don't have a universal principle to back themselves up with, they simply have their own religious belief and it may or may not be valid to other people of other religions. Thus banning a book because of a religion-specific reason infringes on the rights of people who do not follow that religion.
The religious right do not want to argue. They want to be right. And because they are obviously unsure of their own beliefs, they'd rather see dissenting voices censored than actually argue with them. They must be unsure of their beliefs, because if they had any real convictions, they would not be afraid to hear opposing voices!
Do this experiment: Find an article on Free Republic.com and post a response arguing one of their points. Then come back the next day and try to post something again. You will get this message each time you try after your first post: "Your posting privileges have been revoked." It happened to me. I was civil, but I dissented. They do not want to argue, they want to be right.
Take for example, Earth Sciences or On the Origin of Species, two books challenged and/or banned in schools because they teach evolution, which is contrary to the fundamentalist belief of Creationism. The Celluloid Closet: Homosexuality in the Movies was also challenged because it allegedly condones homosexuality and we all know that in Leviticus, God says that two men sleeping with each other is an abomination.
Here is the thing though, by censoring books on evolution, you won't kill the argument of evolution. By censoring homosexuality, you won't kill the argument of homosexuality. Instead, you make yourself look weaker. You make yourself appear to be afraid of your own convictions. Censoring won't help. If you truly believe in creationism, then tell us why evolution is wrong. If you truly believe that homosexuality is a sin, tell us why, using universal principles as Obama explained, why it is wrong.
And even if you can find a universal principle to declare why certain books are bad and should be banned, then tough. Even still, you don't have the right to censor the books.
" If your library is not 'unsafe', it probably isn't doing its job." - John Berry, Iii, Library Journal, October 1999
It is the library's job to present information whether it is offensive or not. It is your job as a parent to teach your children to discern what is offense and what is not.
The book promotes immoral behavior. Shel Silverstein was challenged for promoting mischief within his poems. James and the Giant Peach was challenged for promoting "drug use" and "disobedience."
Which goes too far. These books are written to be silly. Even when I was a kid, I was wise enough to understand that these books were silly. Shel Silverstein's poems are humorous.
A lot of books portray immoral behavior and were challenged for it. The Catcher in the Rye for example. But once again, it isn't the library's role to teach children behavior, it is the role of the parents. Banning a book because some parent doesn't know how to teach morals to a child, infringes on the rights of those who understand morality and wish to read the book for other reasons.
And honestly, James and the Giant Peach? How the hell is a story about a boy who travels around in a flying peach immoral? Some people read too far into things. A children's story being challenged for ideas that a child wouldn't even recognize. When I read that book I was about 10. I didn't see anything about "drug use" or "disobedience." I saw a story about a kid who was mistreated by his guardians and then ran away in an adventure. Shel Silverstein's poems didn't teach me to break dishes to avoid drying them, they were just for laughs. And when I read the Catcher in the Rye, I didn't want to emulate the main character for freak sake.
The book contains nudity/profanity/obscenities. Here is another issue. Farenheit 451 was censored for this reason. Students at one school received a copy of the book with all the swears blacked out. Ironic. Profanity is a part of life and a part of language. I'm not saying kids should run around schools dropping the f-bomb, but language happens and they need to be taught to be responsible with it. Profanity isn't an excuse to ban a book. If a book comes with profanity in it, there is usually a reason. And if not, than it is an opportunity to teach kids to be responsible with words.
Mark Twain's books, Tom Sawyer and Huckleberry Finn, are both challenged because they use the word "nigger." Gone with the Wind was also challenged for using the word "nigger." This is completely ridiculous because the challengers are not looking at the book's context. They took place in the 1800s where the word "nigger" was not considered offensive but was a part of everyday speech. It would be pretentious and wrong to not use that word in stories which take place in that age because it is how people were back then. There is no reason to expect a story that takes place in the 19th century to be politically correct to 21st century standards. The meanings of words change over time.
Context is often lost on people. Blazing Saddles, Mel Brook's movie satirizing racism was declared 'racist' by the same people who think that Stephen Colbert is a real Republican pundit. To Kill a Mockingbird was banned by three black parents because the book was racist! Duh! The book was ABOUT racism.
If a book has racism in it, such as To Kill a Mockingbird, or I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings, don't ban it! Use it to teach why intolerance is wrong! That was the point of those books.
I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings was challenged for explicit description of Angelou's rape. I didn't like it myself. But it should not be banned. Sometimes you need something disgusting to shock people into realizing why certain behaviors are bad. Sometimes it is used as a tool to show people just how wrong things were. Blanket banning books over obscene imagery does not allow people to see how bad somethings really are.
And again, it is up to the parents, not the library, to teach students about obscenities and it is the parent's responsibility to supervise the child. If you do not like what your child is reading, then remove the book from their hands yourself. Teach them about obscenity and try to remember the context of the book.
The book promotes dangerous political ideas. 1984 was challenged for promoting communism. Really now. Because I know after I read the book, I wanted to be come a commie and be oppressed by Big Brother!
Freedom to follow a particular political idea is a part of this nation. Fear that someone may be a communist is a return to McCarthyism and a step closer to fascism. They have the right to be communists. They have the right to advocate a communist agenda. It is better that we can read about communism and why it is good and why it is bad, than to just censor it outright.
The book might just be controversial. And this is just cowardly. The book challenged was Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee. The man who removed it said "if there's a possibility that something might be controversial, then why not eliminate it?"
The answer, is because that is a foolhardy coward's way out. The purpose of a library is to present information so we can make informed decisions as a democracy. Even if "that something" is controversial. It will remain controversial if censored. Rather, allow people to read it and see for themselves.
In a nation plagued by frivolous lawsuits, more and more idiotic rules are being set up for people to defend themselves. It really is atrocious that when the slightest thing goes wrong or when someone becomes "offended," someone else is sued. It is ridiculous. Appeasing these morons with censorship is not the answer.
The Constitution of the United States of America does not protect you from being offended. Get tougher skin. And rather than banning books from libraries, teach your children.
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.
