Do we really need gun control? Get Serious!

Do we really need gun control? Yes to some extent, but how about regulating automatic firearms and BULLETS!

No, Really, Regulate the Bullets! 

We can and should regulate the sale of ammunition and the tools to make ammunition. 

One box per month per household! 

Seriously, if you need more than a half dozen rounds to bag that deer, moose, duck, pheasant or any other BIG game you are shooting at, you are a very poor shot. 
If you need to practice, go to a shooting range, which should be the only place you can buy more ammunition. Use it there, because you can't take it home. And it should be against the law to send guns and or ammunition through the mail, no online orders allowed.
http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2012/12/no-really-regulate-the-bullets/266332/

Every citizen has near instant access to firearms and ammunition trough the Internet!
The United States is so saturated with guns that seeking to control them is futile. People own and use guns made in the early 1800s; guns made last month are on sale in stores now. We have a centuries-old accumulation of armaments that shows no sign of evaporating.

But there are two things that are needed for a gun to work: 

the gun and the ammunition.

Well, ok, actually three, but let's take the uncontrollable human out of the equation. Limiting guns may be hopeless. So why don't we focus on the bullets? A gun can be made from any number of common household objects. But making bullets is much, much trickier.

 Bullets are so easy to come by that that huge stockpiles exist throughout the country. But unlike guns, bullets are single use. While attempts to remove guns from the streets would either be incalculably slow or require heavy-handed, dangerous government action, curbing the ability to buy ammunition would mean a natural diminishment of the arsenal that remains. Every time a bullet is fired, that bullet is rendered useless forever.

Perhaps the best argument in favor of limiting ammunition, though, is this. The mantra of firearms advocates is the Second Amendment to the Constitution, which reads:

It doesn't say a single thing about the right to own bullets.

Bear all the arms you want. Make your own at home. Without a bullet to fire from it -- or, at the very least, far, far fewer bullets -- we can achieve what the Founding Fathers really sought: a stable & secure nation.

LET'S HAVE A BLAST

OK, I've had it with these telemarketing phone calls, the ones with the 800 numbers and especially the ones that don't have a caller ID, and those ones about my computer having a virus from Microsoft. I used to pick up the phone and immediatly hang up, I'm going to purchase an air horn can and start picking up the calls again, see who is on the other end and if it's a telemarketer, tell them to "hang up and don't call again, this is your only warning", if they keep talking I"ll blast the air horn into the phone and then say "can you hear me now? Hang up and don't call again", if they are still there, blow the horn again and repeat. Maybe they will get the message or I'll just have some fun with the calls.

The Man-in-the-middle attack or How Facebook took control of your facebook page.

The Man-in-the-middle attack or How Facebook took control of your facebook page.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Man-in-the-middle_attack

Facebook doesn't give you choices. It's their way or the highway! They changed everyone's email address and designated what your Facebook email address would be, you didn't get an option of choosing your Facebook email address. They did let you use a "vanity" email address, but the real Facebook email address is the one they chose for you and it's really all numbers.

Facebook is trying to force its 900million users to switch to its own email service.
It is removing the personal email address displayed on an individual user’s profile pages and replacing it with a @facebook.com address – even if the member never uses it.

The social networking site’s email service was launched two years ago but has failed to take off, possibly because most people do not like having multiple mail accounts. Facebook wants to usurp existing email identities with their own to help drive up traffic to its site and lock users into its service. The problem is the lack of transparency – it has acted without asking for members’ permission first.’ Just like they did withe their Timeline feature.

The US company is under pressure to lift its revenues following a stock market flotation. Because emails sent to the @facebook address will appear on the site’s pages it will potentially boost page views and boost advertising sales.

The social network also launched a new feature this week which uses the GPS signal in cell phones to help you find friends - and potential new friends - nearby. The 'Friendshake' feature will allow you to make friends with people who are close by. The time-saving feature means that, if you meet a group of new people, you can all use this for one-touch friendship, rather than manually finding out each person's name and separately adding them.

It is not the first time Facebook has pulled a 'Big Brother' move on social network users. Anyone who uses Facebook is already turning over reams of sensitive personal information to large companies every day.

Hopefully their stock will continue to tank, but unfortunately it's likely to rise up, unless more Facebook users start unliking pages they liked and switch to Google+.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2164714/Facebook-tries-hijack-users-email-addresses.html

Culture Shock or Talk?

