Colin Powell did not deserve that Posted
Wednesday, September 4, 2002 by wlofie
Colin Powell heckled
The above is NOT cool. Everyone should be allowed their say, without being harrassed for it, especially at a UN convention. Powell didn't deserve this, had it been Bush on the podium he STILL wouldn't have deserved it. Worst case, save the heckling till after and throw your "literary rotten tomatoes" then, don't do it in the middle of a presentation. When I say Bush wouldn't have deserved it, I mean the interrupting and hecking. The critisism he would deserve in my eyes. Colin Powell isn't the Potus, he doesn't make all the decisions.
Seems to me that he is one of the few that _has_ kept a cool and collected, and thinking head. His way of handling the situation said more for him than for the protestors. He just fell silent, and waited, and bit down on the (most likely very pissed off) comments he had when they didn't quiet down. He was unfortunately (and he was aware of this) the recipient of a lot of abuse that shouldn't have hit him, it should have hit Bush and some others.
He was aware of this, it's saddening that he was the representative subjected to this though.
After not signing the Kyoto agreement, standing up in-front of enviromentalist groups from all over the world and claiming "we are commited to decrease the global warming" isn't really the smartest statement to make.
I wonder if Colin was allowed to write that speech himself or if it was bottled from the whitehouse, as in "say this", if it was, my respect for C Powell rises even more, he must have KNOWN they would heckle him and still he went up there and said his piece.
Mr.Powell, you partially restore and keep my faith in the American government. The biggest loss for the Bush administration will be that you will not be there for an eventual second term.
I will say that if there is a second Bush term, you need not worry, I'm sure Bush jr will find some way of blowing up the world outside of America, or at least making it into a puppet area for him to piss on during the eventual second term, after all, he has made such a good start.
I will also say that despite the hecklers and boos in South Afrika, know this Mr.Powell: You are the calmness and intelligence that many people outside of USA look to for a bit of sanity in a mad-dog cowboy, "gee wiz dad, i got a gun can i shoot someone? please, huh huh huh????" government
So, for today SHAME on all you who couldn't keep your protests till after, or done them before. SIT your asses down, listen to the man, and then argue debate or complain to the persons who deserve it.
I will say this, so far Bush has done more damage to USA's international contacts than any president, and a second term might do even more, unless Bush promises and delivers an extra car, extra job, extra mistress or what ever you want and plenty of it. I suggest you drop your vote somewhere else. I hear Donald Duck ain't doing too much and he's got a more cool and level head.
Again, Mr.Powell, in diplomacy style means a lot, so does class, and you showed them both to the level of shaming the hecklers, and even if the hecklers didn't understand that, the world did.
I'm not going into the political content of the speech which I largely don't agree with, but the style points are given.
wlofie
politics and patriotism Posted
Tuesday, September 3, 2002 by wlofie
I often wonder about Patriotism (yes, with a capital P). Is Patriotism really a total acceptance, without complaint, of everything in your country?
Isn't Patriotism the love of one's country?
And if it is, doesn't love include the trust and responsibility to tell someone you love when they are messing up or risk messing up (constructive criticism)?
I know I appreciate it when my wife tells me I'm about to do something dumb, I might not appreciate it at the time immediately, but after thought I mostly appreciate it, and even if I don't agree with it. I respect and appreciate the concern for me that was included in it.
So how can one be unpatriotic by pointing out sick things in a country one loves?
I'm not talking "slam the country", I’m talking "look guys, I’ve had a look-see at this and it doesn’t add up...it's no good, it's bad for us and our country, we need to fix this for our country to be a better place"
Isn't that more like the family doctor who has over years built a care, trust relationship with you and has to tell you, stop drinking or you'll end up in an early grave.
You might hate hearing you drink too much, you might hate giving it up, you might hate him interfering in what you perceive to be your business (actually it's also his, you pay him to keep you healthy remember?), you might hate hearing you'll die!
But would you respect a doc who saw you dying and just shrugged and went out to do another 18 holes before lunch? I know I would not.
Patriotism in a country that has freedom of speech and of thought will always include a certain amount of constructive criticism.
*Wow*, that sounded good, classify it wlofie rule of politics #1.
Let's see if I can follow that up *g*
In a democracy, the will of the majority officially rules, thus to change anything you need to make the majority aware of your thoughts and ideas and make them think about them and maybe see the sense of them.
*Wow* classify it rule #2
Ok, so while I'm on a roll I'll try for a third one.
To make people think about or agree with, your thoughts, many techniques have been utilized.
Bribery
Threats
Blackmail
Lobbying (in some cases falling into the categories above)
Argumentation
Humour, sarcasm and irony
Bribery isn't a good option unless you are rich or very very sexy.
Threats aren't very good unless you have some dirt on someone or if you are very skilled.
Blackmail is like Threats
Lobbying needs a lot of money and demands that the people you lobby “at” are either interested already or will potentially gain an open-minded interest.
Argumentation is very much like Lobbying, it does need a large forum and someone to answer your arguments, i.e. you need the "opposing side" to reply and accept you. This weakens the political power of your argumentations in that they can just ignore you away.
Humour, sarcasm and irony, these are well known and old, they don't need much money, they don't need sex appeal, they don't need much dirt on someone, and you don't need to be accepted by the opponent.
Add to that, that the human mind is more suggestible and open when laughing or angry, and that it also tends to think more about and remember things it has read which caused it to become more emotional and we have a winner.
The downside is that writing takes skill, then again so does any argumentation, verbal communication takes skill, it's a fact of life, get used to it.
so for rule number #3
In a Free speech society, you might need to use satire, irony and humour to provoke an emotional response that makes your targeted audience think about the message you wish to get across.