Banning books, censoring media and oppressing dissent in a public forum is unconstitutional and wrong and can lead to only fascism, newspeak and thoughtcrime.
1984 needs to be a required book in all high schools.
Source: The Forbidden Library
"Without free speech no search for truth is possible... no discovery of truth is useful... Better a thousandfold abuse of free speech than denial of free speech. The abuse dies in a day, but the denial slays the life of the people, and entombs the hope of the race." - Charles Bradlaugh
J Kuhl Signing Off
In every case however, the problem with the book is not that the library allows the book on the shelf. The problem is the irresponsible parent who doesn't know how to teach a kid to be responsible. The responsibility of the library is to give access to any idea, any story. The library is NOT responsible for the welfare and education of those reading these ideas and stories, that responsibility lies in the hands of the parents.
A library must be allowed to provide access to every book that will fit on their shelf space in order that this democratic republic, the US of A, can succeed because our citizens are literate and acceptive of ideas, even ideas that are unorthodox or contrary to popular belief. Without the unfettered flow of ideas, this nation will stagnate and eventually become a dysfunctional nation full of zombies muttering mantras from approved books, a fascist state of newspeak and thoughtcrime.
It is funny that 1984 itself was challenged for being 'pro-communist' when the book painted socialism in a pretty ugly light. And it is downright hilarious that anyone wanted to censor Farenheit 451.
There are a myriad reasons why people censor books and none of them are valid. There are no valid reasons to censor anything. None. Not a one. This is the gift and the curse of the right to free speech. You have to take the good with the bad.
The popular rationals are as follows: the book violates my religious beliefs, the book promotes immoral behavior, the book contains nudity/profanity/obscenities, the book promotes dangerous political ideas, or the book might just be controversial.
The book violates my religious beliefs. If you watch the video of Barack Obama I posted a few days ago, you'll notice that he said something important about religion. "Democracy demands that the religiously motivated translate their concerns into universal, rather than specific, values," Obama said. He went on to explain that if I argue that abortion is wrong, I can't simply point to the teachings of my own church, that I have to explain why it violates a principle that is true for people of all faiths and to those that do not believe.
Harry Potter and the Wizard of Oz were challenged for witchcraft. And why is witchcraft wrong? Because somewhere in Deuteronomy, God said it was wrong. They don't have a universal principle to back themselves up with, they simply have their own religious belief and it may or may not be valid to other people of other religions. Thus banning a book because of a religion-specific reason infringes on the rights of people who do not follow that religion.
The religious right do not want to argue. They want to be right. And because they are obviously unsure of their own beliefs, they'd rather see dissenting voices censored than actually argue with them. They must be unsure of their beliefs, because if they had any real convictions, they would not be afraid to hear opposing voices!
Do this experiment: Find an article on Free Republic.com and post a response arguing one of their points. Then come back the next day and try to post something again. You will get this message each time you try after your first post: "Your posting privileges have been revoked." It happened to me. I was civil, but I dissented. They do not want to argue, they want to be right.
Take for example, Earth Sciences or On the Origin of Species, two books challenged and/or banned in schools because they teach evolution, which is contrary to the fundamentalist belief of Creationism. The Celluloid Closet: Homosexuality in the Movies was also challenged because it allegedly condones homosexuality and we all know that in Leviticus, God says that two men sleeping with each other is an abomination.
Here is the thing though, by censoring books on evolution, you won't kill the argument of evolution. By censoring homosexuality, you won't kill the argument of homosexuality. Instead, you make yourself look weaker. You make yourself appear to be afraid of your own convictions. Censoring won't help. If you truly believe in creationism, then tell us why evolution is wrong. If you truly believe that homosexuality is a sin, tell us why, using universal principles as Obama explained, why it is wrong.
And even if you can find a universal principle to declare why certain books are bad and should be banned, then tough. Even still, you don't have the right to censor the books.
" If your library is not 'unsafe', it probably isn't doing its job." - John Berry, Iii, Library Journal, October 1999
It is the library's job to present information whether it is offensive or not. It is your job as a parent to teach your children to discern what is offense and what is not.
The book promotes immoral behavior. Shel Silverstein was challenged for promoting mischief within his poems. James and the Giant Peach was challenged for promoting "drug use" and "disobedience."
Which goes too far. These books are written to be silly. Even when I was a kid, I was wise enough to understand that these books were silly. Shel Silverstein's poems are humorous.
A lot of books portray immoral behavior and were challenged for it. The Catcher in the Rye for example. But once again, it isn't the library's role to teach children behavior, it is the role of the parents. Banning a book because some parent doesn't know how to teach morals to a child, infringes on the rights of those who understand morality and wish to read the book for other reasons.
And honestly, James and the Giant Peach? How the hell is a story about a boy who travels around in a flying peach immoral? Some people read too far into things. A children's story being challenged for ideas that a child wouldn't even recognize. When I read that book I was about 10. I didn't see anything about "drug use" or "disobedience." I saw a story about a kid who was mistreated by his guardians and then ran away in an adventure. Shel Silverstein's poems didn't teach me to break dishes to avoid drying them, they were just for laughs. And when I read the Catcher in the Rye, I didn't want to emulate the main character for freak sake.
The book contains nudity/profanity/obscenities. Here is another issue. Farenheit 451 was censored for this reason. Students at one school received a copy of the book with all the swears blacked out. Ironic. Profanity is a part of life and a part of language. I'm not saying kids should run around schools dropping the f-bomb, but language happens and they need to be taught to be responsible with it. Profanity isn't an excuse to ban a book. If a book comes with profanity in it, there is usually a reason. And if not, than it is an opportunity to teach kids to be responsible with words.
Mark Twain's books, Tom Sawyer and Huckleberry Finn, are both challenged because they use the word "nigger." Gone with the Wind was also challenged for using the word "nigger." This is completely ridiculous because the challengers are not looking at the book's context. They took place in the 1800s where the word "nigger" was not considered offensive but was a part of everyday speech. It would be pretentious and wrong to not use that word in stories which take place in that age because it is how people were back then. There is no reason to expect a story that takes place in the 19th century to be politically correct to 21st century standards. The meanings of words change over time.