I came across in article in one of my favorite web sites, AL Daily, and after reading the article below, I thought of interactions with strangers, co-workers, friends, and of course, family!

Has this ever happened to you?
What appears to be an argument, is really just normal conversation, sometimes with shouting, but always with gestures.

America, the melting pot of cultures. With more and more people coming from different areas of the world and commingling in our everyday life, these scenarios happen quite often.

We shape thoughts with our hands as well as our words. But don’t give the thumbs up in Iran unless you mean “up yours”!
Two Jews and an Englishman are crossing the ocean on a ship. The Jews, who can’t swim, start arguing with each other about what they should do if it sinks. As they argue, they gesticulate with such vigor that the Englishman backs away to avoid injury. Suddenly, the boat begins to sink. All the passengers except for the Jews, who are too wrapped up in their argument to notice, jump overboard. After a long, exhausting swim, the Englishman finally reaches the shore. He is amazed to find the two Jews there, happily waving him in. Astonished, he asks them how they got there. “We have no idea,” says one of them. “We just kept on talking in the water.”
read the rest at: http://www.laphamsquarterly.org/essays/body-language.php?page=all

WHAT WOULD YOU BE, IF YOU WEREN'T AFRAID?

Interesting question posed by Haw when he wrote on the wall "What would you do if you weren't afraid?", in Who Moved My Cheese, by Dr. Spencer Johnson. His answer was, you would feel free.

It still doesn't answer what you would do, but surely you would do something, as most people who are afraid, no nothing. Fear of the unknown does that, as does fear of retaliation and fear of condemnation. There are all kinds of fears we hold dear, too dear to change our habits. The truth is, that when fear comes upon you, it's because you have been chosen. Fear has chosen you and you are it's target. The only way to fight that fear is to confront it. STOP, for just a second and look at fear and you will know how to defeat it.

I like using, What would you be if you weren't afraid?
It frees your mind to take some kind of action to release the fear that causes you to do nothing. Waiting for the opportunity to act on your fear is sometimes the best action. It gives you time to plan.

When you come upon something frightening, ask yourself, What would you be if you weren't afraid and start a plan of action to relieve the fear.

Are you leaving holes in your fence?

NAILS IN THE FENCE
There once was a little boy who had a bad temper...  His Father gave him a bag of nails and told him that every time he lost his temper, he must hammer a nail into the back of the fence.

The first day the boy had driven 37 nails into the fence...  Over the next few weeks, as he learned to control his anger, the number of nails hammered daily gradually dwindled down.  He discovered it was easier to hold his temper than to drive those nails into the fence.  Finally the day came when the boy didn't lose his temper at all.

He told his father about it and the father suggested that the boy now pull out one nail for each day that he was able to hold his temper.

The days passed and the young boy was finally able to tell his father that all the nails were gone.

The father took his son by the hand and led him to the fence.  He said, 'You have done well, my son, but look at the holes in the fence.  The fence will never be the same.  When you say things in anger, they leave a scar, just like this one.  You can put a knife in a man and draw it out.  But It won't matter how many times you say I'm sorry, the wound will still be there.  A verbal wound is as bad as a physical one.

Remember that friends are very rare jewels indeed. They make you smile and encourage you to succeed; They lend an ear, they share words of praise and they always want to open their hearts to us.

Please forgive me if I have ever left a hole in your fence!

The next time you get angry with someone and are about to speak, ask yourself if there was a way to say what you want to say with neutral words. Picture the holes in your fence.
Often the habit of reacting angrily is just that - a habit you learned when you were young and haven´t questioned since. You might have become blind to the effect it has on your life.

It is really so that the world reflects back your own attitude. If you constantly wonder why people are angry at you, perhaps it is you who treated them with anger first? Listen to the words and tone of voice you use. And try, really try to speak neutrally to someone who are angry with. If you know it will be difficult, write the words down first. Rehearse it in your mind. Decide on a prize you will give to yourself if you succeed.

Teach your mind intentionally to use respectful words. And you just might find that life begins to feel a lot nicer - because people aren´t angry at you anymore.
DON'T BE BLUE

Media news bias is ratings driven

Just another reason I don't watch "Prime Time News" or nationally syndicated news shows like 60 minutes, they bend the news to drive up ratings, in some cases they will just make it up.