Now put these into effect:
I want to change BLAHA
I write a sarcastic entry about BLAHA
Am I being unpatriotic in writing something harsh about BLAHA?
NO!
I'm writing to make other people go "hmm he's right, that isn't good" or "hmm he's wrong, that is good" any which way I get a debate going, and people thinking about it, they are now no longer "unaware voting sheep" they are "political issue aware voters with an interest".
Hey presto! Cool isn't it?
Ok so this was supposed to be about Patriotism...
Now, if I criticize (politically, not personally) a politician in charge, and get told I'm unpatriotic for doing so. I'll have to start wondering:
The basis for our country is democracy and freedom of speech and thought, by using these foundations of our country to try to improve the country am I really being unpatriotic?
Isn't it actually the case that the person protecting the Politician is being unpatriotic in going against the foundation of the country?
Isn't advocating censorship in a free speech and thought society unpatriotic?
Isn't it actually in fact a way of saying, I hate how this country works even at the most basic level!
Well, you are welcome to say that, go for it, don't expect me to listen.
I will not write things (I will try NOT to) that endanger people (as in telling where a soldier is located in enemy territory). I will not write about things that endanger the security of the state. I will not write things to incite against a religion, race or people as a whole.
But aside from that, what ever I write is not subject to censorship, I'm a thinking voter in a democratic freedom of thought and speech society, and will exercise my rights.
Actually, freedom isn't a right. It's a responsibility.
Freedom is the responsibility to stay up to date and informed on issues that affect you, and to make informed choices on them when voting or debating.
Sheep are comfortable, they don't have to vote, read, think or take responsibility, they are comfortable all the way to the slaughter house, but they actually shouldn't complain, they made a free choice to give up their right to change the political line of the leaders of their country.
Free people aren't comfortable, they however are free to complain, affect and tell their leaders, this far, NO MORE! Enough is enough!
This was supposed to be about patriotism only and ended up a wider range, so be it.
wlofie
let's keep the comments in the newspro talkback, thanks
Comments (0)
Title: Stupid White Men (and other excuses for the state of the nation) Posted
Tuesday, September 3, 2002 by wlofie
Title: Stupid White Men (and other excuses for the state of the nation)
Author: Michael Moore
Publisher: ReganBooks
Published: 2001
Genre: Comedy/Social Satire
ISBN: 0-06-039245-2
Michael Moore is a, well read his homepage http://www.michaelmoore.com/
This book is a political satire, a poison penned in your face. It pokes fingers at everyone including Michael Moore. If the statistics in this book are even 10% correct and not quoted completely out of context. I'd say be afraid, be very afraid.
It may make you laugh, it may make you angry, or sad, or scared or all of them, but I think the point is that no matter which of these it makes you, it will make you THINK, and that is what is needed in all of the world.
Personally I liked this book, it may be a bit over the top poisonous, then again so can I be. It may be nasty, but it is so in the way a gruff old doctor can be gruff with a patient he cares for.
Just the example of an "within the country" American airline pilot making less money than some kids at Taco Bell had me going "hmmm".
I found it well worth reading.
wlofie
Jedi Knight II, Jedi Outcast Posted
Monday, September 2, 2002 by wlofie
Jedi Knight II, Jedi Outcast
Company or person making it: Lucas Art / Activision
Distribution url: N/A
Size of download: N/A
Support url: http://www.lucasart.com
Genre: First Person Themed Shoot/sword-em-up
Test Computer: Celeron 1.8Ghz, 128mb ram, 64meg geforce 4 graphics card
---
The graphics are much prettier than in Jedi Knight I and Dark Forces. The sound and music are improved too. The movement system is less precise than in JK I. But the sword duelling and "force power" system is more suited to those, who like me, want to play the game as a Jedi and not a guncrazed ex-stormtrooper.
The Shooter weapons are not as good, the trip/proximity mines was a nice addition, the detonation pack modification from time delay to "push the detonator button" was also welcome and the auto sentries and binoculars were welcome additions. The seeker drones are pretty much worthless for a Jedi (I define a jedi as someone who uses mostly the light saber once he gets it). The sniper rifle is a nice addition. mostly though, one can tell that the single player levels aren't where the effort got placed in making this game.
This game seems designed to be played multiplayer. It shows in single player mode.
The levels in single player in JK I were good and had logical puzzles, here they are partially illogical and trial and error.
The game breaks my prime directive when it comes to games:
For a game to be playable and enjoyable, The player should be able to (if they are really good) play it from one end to the other without needing to save or die. I dunno about lucasarts but most human heroes in real life only has the one life.
Having said that, it is a fun game and the jedi forces and multiple sword duels make it good enjoyment, but too easy if one saves the game often. Less than a week is way too little enjoyment for the money.
I'd like to be able to make the choice "good or bad jedi, also the choice of what force to put my "force studying" into, and have the light saber skill depend on how much it's used.
All in all jedi knight II while good was a bit of a let down from JK I.
It's prettied up but only the lightsaber duelling saves it from a total write down from me.
wlofie
Jedi-Ism gains more followers: Posted
Monday, September 2, 2002 by wlofie
Sydney
Jedi religion is the fastest growing belief in Australia, judging by the last census.
More than 70 000 Australians have stated Jedi-ism, known from the Star wars movies, as their religion. This makes Jedi-ism almost as large as the salvation army and just 13 000 believers smaller than Judaism.
The census office doubt that many of the Jedi-ists actually believe in the science fiction religion.
Right before the census an email circulated the continent with the message that if a religion gets at least 10 000 registered followers it will automatically become an officially recognized religion.
The authorities strongly suspect that many just call them selves Jedi-ist as a joke.
from TT-DPA
Translated by wlofie