Context is often lost on people. Blazing Saddles, Mel Brook's movie satirizing racism was declared 'racist' by the same people who think that Stephen Colbert is a real Republican pundit. To Kill a Mockingbird was banned by three black parents because the book was racist! Duh! The book was ABOUT racism.
If a book has racism in it, such as To Kill a Mockingbird, or I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings, don't ban it! Use it to teach why intolerance is wrong! That was the point of those books.
I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings was challenged for explicit description of Angelou's rape. I didn't like it myself. But it should not be banned. Sometimes you need something disgusting to shock people into realizing why certain behaviors are bad. Sometimes it is used as a tool to show people just how wrong things were. Blanket banning books over obscene imagery does not allow people to see how bad somethings really are.
And again, it is up to the parents, not the library, to teach students about obscenities and it is the parent's responsibility to supervise the child. If you do not like what your child is reading, then remove the book from their hands yourself. Teach them about obscenity and try to remember the context of the book.
The book promotes dangerous political ideas. 1984 was challenged for promoting communism. Really now. Because I know after I read the book, I wanted to be come a commie and be oppressed by Big Brother!
Freedom to follow a particular political idea is a part of this nation. Fear that someone may be a communist is a return to McCarthyism and a step closer to fascism. They have the right to be communists. They have the right to advocate a communist agenda. It is better that we can read about communism and why it is good and why it is bad, than to just censor it outright.
The book might just be controversial. And this is just cowardly. The book challenged was Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee. The man who removed it said "if there's a possibility that something might be controversial, then why not eliminate it?"
The answer, is because that is a foolhardy coward's way out. The purpose of a library is to present information so we can make informed decisions as a democracy. Even if "that something" is controversial. It will remain controversial if censored. Rather, allow people to read it and see for themselves.
In a nation plagued by frivolous lawsuits, more and more idiotic rules are being set up for people to defend themselves. It really is atrocious that when the slightest thing goes wrong or when someone becomes "offended," someone else is sued. It is ridiculous. Appeasing these morons with censorship is not the answer.
The Constitution of the United States of America does not protect you from being offended. Get tougher skin. And rather than banning books from libraries, teach your children.
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.
Banning books, censoring media and oppressing dissent in a public forum is unconstitutional and wrong and can lead to only fascism, newspeak and thoughtcrime.
1984 needs to be a required book in all high schools.
Source: The Forbidden Library
"Without free speech no search for truth is possible... no discovery of truth is useful... Better a thousandfold abuse of free speech than denial of free speech. The abuse dies in a day, but the denial slays the life of the people, and entombs the hope of the race." - Charles Bradlaugh
J Kuhl Signing Off
Sunday, January 18, 2009
V for Vendetta
This is not a review of the movie, that would be two and a half years too late. It was enjoyable yes, but this is not why I wish to discuss it.Rather, I'm interested in its message.
(May contain spoilers)
V for Vendetta was a story which took place within about 20 - 30 years in the future. It occurs in England, which has become a fascist police state, lead by one Adam Sutler (John Hurt), much like Airstrip 1 in Orwell's 1984.
In the name of security, Chancellor Sutler becomes a dictator in charge of England. His whims are laws and the citizens of England are oppressed. The USA has somehow (civil war and plague are implied) has been removed as a world power and England had just recovered from some sort of apocalyptic event involving a viral outbreak which allowed Sutler to take power.
Through all of this a strange man in a Guy Fawkes mask makes a few bold terrorist acts for the sake of freedom. He goes only by the name of V (Hugo Weaving).
The movie is rather important for several reasons.
Good evening, London. Allow me first to apologize for this interruption. I do, like many of you, appreciate the comforts of every day routine- the security of the familiar, the tranquility of repetition. I enjoy them as much as any bloke. But in the spirit of commemoration, thereby those important events of the past usually associated with someone's death or the end of some awful bloody struggle, a celebration of a nice holiday, I thought we could mark this November the 5th, a day that is sadly no longer remembered, by taking some time out of our daily lives to sit down and have a little chat. There are of course those who do not want us to speak. I suspect even now, orders are being shouted into telephones, and men with guns will soon be on their way. Why? Because while the truncheon may be used in lieu of conversation, words will always retain their power. Words offer the means to meaning, and for those who will listen, the enunciation of truth. And the truth is, there is something terribly wrong with this country, isn't there? Cruelty and injustice, intolerance and oppression. And where once you had the freedom to object, to think and speak as you saw fit, you now have censors and systems of surveillance coercing your conformity and soliciting your submission. How did this happen? Who's to blame? Well certainly there are those more responsible than others, and they will be held accountable, but again truth be told, if you're looking for the guilty, you need only look into a mirror. I know why you did it. I know you were afraid. Who wouldn't be? War, terror, disease. There were a myriad of problems which conspired to corrupt your reason and rob you of your common sense. Fear got the best of you, and in your panic you turned to the now high chancellor, Adam Sutler. He promised you order, he promised you peace, and all he demanded in return was your silent, obedient consent. Last night I sought to end that silence. Last night I destroyed the Old Bailey, to remind this country of what it has forgotten. More than four hundred years ago a great citizen wished to embed the fifth of November forever in our memory. His hope was to remind the world that fairness, justice, and freedom are more than words, they are perspectives. So if you've seen nothing, if the crimes of this government remain unknown to you then I would suggest you allow the fifth of November to pass unmarked. But if you see what I see, if you feel as I feel, and if you would seek as I seek, then I ask you to stand beside me one year from tonight, outside the gates of Parliament, and together we shall give them a fifth of November that shall never, ever be forgot. - V
In this speech, which V declares on TV, V speaks to the Londoners who willingly gave up civil liberties for security. It is a remarkable speech, one which people need to remember, as America faces crises now and in the future. We American citizens need to remain vigilant and watchful of our government and ensure that freedoms are never forsaken for security, even in a time of crisis.
After 9-11, the Bush Administration was quick to put out the Patriot Act. They were quick to detain suspects without charges, without appointing lawyers, for an indefinite amount of time. They were quick to wiretap us and listen in on our phone lines.