Why are the major media outlets content to manufacture or bend the hot news stories in order to drive up ratings?
It's because of the mentality of the old saying, "it's easier to ask for forgiveness than to ask for permission"! Unfortunately the bastardized news stories last for days or weeks, if not months, and the asking for forgiveness by broadcast never happens, or in the case of printed news, it's relegated to the back pages or a footnote.

Trayvon Martin didn’t deserve to be lying mute in an underground box at the age of 17. Nobody does. He committed no offense to warrant such a fate. He was simply returning from the convenience store and chatting with his girlfriend on his cell phone, a scene that could be replicated a million times across America on any given evening. http://themoderatevoice.com/142893/pictures-and-prejudice-in-the-trayvon-martin-case/

Here’s all we know for certain about the killing of Trayvon Martin: Zimmerman noticed the black teen wearing a hoodie, tailed him as a suspicious character within the confines of the gated community, stepped out of his car to challenge him (despite instructions from police to keep on moving), exchanged words with Martin and ended up on the ground. Someone moaned for help around the moment that the gun went off, and Martin died on the spot.

Was the neighborhood watch volunteer George Zimmerman out for blood or just taking his job a little too seriously? 

Why was the only picture used by ABC, NBC, CBS, the NY Times and every other major newspaper, from when Trayvon Martin was only 14 years old?
The contrasting photos of cute Trayvon and nasty George undoubtedly contributed to the call for vengeance.
Was the exposure on Zimmerman’s photo altered in some versions to make the half-Hispanic killer look “whiter”?
George Zimmerman is multi-racial. In fact, it’s said that he has black relatives.

For most of the black community and the left-of-center crowd, it’s an open-and-shut case of a light-skinned racist murdering an innocent African American kid for the crime of “walking while black.” The Revs. Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton showed up to make racial politics, just to add fuel to the fire. The fact that Trayvon was wearing a hoodie has catapulted that essential item of hip-hop apparel to unprecedented glory as a political symbol of unjustly maligned black youth. By now, every Trayvon Martin sympathizer and his brother has been photographed wearing a hoodie. Congressman Bobby Rush was even kicked out of a congressional hearing because he showed up wearing a hoodie. He was kicked out because he did not adhere to the dress code for appearing before congress. Dress code, 'That' is a subject for another day.

NBC altered the 911 call by Zimmerman to make it seem as if Zimmerman was race obsessed, and every news story used it as part of their coverage. 

Photographs, videos, and recordings can be indispensable clues, but our biases, conscious or not, have a way of tampering with the evidence.
Neither man was all saint or all villain. Both should be given an equal chance to be vindicated or judged by proper authorities.

NBC News has since fired the producer who was involved in the production of a misleading segment about the Trayvon Martin case in Florida. On April 6th, 39 days after the maelstrom, it appeared as a blip in the news, but not on any prime time news broadcast.
The action came in the wake of an internal investigation by NBC News into the production of the segment, which strung together audio clips in such a way that made George Zimmerman’s shooting of Mr. Martin sound racially motivated. Ever since the Feb. 26 shooting, there has been a continuing debate about whether race was a factor in the incident.

Of course the damage has been done in the wake of a rioting public driven to the media frenzy, just as they wanted.

Sometimes you just can't help but be BLUE!

Heroes, terrors and terrorism

A couple of notes on Heroes, terrors and terrorism.

March 29, 2012
US Soldier Killed Trying to Save Afghan Girl
Sgt. Dennis Weichel, 29, of the Rhode Island National Guard died saving the life of a little girl in northeast Afghanistan.

According to the report, Weichel was in a convoy in Laghman Province last week when he noticed some children were in the path of the moving vehicles. Weichel and other soldiers got out to move them out of the way. while most of the children scattered away, one girl went back to the road, as a Mine-Resistant Ambush-Protected vehicle continued moving toward her. Weichel saw the massive truck moving toward the girl and grabbed her out of the way. The girl survived, but Weichel died after the armored vehicle ran over him.

These types of stories go unreported everyday. Our soldier's heroic actions are unnoticed by most, if not all, of our major news stations. Certainly lost to the journalists of MSNBC and CBS, who most likely just throw the stories in the trash, deemed not worthy of the liberal rhetoric.

I found this story below and also decided to add it to the mix.

After reading the headlines today about the US soldier who shot up Afghanistan civilians, I couldn’t help noticing an irony.  There is all this clamor to try this guy quickly and execute him, never mind his having suffered a traumatic brain injury.
His actions were that of a disturbed mind and should be delt with by the harshest of penalties.