This was done for the sake of security and this is not acceptable. We should not be so cowardly as to give up freedoms for security, for this is the path to tyranny.
Our story begins, as these stories often do, with a young up-and-coming politician [Sutler]. He's a deeply religious man and a member of the conservative party. He is completely single-minded convictions and has no regard for the political process. Eventually, his party launches a special project in the name of 'national security'. At first, it is believed to be a search for biological weapons and it is pursued regardless of its cost. However, the true goal of the project is power, complete and total hegemonic domination. The project, however, ends violently... but the efforts of those involved are not in vain, for a new ability to wage war is born from the blood of one of their victims. Imagine a virus - the most terrifying virus you can, and then imagine that you and you alone have the cure. But if your ultimate goal is power, how best to use such a weapon? It is at this point in our story that along comes a spider. He is a man seemingly without a conscience; for whom the ends always justify the means and it is he who suggests that their target should not be an enemy of the country but rather the country itself. Three targets are chosen to maximize the effect of the attack: a school, a tube station, and a water-treatment plant. Several hundred die within the first few weeks. Until at last the true goal comes into view. Before the St. Mary's crisis, no one would have predicted the outcome of the elections. No one. But after the election, lo and behold, a miracle. Some believed that it was the work of God himself, but it was a pharmaceutical company controlled by certain party members made them all obscenely rich. But the true genius of the plan was the fear. A year later, several extremists are tried, found guilty, and executed while a memorial is built, erected to canonize their victims. Fear became the ultimate tool of this government. And through it our politician was ultimately appointed to the newly created position of High Chancellor. The rest, as they say, is history. -William Rookwood
A main point in V for Vendetta was the use of fear. Another quote in particular is when Adam Sutler snarls on TV, "I want *everyone* to *remember*, why they *need* us!" Fear mongering brought Sutler into power. Fear and the promise of order out of chaos. Sutler created fear when he engineered a biological attack on England and then, after gaining power, released the cure, and shifted the blame to radical extremists. This is also seen in 1984, as Big Brother and the Party bomb London themselves to make the locals believe they are still at war.
Fear. As Americans, we need to be wary of fear mongering politicians. The eight years since 9-11, we have been taught to be afraid that yet another terror attack may occur. Security tightened at airports, the Patriot Act was declared, two wars in the Middle East began. We were told that the government was protecting us and bringing us security, while these things occurred. Now obviously, we did not become a fascist state. But the threat does exist. We must watch our government and ensure that while they protect us, they do not go too far and strip civil liberties.
America right now is under two threats, one from terror, another from economic collapse. I doubt that Obama will declare himself "High Chancellor" anytime soon, but we citizens should remain on guard, for as long as this nation exists, to ensure that we do not become victims of fear mongering and that we never sacrifice freedom for security.
(SPOILER) Near the end of the movie, before Parliament blows up, the soldiers guarding are overrun by thousands of Londoners wearing Guy Fawkes masks. This is a symbol to show that we have strength as a people, a strength to act. The citizens, united, can be a powerful voice and we should never forget this. Should this nation somehow fall to totalitarianism, it is up to us, the citizens to fight it.
Did you like that? USA... Ulcered Sphincter of Ass-erica, I mean what else can you say? Here was a country that had everything, absolutely everything. And now, 20 years later, is what? The world's biggest leper colony. Why? Godlessness. Let me say that again... Godlessness. It wasn't the war they started. It wasn't the plague they created. It was Judgement. No one escapes their past. No one escapes Judgement. You think he's not up there? You think he's not watching over this country? How else can you explain it? He tested us, but we came through. We did what we had to do. Islington. Enfield. I was there, I saw it all. Immigrants, Muslims, homosexuals, terrorists. Disease-ridden degenerates. They had to go. Strength through unity. Unity through faith. I'm a God-fearing Englishman and I'm goddamn proud of it! -Lewis Prothero
As I already said, something had happened to America. Prothero (Roger Allam), a prominent Party man who spews propaganda, blames the downfall of the US on godlessness. Using God, he justified the "cleansing" of England which occured, in which undesirables were removed. Prothero was the Joseph Goebbels of the Party, spewing propaganda and hate for the enemy, whoever it was.
And here we have a perfect example of why the media must be unbiased and independent of government. It is too powerful of a tool for a government to control. Goebbels once said, ""If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it," which is all the more possible when the government can control and censor media.
We need to seek more unbiased sources of media and guard against all forms of censorship, even if censorship comes in a pretty package, example, for the sake of the children. Censorship, bias, propaganda, we cannot have this. What we need is an unbiased information source, giving us pertinent news, not propaganda and hate.
Last, the girl in the movie, Evey Hammond (Natalie Portman) undergoes a transformation when she is captured by the secret police, in which she learns to have no fear. This brings me to the final point, if, god forbid, the worst does happen, we need to have strength to fight it or we will lose everything.
In the end, what we take from the movie is a whole host of messages. 1. Do not give in to fear. For absolutely no reason shall freedom be given up. 2. Do not fall for incessant fear mongering. No, you won't die in a terror attack (extremely low probability anyways) so there is no need to give up freedom for security. 3. We the people are strength, not the government. 4. Be wary of propaganda and biased media. 5. If the time does ever come, have the strength to fight it, even when it means death.
People should not be afraid of their governments. Governments should be afraid of their people. - V
J Kuhl Signing Off
Friday, January 16, 2009
Red State Update: Obama Admits He's A Muslim?
The Republican's have been taking Obama's comments on George Stephanopolous's interview out of context to prove that he's a Muslim.
Friday, January 09, 2009
Rod Blagojevich
The man, the myth, the helmet hair.
I wonder if it is bullet proof. No, I don't wish to shoot him, but it would be a great R&D for defense contractors to study Blago's hair. I mean, if it is bullet proof, then when we take him off to jail, we could have him grow hair, shave it off, make it into helmets for our troops. Then he grows it back.
Now obviously, we'd need to give the man some sort of treatment that makes him grow hair really fast, after all, the US has about a million active personnel who need helmets. Not to mention that the police force could also use helmets made out of Blago's hair.
This would be a great way to spend the man's time while he languishes in prison.