Yet (another soldier) Major Hasan, who shot up Fort Hood while screaming Allah akbar, still hasn’t stood trial, and they are still debating whether he was insane, even with the clear evidence regarding his motive: slay as many infidels as possible.

So we have a guy in a war zone who cracks, and he must be executed immediately.

But this Muslim psychiatrist who was stateside in a nice safe office all day, murders 13, wounds 29 of our own guys,and they try to argue the poor lad suffered post-traumatic stress syndrome, from listening to real soldiers, and heroes, who had actual battle experience.

Two and a half years later, they still haven’t tried the murderous bastard.

Poor lad my ass, he murdered our own soldiers!

The only thing necessary for evil to triumph 

is for good men to stand by and do nothing.

Have you lost your Marbles?

The Marble Game
In marriages (and other relationships), there is often a "Marble Game" going on.

At the beginning, each person is perceived to have roughly the same number of marbles. However, as the relationship progresses, and one spouse clearly emerges as being weaker in decision-making, natural intelligence, and/or "walking around smarts," then "Marbles" are lost by that person, and the other spouse gains marbles.

In one case about a dad blaming a mom for a child being waitlisted for school admission, the "husband" lost a whole bunch of marbles when he foolishly invested their money. The "wife" gained a whole bunch of marbles with her decisions to allow the child to be waitlisted instead of pulling him off the list and then finding a way to pay for school. This created a huge imbalance of marbles because of the long-lasting implications of that one mistake. This mistake wasn't something that just caused a minor ripple in the family, such as denting a car or bouncing a check. This "husband" has to live with the fact that not only did he make a very serious mistake, but his "wife's" decisions were not only better, but they saved the family from absolute disaster.

Once you have one spouse with lots of marbles (in this case, the wife) and you have another spouse who perceives himself as having fewer marbles, then you have a situation where the "husband" is going to - lash out - and criticize any imaginable, thing in a way to try to take away some of the other's marble stash.
So, even when other rational people would say that the "husband" has no reason to criticize the wife about the waitlist situation, the "husband" just sees it as an opportunity to say, - "see, everything YOU do doesn't work out perfectly either".

Also...since such a person perceives himself as having fewer marbles, it may take him a LONG time (maybe never) to admit that he was wrong to criticize (because that means losing MORE marbles). This theory may help to explain why a whole lot of situations began to make sense (situations with unreasonable relatives, nutty teachers, stubborn children, etc).

Men may have a harder time dealing with an imbalance of marbles when they perceive themselves as having less because of their culture's perception that men are supposed to be the (gag) more logical, smarter sex. It's also not about who makes more money. When men feel that they don't have more marbles, they can feel emasculated....so he will just be petty...and some will more seriously lash out.

This theory seems to help a lot of people understand weird conflicts that are going on in their lives.... with spouses, kids, co-workers, relatives, siblings, in-laws, parents, etc. (oh yes, with parents!) Parents of adult children do not want to admit that their adult children may have more marbles than they do. It can also occur when one spouse has an addiction (drinking, gambling, etc) or infidelity issues that has had negative affects on the marriage/family, so that a spouse viciously nitpicks the other spouse so as to say..."you're not perfect either...you make mistakes, too" (even though those mistakes/flaws are far more minor and have insignificant negative affects on the family).

How does the partner with the most marbles stop being the constant brunt of attack from the marble-short partner? I think the day you stop keeping a record of the marbles, the problem will end, but it is in our human nature to keep score. We have long term memory, all but sometimes very selective. This is a psychological problem to begin with. If you try to have the upper hand in marriage - you'll loose the relationship.

Make better decisions and you will get more marbles, or attain a balance of marble stacks. I understand keeping score with casual acquaintances and business associates, just because you may need to limit interactions or find a new way to communicate, if it becomes too imbalanced? Keeping score with "family" never leads to anything good. You need to give some marbles back, to keep the stacks balanced, or at least give the appearance of being balanced.

You have to make the other person feel that his/her opinions are valued, listened to, and not immediately dismissed. This can be hard to do if the person is seriously lacking in common-sense, but be very cautious not to be the type who can't "suffer fools gladly." Each person in a valued relationship has to have some worth-while redeeming value.

Hasn't each of us been frustrated when we tell a parent/child to do something and they dismiss it, yet when someone ELSE tells them to do the SAME thing, the parent/child acts like that's the smartest idea they've ever heard!!!???  