Now, if it is not bullet proof, then perhaps there is another use for such a bad hairstyle. Perhaps if one of the five Queer Eye guys quits and they need to train a new replacement, they can use Blago as a tool to learn how to sculpt and style hair on a man's head.
Add a little grease to that hair and you could sculpt whatever you want. I wonder how he'd look with Rodin's The Thinker on his head.
Probably better than he does now.
“We will meet our challenges head-on and we will do it by rejecting the politics of mediocrity and corruption. … I will govern as a reformer.” -Blaggy in 2006 (Ironic!)
J Kuhl Signing Off
I wonder if it is bullet proof. No, I don't wish to shoot him, but it would be a great R&D for defense contractors to study Blago's hair. I mean, if it is bullet proof, then when we take him off to jail, we could have him grow hair, shave it off, make it into helmets for our troops. Then he grows it back.
Now obviously, we'd need to give the man some sort of treatment that makes him grow hair really fast, after all, the US has about a million active personnel who need helmets. Not to mention that the police force could also use helmets made out of Blago's hair.
This would be a great way to spend the man's time while he languishes in prison.
Now, if it is not bullet proof, then perhaps there is another use for such a bad hairstyle. Perhaps if one of the five Queer Eye guys quits and they need to train a new replacement, they can use Blago as a tool to learn how to sculpt and style hair on a man's head.
Add a little grease to that hair and you could sculpt whatever you want. I wonder how he'd look with Rodin's The Thinker on his head.
Probably better than he does now.
“We will meet our challenges head-on and we will do it by rejecting the politics of mediocrity and corruption. … I will govern as a reformer.” -Blaggy in 2006 (Ironic!)
J Kuhl Signing Off
Thursday, January 08, 2009
Congrats Oklahoma for Ruining Your Schools
Oklahoma Passes Anti-evolution legislation
I don't understand how Creationism passes off as "science." And I don't understand why the right thinks that it should be taught in a science class. In a religious studies class? Sure. Not in a science class.
But the idea of Creationism lacks every part of a scientific theory. Please note that the words "theory" and "evidence" have scientific meanings that can be different than colloquial meanings. A theory is far more than an idea; a theory is a principle or a group of principles used to explain a phenomenon and is developed through empirical evidence. A theory must be testable or it is not a good theory.
Evidence is any observable support for a theory that is experienced through any empirical senses, limited to eyes, ears, nose, tongue and touch. Faith is not scientific evidence. Belief is not scientific evidence. The Bible is not scientific evidence.
With all of this said, then it is the challenge of Creationists to, using the scientific method, create a theory.
Now lets do this for them:
1. The world was created 6000 years ago. Wait, problem: There are fossils that are beyond 100 million years old. Geological records show that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old and the Red Shift shows the universe to be 13.7 billion years old since the point of singularity. Well, there goes that hypothesis. Oh wait, you tell me god made the world to look old? In the face of overwhelming evidence, provide me with evidence, as defined above, that the world was created by this trickster god who wants to confuse us all.
2. There is an intelligent designer. Hmm, I don't see a name tag or a copyright restriction anywhere. So ah, where is this designer? More importantly, where is the evidence that he exists? Some people argue that the odds of it "just happening" are far too great for it to happen, that the universe is too young for that.
Let me use a House episode to explain something. One doctor wanted to run some tests to find out what disease this kid had. The problem was there were so many tests that the odds so high that it would have taken months to get the right result, and so Dr. House objects. But another doctor points out that it would only take a full month if all but the last test was false. Perhaps the first test will be the right one? Or the second?
Thus time isn't a good argument here, even with great odds. Because even though the odds suck, they'll be as bad on the first attempt as they are on the last attempt and thus it could just as easily occur first as it could in the middle or at the end.
Another point, there are billions of billions of stars in this universe and god-knows how many planets revolve around them. Until recently, our 9 planets were the only known planets, but extra-solar planets have been found around other stars. Given that, there are probably billions of billions of planets, increasing the odds of a life-giving planet quite dramatically.
Using the odds is another weak argument.
3. The world was created in 7 days. Then explain the dinosaurs. According to this model, there was but a few days between dinosaurs and homo sapiens. Homo sapiens did not appear for thousands of thousands of years after the dinosaurs. And it was certainly more than a week from the creation of light to the creation of man.
So my friends on the Christian Right, why are you trying to place this "theory" in a science class when it doesn't fit the definition of a scientific theory?
I was taught, in a religion class of all places, that Genesis was a metaphor, not a story to be taken literally. Metaphors do not belong in science classes. Only theory.
In other news, President Elect Barack Obama is not yet the president. Why are we asking for his judgement on things like Hamas and Senator Burris? Shouldn't we still be going to Bush about these things? People say the man is being silent but it seems to me that he said something a while back about there being one president at a time. Certainly, he should be considering these issues so he's ready for them on the 20th, but until then, he doesn't have any authority to do anything.
I find it amazing that protesters in the middle east have railed against Obama for doing nothing about Israel. Well golly, could be because maybe, he isn't president for another two weeks?
And I'm beginning to love the Republican attitudes. Obama hasn't even been president yet and they're already saying he's gonna be a terrible president. Why do you have to be a sore loser? Face it. Obama won. You lost. Now it would be in the best interest for you and the nation if you'd stop complaining about him, swallow your pride and hope for the best. Its what I'd've done had McCain won. (And I'd've sent him a box of heart medication to keep Palin from being president. Extra Strength Bayer). You're wasting energy, republicans, by complaining about Obama. Who knows, he might be the next FDR. He also might be Karl Marx. Only time will tell. And lets give the man at least a year after inauguration before judging him. Change, whether you believe him or not, won't be instantaneous.
And one last thing, on Hamas: I'm not a fervant supporter of Israel, I have to wonder if they truly are going at every length to avoid civilian casualties. But I am sick of all this support for the terrorist group Hamas. Hamas is deliberately placing their rockets and mortars in civilian areas to make sure that Israel produces a Palestinian body count so that Hamas can get the international support that it enjoys. All these "bias free" news programs are painting Israel as the bad guys. Hamas is purposefully firing rocket at Israel and then crying when Israel bites back.
I don't know enough about the history here to say that Israel is innocent and I doubt it but come on, give us both sides equally.
My personal opinion on the middle east is this: Find an alternative energy pronto. Use this energy to replace oil completely. Then remove all troops from every region in the Middle East, including Israel. Let them fight and may the best man win that godforsaken strip of dirt between Egypt and Turkey. Let the best man win whats left of Mesopotamia. And who cares who owns the Arabian Penninsula? Its just sand and more sand.
Why should the US involve itself. It solves a few problems. 1. No more terrorists. If we're gone, why would they hate us and attack us any more? 2. No more troops dying thousands of miles from home for a questionable cause. 3. No more dependence from nations that are potentially hostile. 4. No Americans dying in someone else's war. 5. Islamic nutjobs will no longer be a threat to the US and we can then focus our attention on Christian nutjobs in the homeland, such as Fred Phelps and the Oklahoma School Board . . .
"Madness is like gravity, all it takes is a little push" The Joker, The Dark Knight
J Kuhl Signing Off
I don't understand how Creationism passes off as "science." And I don't understand why the right thinks that it should be taught in a science class. In a religious studies class? Sure. Not in a science class.
But the idea of Creationism lacks every part of a scientific theory. Please note that the words "theory" and "evidence" have scientific meanings that can be different than colloquial meanings. A theory is far more than an idea; a theory is a principle or a group of principles used to explain a phenomenon and is developed through empirical evidence. A theory must be testable or it is not a good theory.
Evidence is any observable support for a theory that is experienced through any empirical senses, limited to eyes, ears, nose, tongue and touch. Faith is not scientific evidence. Belief is not scientific evidence. The Bible is not scientific evidence.
With all of this said, then it is the challenge of Creationists to, using the scientific method, create a theory.
Now lets do this for them:
1. The world was created 6000 years ago. Wait, problem: There are fossils that are beyond 100 million years old. Geological records show that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old and the Red Shift shows the universe to be 13.7 billion years old since the point of singularity. Well, there goes that hypothesis. Oh wait, you tell me god made the world to look old? In the face of overwhelming evidence, provide me with evidence, as defined above, that the world was created by this trickster god who wants to confuse us all.
2. There is an intelligent designer. Hmm, I don't see a name tag or a copyright restriction anywhere. So ah, where is this designer? More importantly, where is the evidence that he exists? Some people argue that the odds of it "just happening" are far too great for it to happen, that the universe is too young for that.
Let me use a House episode to explain something. One doctor wanted to run some tests to find out what disease this kid had. The problem was there were so many tests that the odds so high that it would have taken months to get the right result, and so Dr. House objects. But another doctor points out that it would only take a full month if all but the last test was false. Perhaps the first test will be the right one? Or the second?
Thus time isn't a good argument here, even with great odds. Because even though the odds suck, they'll be as bad on the first attempt as they are on the last attempt and thus it could just as easily occur first as it could in the middle or at the end.
Another point, there are billions of billions of stars in this universe and god-knows how many planets revolve around them. Until recently, our 9 planets were the only known planets, but extra-solar planets have been found around other stars. Given that, there are probably billions of billions of planets, increasing the odds of a life-giving planet quite dramatically.
Using the odds is another weak argument.
3. The world was created in 7 days. Then explain the dinosaurs. According to this model, there was but a few days between dinosaurs and homo sapiens. Homo sapiens did not appear for thousands of thousands of years after the dinosaurs. And it was certainly more than a week from the creation of light to the creation of man.
So my friends on the Christian Right, why are you trying to place this "theory" in a science class when it doesn't fit the definition of a scientific theory?
I was taught, in a religion class of all places, that Genesis was a metaphor, not a story to be taken literally. Metaphors do not belong in science classes. Only theory.
In other news, President Elect Barack Obama is not yet the president. Why are we asking for his judgement on things like Hamas and Senator Burris? Shouldn't we still be going to Bush about these things? People say the man is being silent but it seems to me that he said something a while back about there being one president at a time. Certainly, he should be considering these issues so he's ready for them on the 20th, but until then, he doesn't have any authority to do anything.
I find it amazing that protesters in the middle east have railed against Obama for doing nothing about Israel. Well golly, could be because maybe, he isn't president for another two weeks?
And I'm beginning to love the Republican attitudes. Obama hasn't even been president yet and they're already saying he's gonna be a terrible president. Why do you have to be a sore loser? Face it. Obama won. You lost. Now it would be in the best interest for you and the nation if you'd stop complaining about him, swallow your pride and hope for the best. Its what I'd've done had McCain won. (And I'd've sent him a box of heart medication to keep Palin from being president. Extra Strength Bayer). You're wasting energy, republicans, by complaining about Obama. Who knows, he might be the next FDR. He also might be Karl Marx. Only time will tell. And lets give the man at least a year after inauguration before judging him. Change, whether you believe him or not, won't be instantaneous.
And one last thing, on Hamas: I'm not a fervant supporter of Israel, I have to wonder if they truly are going at every length to avoid civilian casualties. But I am sick of all this support for the terrorist group Hamas. Hamas is deliberately placing their rockets and mortars in civilian areas to make sure that Israel produces a Palestinian body count so that Hamas can get the international support that it enjoys. All these "bias free" news programs are painting Israel as the bad guys. Hamas is purposefully firing rocket at Israel and then crying when Israel bites back.
I don't know enough about the history here to say that Israel is innocent and I doubt it but come on, give us both sides equally.
My personal opinion on the middle east is this: Find an alternative energy pronto. Use this energy to replace oil completely. Then remove all troops from every region in the Middle East, including Israel. Let them fight and may the best man win that godforsaken strip of dirt between Egypt and Turkey. Let the best man win whats left of Mesopotamia. And who cares who owns the Arabian Penninsula? Its just sand and more sand.