That's the Marble Game Theory going on. The parent/child doesn't have that "marble-conflict" going on with that "other person." So, the parent/child feels that he/she isn't giving up any marbles (showing weakness) by following that "other person's advice. (and, we all just shake our heads and wonder.)

FYI:
I get alerts about "game theory" every day, this was one of the better ones from;
mom2collegekids
Senior Member
http://talk.collegeconfidential.com/parent-cafe/1112882-touched-sore-point-marble-game-theory.html

Shame on our own national news media! CBS NBC ABC

With all the news that's not fit to print or broadcast, why is the significance of Cordoba not getting out to the people?

I was watching the news the other day and noticed a familiar occurrence.

A reporter was talking about new parking meters in Los Angeles and that there would be tens of thousands of them going up in the next few months. His emphasis was on the technology; card readers in the machines, you don't even need cash or coins anymore and there is a sensor that will send a signal out to a central processor when the time expires that will get a parking enforcement officer over to write up a ticket.

What he failed to mention at any time was that right on the meter there was a big label, "$3 for each 15 minutes"! Nowhere in the story was there any mention about the cost to park. Luckily I don't need to go to Los Angeles and fight for parking. I don't really know how much it costs today or if the $3 per each 15 minutes is a new increase. It wasn't reported.

But it's what isn't mentioned in the news that is getting my attention more and more, especially when part of the story is right there in the background or foreground or hanging around in the ether. Not that some stories are not getting aired, but the stories are incomplete. I don't know if it's a carryover from the Dan Rather debacle where the news was being manipulated by the news organization or that there is still too much political correctness going on and they are just afraid to bring out the whole story. Most of the news on TV and in the newspapers is so skewed to the left, mostly, or at least leaning that way or over the top to the right, occasionally, that there are hardly any newscasts or newspapers worth watching or reading. The news should be balanced and fair, or maybe justified, but certainly not steered. That's mainly why I don't watch the national news broadcast on CBS, NBC, or ABC. They are not interested in both sides of the story. It's also why I don't read the Los Angeles Times or New York Times or any of the big newspapers. All of the current national newscasts and newspapers are blatantly biased. Those big stories will get out somehow, on the internet, where you can decide how much to read, but most of the real story on any national news broadcasts will be lost in the bias.

It's kind of ironic that when an event happens that will impact not only the local region but broad reaching enough to tug at the heartstrings of America and possibly the world, the national news stations will broadcast those stories all day, every day for a week or more, until the next "big headline news event" comes up. Even news stories like the oil spill in the gulf, airplane disasters, the kidnapping of a child or finding the kidnapped child, trapped coal miners, devastating storms and the downing of the World Trade Center in New York City, are "sold" to the audience in how they are told, or not told. Questions go unanswered by both the news media and the government. It's so very interesting that with all the competition for the audience of viewers and readers that the news media is trying to attract, they don't even understand how to make shock media work for them. They certainly know how to make it work against them. How many times do you see the nauseating effort the media takes to see someone cry on national TV or invading someone's privacy with an army of reporters and news vehicles camped at a victim's or suspected criminal's house, yet alone someone convicted of a crime.

Just think how more time could be given to real news stories if all that was said was "there was a drive-by shooting in Los Angels or New York or Detroit today, but no one died", read about it on our web site", or some other quick 3 second blurb, and then get to real important news. No one cares about the celebrities and superstars on again off again escapades or lack of social grace. It belongs in its own news show or program. Olbermann, Stewart, Beck and O'Reilly aren't news people, they're news entertainment pundits disguised as political news, but that’s where people are forced to go if they want the rest of the story that started on national news and was left unfinished on local news. We shouldn’t be relegated to getting our national news from CNN or Fox News and no one watches MSNBC anyway. Although Olbermann, Levine and Savage may be in the basement of the political pundit tower, the elevator isn't going anywhere worth stopping. if you are looking for the real story behind those "breaking headline news" stories. There isn't one local or national newscast that would be longer than 30 seconds, if each event was cut to one sentence. Then you could get to the news that actually impacts the city, state, nation or world, from the national news programs (ABC, NBC, ABC) that both the left and the right should be watching.