Why should the US involve itself. It solves a few problems. 1. No more terrorists. If we're gone, why would they hate us and attack us any more? 2. No more troops dying thousands of miles from home for a questionable cause. 3. No more dependence from nations that are potentially hostile. 4. No Americans dying in someone else's war. 5. Islamic nutjobs will no longer be a threat to the US and we can then focus our attention on Christian nutjobs in the homeland, such as Fred Phelps and the Oklahoma School Board . . .
"Madness is like gravity, all it takes is a little push" The Joker, The Dark Knight
J Kuhl Signing Off
Tuesday, December 30, 2008
A Scatalogical Plea
I've been in many public restrooms and I've seen a number of different designs for restrooms and some, quite frankly, are depressing. Its as if the designer didn't understand etiquette.
As everyone knows, there is bathroom etiquette in a men's restroom.
1. Stare straight ahead at the urinal.
2. If there are no dividers, keep a space between you and the other man at the urinals. If this is not possible, use the stall or wait.
3. Flush! Men are supposedly bad at this but come on! It takes two seconds.
Now some comments. Some restrooms like to use urinals with lips that come out a foot. I really wish people would stop building those. How can I have a bit of privacy when I have to stand a foot away?
Some restrooms like to use automatic flush. This is really great, unless the mechanism doesn't work and there is no button to push or handle to use.
And some restrooms use johns that don't flush. Woohoo for water conversation and all, but you gotta make it drain somehow. I'm talking to you, Boston Aquarium.
Then there are faucets. Oh the fun faucets where you can only wash one hand at a time because the moment you take your hand off the push-handle, the water shuts off. Does a turn-handle waste water or something? Why would the push-handle even be desired?
And last, if you are the manager of a building with public restrooms, please, please, please, send someone in to wash it and replace toilet paper/paper towers/etc at least once an hour.
Oh and, air dryers blow.
J Kuhl Signing Off
As everyone knows, there is bathroom etiquette in a men's restroom.
1. Stare straight ahead at the urinal.
2. If there are no dividers, keep a space between you and the other man at the urinals. If this is not possible, use the stall or wait.
3. Flush! Men are supposedly bad at this but come on! It takes two seconds.
Now some comments. Some restrooms like to use urinals with lips that come out a foot. I really wish people would stop building those. How can I have a bit of privacy when I have to stand a foot away?
Some restrooms like to use automatic flush. This is really great, unless the mechanism doesn't work and there is no button to push or handle to use.
And some restrooms use johns that don't flush. Woohoo for water conversation and all, but you gotta make it drain somehow. I'm talking to you, Boston Aquarium.
Then there are faucets. Oh the fun faucets where you can only wash one hand at a time because the moment you take your hand off the push-handle, the water shuts off. Does a turn-handle waste water or something? Why would the push-handle even be desired?
And last, if you are the manager of a building with public restrooms, please, please, please, send someone in to wash it and replace toilet paper/paper towers/etc at least once an hour.
Oh and, air dryers blow.
J Kuhl Signing Off
Friday, December 12, 2008
A Message to Fred Phelps
"But to you who hear I say, love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you," Lk 6:27-28
J Kuhl Signing Off
Tuesday, December 09, 2008
Modern Day Marie Antoinettes
"Let them eat cake," she said at the height of the French Revolution, a highly insulting phrase that exposes her naivete about the life of the poor. Living sheltered in a palace, the woman had no idea how terrible the lives of the poor were. She simply thought hey, give them cake and they'll be happy. She didn't understand that people were living on the streets.
And we see it again today as GM CEO's fly their private jets to Washington to demand money and John Thain of Merrill Lynch demands a 10 million dollar bonus.
These men have no clue.
GM CEO's flew to Washington DC a few weeks ago, on a private jet which cost them around $20,000 to fly and they had the audacity to ask for more money. They could have flown coach for around $200-500, about 1/50th of the cost of a private jet. They could have driven for about the same price. I was glad to see the Congress rebuke these CEO's and send them packing until they could come to Washington DC in a more fiscally conservative matter.
And just yesterday, John Thain of Merrill Lynch thought he was worthy of a ten million dollar bonus while people far below him are being laid off. He later withdrew his request for a bonus. In this economy, no one who is a member of a company that is asking for money from the government should be asking for a bonus. I don't care if Thain had single-handedly raised Merrill Lynch from its grave, when people are being laid off, that 10 million dollars is better used to pay the company expenses and perhaps even to try to retain jobs. Mr. Thain, you already have enough money to retire and live more comfortably than any middle-class American. Get the f**k out.
These people are Marie Antoinettes, rich, elite, jack-offs with no idea what the middle and lower classes are going through right now. They claim to want money and then they pull this crap?
"I love the smell of napalm in the morning," Col. Kilroy (Robert Duvall), Apocalypse Now.
J Kuhl Signing Off
And we see it again today as GM CEO's fly their private jets to Washington to demand money and John Thain of Merrill Lynch demands a 10 million dollar bonus.
These men have no clue.
GM CEO's flew to Washington DC a few weeks ago, on a private jet which cost them around $20,000 to fly and they had the audacity to ask for more money. They could have flown coach for around $200-500, about 1/50th of the cost of a private jet. They could have driven for about the same price. I was glad to see the Congress rebuke these CEO's and send them packing until they could come to Washington DC in a more fiscally conservative matter.
And just yesterday, John Thain of Merrill Lynch thought he was worthy of a ten million dollar bonus while people far below him are being laid off. He later withdrew his request for a bonus. In this economy, no one who is a member of a company that is asking for money from the government should be asking for a bonus. I don't care if Thain had single-handedly raised Merrill Lynch from its grave, when people are being laid off, that 10 million dollars is better used to pay the company expenses and perhaps even to try to retain jobs. Mr. Thain, you already have enough money to retire and live more comfortably than any middle-class American. Get the f**k out.
These people are Marie Antoinettes, rich, elite, jack-offs with no idea what the middle and lower classes are going through right now. They claim to want money and then they pull this crap?
"I love the smell of napalm in the morning," Col. Kilroy (Robert Duvall), Apocalypse Now.
J Kuhl Signing Off
Saturday, December 06, 2008
The FIrst Amendment
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.