If National news really wanted viewers to flock to their broadcast, they would let the news happen, give a short summary and then ask the question everyone wants to know, and then go looking for the answers. There are far too many news stores about drive-by shootings and minor crimes that are allowed way too much airtime. We glorify gangsters and criminals, even overpaid unappreciative super stars, by making them headline news, so much so, that 80% of the news is either negative or driven by entertainment gossip. In fact, victims should, by law, be given 3 times more airtime than criminals, and the story should never be more than 6 seconds long. If there needs to be more time, they should be directed to a 'special' news program.

News stations and newspapers will see a resurgence of listeners and readers, if they took a more proactive, but unbiased, approach to the real news. News stories should be politically unbiased, as well as editorially unbiased. Most news organizations are politically bent, they all need to straighten up, or at least announce they are the voice of the left, or right, and see how their audience responds. That way we could have some fantastic news media battles that may actually get the whole story out and let the audience decide, or at least let them be informed enough to decide if they care enough to watch or read tomorrow's news.

Ask a politician a question, and the last thing that will come out will be the answer. Politicians always ignore the question. Their main objective is to get their message out first, because air time is so short and costly to them. Usually the question never gets answered and the news reporter on the scene or the interviewer in the studio, also short on time, lets them off the hook. The first sounds a politician should make when asked a question, must be about the answer. Give them 3 seconds to start the answer or cut them off. You could then have a standard disclaimer, "another long-winded politician that can't get to the answer". The politicians will be screaming, but it should be, answer first - stump second. Everyone knows the news anchor is just really an overpriced news reader anyway; give them something they can sink their teeth into. Congress is currently trying to silence the news that everyone wants under the guise of "equal air time", anyway, let the battle begin. Politicians would then get more air time than they would probably want, if they had to answer the question first, then stump, because there would always be questions that need answering.

The news media could easily put the challenge on politicians, government officials, superstars or the Corporate CEO, and drive up interest in viewing or reading their news. All they have to do is say, "We invited so and so to come on and answer these perplexing questions, but they have declined our offer", and keep repeating it every day. When they do come on, then it's, one question - one answer, stump later, if there is time. There would always be some important news going on in-between the hard hitting world and national catastrophes that occur. The news stories wouldn't have to be dragging on ad nauseam until the next "breaking news" happens.

So with all the news that's apparently not fit to print in our fine national newspapers or broadcast on our upstanding national news broadcasts, why is the significance of Cordoba not getting out to the people?  >>Watch and Learn!<<

And it took a non-American to point it out! Shame on our own national news media! Shame on CBS, NBC, and ABC.

Change you can believe in: The 1st Federal Sales Tax E-V-E-R and next the New Value Added Tax

Motivated Photos

UNCONTROLLED IMMIGRATION AND POLITICAL CORRECTNESS GONE AWRY

This is from 4 years ago.
We should all look to Malmo, Sweden, as an example of the problems of uncontrolled immigration and political correctness gone awry.

http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/938

Malmö, in Sweden, set to become the first Scandinavian city with a Muslim majority, within a decade or two, has nine times as many reported robberies per capita as Copenhagen, Denmark.

It is interesting to note that these Muslim immigrants state quite openly that they are involved in a “war,” and see participation in crime and harassment of the native population as such.

Some talk of the possibility of a future civil war in Sweden, the country that gave us Bergman, ABBA and Volvo could become known as the Bosnia of northern Europe. The “Swedish model” would no longer refer to a stable and peaceful state with an advanced economy, but to a Eurabian horror story of utopian multiculturalism, socialist mismanagement and runaway immigration.

Although it is not stated, most of the immigrant perpetrators are Muslims. In one of the rare instances where the Swedish media actually revealed the truth, the newspaper, Aftonbladet, reported several years ago that 9 out of 10 of the most criminal ethnic groups in Sweden came from Muslim countries.

The recent Jihad in the streets of France looked like the early skirmishes of an impending Eurabian civil war, brought on by massive Muslim immigration and Multicultural stupidity. Law and order is slowly breaking down in major and even minor cities across the European continent, and the streets are ruled by aggressive gangs of Muslim youngsters.

At the same time, Europeans are paying some of the highest taxes in the world. We should remind our authorities that the most important task of the state – some would even claim it should be the only task of the state – is to uphold the rule of law in exchange for taxation. When enough people feel that the system is no longer working and that the social contract has been breached, the entire fabric of democratic society could unravel. What happens when the welfare state system breaks down, and there is no longer enough money to “grease” the increasing tensions between immigrants and native Europeans? There will be massive unemployment, and tens of millions of people will feel angry, scared and humiliated, betrayed by the system, by society and by their own democratic leaders.

European leaders decided that therefore what they really needed was a European Union that would obviate their need for nationalism.

They took all the wrong lessons from World War II and continue to apply them, while ignoring the only lesson that’s really relevant from World War II, which is that you have to choose good and defend good, and fight with the intention of defeating evil. We have to be able and willing to make moral distinctions and stand up for the good and fight evil — and that is something that both the Europeans and Obama refuse to do.

Nationalism isn’t evil. British nationalism hasn’t been evil. French nationalism isn’t evil. Polish nationalism isn’t evil. American nationalism wasn’t evil and has never been evil. Contrary to Obama’s actions, American exceptionalism isn’t evil.
http://www.atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/

LJ BLUE
(Holding by breath)

More on the Games people play and the reasons they play them.

OK, it's super bowl time and another great excuse to have a party. Well, Friday is a good excuse also, but not as sociologically or psychologically of the same importance.
I've heard this before, but never paid than much attention to it. The world we live in is populated by a natural and inbred mentality to survive, expand hunting and living areas and to protect them. This has usually resulted in fights, skirmishes, and other acts of war. We are and always will be a warring species.

For the most part, constant acts of protecting your territory have been subdued in most countries populated by any type if civility. There are some countries that cannot escape that mentality, and don't want to. As much as we would like to believe that people will refrain from their basic instincts and live in peace, that will never happen, as long is there is one person out the billions that inhabit this planet that feels the need to protect what they have or want more.

We, in the civilized parts of the world, have replaced those acts of aggression with sports. Most sporting endeavors have grown from exhibitions that demonstrated the abilities needed for being a warrior and most people are no longer warriors, so we play sports.

We play sports and root for our favorite sports teams. Sports teams have people who are fanatics about how their team prospers. Some are more than fanatics; their whole world revolves around their adopted team, or mentally; their country, their warriors, and their king.

The games are their battles that lead to their own version of a World War, every year or every 2 years or every 4 years, in the form of Championships and worldly contests like the Olympics.

And we need these replacements of acts of war, to allow us to escape, when we can, from the realities of the real acts of war going on every day and the fact that there are bad people who want to do bad things. Out of the billions of people on this planet, there will always be at least one bad person and they will always let you think there is a chance they will become passive. They never will, but will use that hope to accomplish their goals.

Everyone needs something to channel mankind’s natural instincts into. Play sports, root for your team, compete in something that develops your mind, or play poker. All of these activities require some form of aggression, and mankind is nothing if not aggressive, even in it's yearn for pacifism.

DON'T BE BLUE

Contempt of Congress - Then and Now

Pogo had it right!

The games people play and the reason they play them.

War Games and Fantasy Role Playing Games vs Grand Theft Auto and violence for the sake of violence games.

New computer games are being designed that are more complicated and realistic than ever before. Games that require more dexterity and quick thinking. The most popular of these are Role Playing Games. You are what you play and some of these games are actually quite good in preparing game players for possible employment. Some other games place the harsh realities of life in such a nonchalant attitude that the mind can no longer tell good from bad, or at least what is acceptable behavior and what is not. When someone lives a life of constant anger in their real every day environment and then escapes to a fantasy world that has the same atmosphere, anger will be the norm.

Aside from the more and more realistic sports computer games, the most popular games are games of violence like games of war , fantasy role playing, and criminal gang activity.
Kids, teens, and preppies are most likely not going to use their gaming experience from War Games, like Call to Duty II and most adventure role playing games, to commit the same violence in the real world. Games like Grand Theft Auto however have no real practical application in the real world except to disrespect authority, learn criminal tactics, and commit random act of violence on women and innocent people. Games like Grand Theft Auto plant the seed that you can profit from robbing and doing drugs and advance your position in your gang.
The Fantasy Role Playing Games may have too much graphic violence, but for the most part you can mentally leave the game behind you when you quit the game, unlike games like Grand Theft Auto where those thoughts are more represented in the daily news. Fantasy Role Playing Games require more creativity to advance and allow for strategic thought. War games also require more intelligent and strategic thought like those based on games like chess.

War Games also have a real practical application in that it trains the young for the future of real military. There are more unmanned aircraft being used and more robotics being used that incorporate the same principles as the war games. Even the aircraft simulators for the computer can help teach you how to fly a plane.
Nothing good comes from games like Grand Theft Auto.