Right there in italics. Right wing christian fundies, please read it. Atheists have as much of a right to shove their beliefs down our throats as you do. So rather than making a big deal about the atheist sign in Olympia, suck it up and deal with it.
Either stop putting up nativity scenes or signs telling me I'm going to hell, or live with the fact that the opposing view points have a right to be heard. It isn't the right to free speech for Christians, it is the right to free speech for all Americans.
“It is interesting that our views are so threatening that they have to be stolen and stifled completely,” -Annie Laurie Gaylor, co-president of the Freedom From Religion Foundation
J Kuhl Signing Off
Right there in italics. Right wing christian fundies, please read it. Atheists have as much of a right to shove their beliefs down our throats as you do. So rather than making a big deal about the atheist sign in Olympia, suck it up and deal with it.
Either stop putting up nativity scenes or signs telling me I'm going to hell, or live with the fact that the opposing view points have a right to be heard. It isn't the right to free speech for Christians, it is the right to free speech for all Americans.
“It is interesting that our views are so threatening that they have to be stolen and stifled completely,” -Annie Laurie Gaylor, co-president of the Freedom From Religion Foundation
J Kuhl Signing Off
Friday, December 05, 2008
A Man, A Boy and a Donkey
A man, a boy, and a donkey were headed down the road. They past a villager who stated "why isn't the lazy animal carrying anything?"
So the man got on the donkey while the boy walked. They continued for a few more miles and they passed a woman, a mother of three. She asked, "why is the lazy father riding the animal and making the child walk?"
So the man and the boy traded places. They passed an old man and the old man said "why is the lazy son riding the animal and making his old father walk?"
So the man got on the donkey. They continued for a few more miles and they came across a farmer who said "that poor animal, carrying two people at once! you should be ashamed."
So the man and the boy both got off the donkey, tied the animal's legs together and carried it. They came to a bridge that crossed a river. The bridge wasn't very sturdy, it was a rope bridge and because of this, the weight of the donkey and the shakiness of the bridge, caused them to loose balance and fall into the river.
The man looked at the boy and said, "my son, if you learn anything from this, its 'you can't please everyone.'"
This, I believe, is an old Aesop fable. And it came to mind after reading an article explaining how the Port of Seattle quickly took down some Christmas trees (source) to please a rabbi who wanted a menorah up. Ironically, the rabbi didn't care about the trees and isn't going to sue if they don't want to put up a menorah. In other words, it was a knee jerk reaction of the Port of Seattle trying to please everyone.
In related news, this time in Olympia, an atheist put up a sign next to a nativity scene. It read "At this season of the WINTER SOLSTICE may reason prevail. There are no gods, no devils, no angels, no heaven, no hell. There is only our natural world. Religion is but myth and superstition that hardens hearts and enslaves minds." While I don't think the message was really necessary, I agree with his right to put it up, something that Christians begin to complain about. But this is the United States of America. Freedom of speech means that even opposing viewpoints get an equal opportunity to make its point. If this atheist isn't allowed to say "there is no god" on a sign then I want to see every church in America banned from telling me to turn to god with a sign. I'm sick of religious people interpreting Freedom of Speech as "Freedom of Speech So Long as Everyone Agrees With Me."
If someone is offended by an atheist sign, well that is too bad. I'm offended by your implication that I'm going to hell because I don't see the value in Church. And isn't that too bad?
And so governments (from city to federal) need to learn that they can't possibly please everyone so they can't go banning one view point in favor of another. Just let both sides post their viewpoints and to hell with those idiots who are offended. Its just the same of the story of the man, the boy and the donkey. If the government bans Christmas, Christians complain. If the government puts up a nativity scene, non-Christians complain. If the government allows an atheist to put up a sign, the religious people complain.
So stop trying to please everyone.
J Kuhl Signing Off
So the man got on the donkey while the boy walked. They continued for a few more miles and they passed a woman, a mother of three. She asked, "why is the lazy father riding the animal and making the child walk?"
So the man and the boy traded places. They passed an old man and the old man said "why is the lazy son riding the animal and making his old father walk?"
So the man got on the donkey. They continued for a few more miles and they came across a farmer who said "that poor animal, carrying two people at once! you should be ashamed."
So the man and the boy both got off the donkey, tied the animal's legs together and carried it. They came to a bridge that crossed a river. The bridge wasn't very sturdy, it was a rope bridge and because of this, the weight of the donkey and the shakiness of the bridge, caused them to loose balance and fall into the river.
The man looked at the boy and said, "my son, if you learn anything from this, its 'you can't please everyone.'"
This, I believe, is an old Aesop fable. And it came to mind after reading an article explaining how the Port of Seattle quickly took down some Christmas trees (source) to please a rabbi who wanted a menorah up. Ironically, the rabbi didn't care about the trees and isn't going to sue if they don't want to put up a menorah. In other words, it was a knee jerk reaction of the Port of Seattle trying to please everyone.
In related news, this time in Olympia, an atheist put up a sign next to a nativity scene. It read "At this season of the WINTER SOLSTICE may reason prevail. There are no gods, no devils, no angels, no heaven, no hell. There is only our natural world. Religion is but myth and superstition that hardens hearts and enslaves minds." While I don't think the message was really necessary, I agree with his right to put it up, something that Christians begin to complain about. But this is the United States of America. Freedom of speech means that even opposing viewpoints get an equal opportunity to make its point. If this atheist isn't allowed to say "there is no god" on a sign then I want to see every church in America banned from telling me to turn to god with a sign. I'm sick of religious people interpreting Freedom of Speech as "Freedom of Speech So Long as Everyone Agrees With Me."
If someone is offended by an atheist sign, well that is too bad. I'm offended by your implication that I'm going to hell because I don't see the value in Church. And isn't that too bad?
And so governments (from city to federal) need to learn that they can't possibly please everyone so they can't go banning one view point in favor of another. Just let both sides post their viewpoints and to hell with those idiots who are offended. Its just the same of the story of the man, the boy and the donkey. If the government bans Christmas, Christians complain. If the government puts up a nativity scene, non-Christians complain. If the government allows an atheist to put up a sign, the religious people complain.
So stop trying to please everyone.
J Kuhl Signing Off
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
