Halo on Xbox

Well, after countless hours of play over the holidays (including being up until 1:00 am with one of my boys), I have concluded that I much prefer the Xbox to the Playstation 2. I resisted the Xbox early on, and made fun of my nephew when he got one instead of the PS2, saying he only did it because he wanted the latest technology. I really didn't expect much of a difference.

I can't really speak to the graphics, as we've been able to play on the big TV in the living room (really up-town for us), but what sold me was the controller. The vibration is much better, and the triggers really add to the playability. This may not be news to anyone who has played with some of the better controllers, but I like it.

Then, last night, I discovered Halo. One of my boys had gotten me ATV Off-Road Fury 3 for PS2 for Christmas, since we had the first two and had spent a lot of time playing it together. But, ATVORF2 was a lot like the first one, so I thought I would take it back and get something for the Xbox, but something we could all play. Well...I know Halo is rated M, and it is very violent, but I have decided it's OK. Many people would disagree with me on that (my boys are 9), but as long as it's not gory, I let them have it. I don't have a problem with violence per se, as many times it is necessary and appropriate. Further, it pisses me off that schools teach that violence is bad, period. There is a word for that philosophy - pacifism. I don't subscribe to it, and must work to undo the brainwashing on the subject they receive at school. Violence only needs to be put into context like many other things in life, and, for my boys, it will be. I have often said that people better hope that my boys don't decide to shoot up their school, because they will know how to do it.

So at 1:00 in the morning, when I finally made him go to bed, we were exhausted. We had been sitting in the dark playing the most realistic video game I had ever seen, on the big TV in the living room for probably four hours straight. It was like being in a movie. It was cool.

Playing Halo as a team with my son. Blowing away aliens. How could you celebrate Christmas any better?

Blogamp

I am interested in Blogamp, a plug-in for Winamp that would allow me to have an updated song playlist on my blog. However, the link seems to have been hacked. Anyone know of another download site? Anyone have any experience with the plug-in? Are there alternatives?

U.N. Says U.S. Stingy

Does this guy look the part of a U.N. geek or what?

But U.N. Undersecretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs Jan
Egeland suggested that the United States and other Western nations were being "stingy" with relief funds, saying there would be more available if taxes were raised.

"'There are several donors who are less generous than before in a growing world economy," he said, adding that politicians in the United States and Europe "believe that they are really burdening the taxpayers too much, and the taxpayers want to give less. It's not true. They want to give more."

There are so many things wrong with this, I don't know where to start. However, I will, for now, focus on two things:

First, I would like to address the arrogance of this statement and of the left in general. After starting my own blog, I have been perusing others for like-minded and alternative views. I have found a couple lefty blogs and the common theme among them is arrogance. They don't get into deep philosophical discussions of right and wrong. Indeed, many of them don't even buy the concept. The fact is, they know what's best for people and, for their own good, the sheeple need to listen. The final sentence of the above quote should really read: "They want to give more, and if they don't, they need to anyway".

Second, following this sort of thinking through any kind of extrapolation is scary. Where does it stop? Can anyone imagine a socialist nanny-state comprised of the whole world, with the U.N. it's caretaker? I understand that a lot of you libs are truly do-gooders and utopians, and want the best for everyone ( and I also understand that some of you are power-hungry megalomaniacs). But can you not see that centralized power is always evil?

The only way is capitalism; with individual freedom and property ownership as it's underpinnings. And the willingness of some to give away their freedoms (and their property) for some promise of security (or, worse, to assuage some sense of guilt) will always be an enigma.

Update - He backs down, but why is there no mention in the story of his comments on taxes? Only his comments about the U.S. being "stingy". Yet another example of the news being framed and covered a certain way. And it's just like MSM to only cover the pop-culture, emotional side of the issue and not it's real import.

Another Blog To Check Out

"From radical leftist, to enlightened conservative, my transformation is now complete."

And a Canuck no less!

Christmas Gifts

Hope everyone got at least something on their list. I received a copy of Sean Hannity's Deliver Us From Evil, and will post a review when I finish. I realize it's not exactly a new book, but some people may not have read it yet. Also, one of my boys got an Xbox with NCAA 2005 from Santa. Pretty cool, but my Ags let me down in the game just as in real life. Oh, well, I haven't gotten into it, but there is probably some kind of career mode. We'll see if I'm any good at recruiting.

Buy or Ration

Gunnar Hegel has an excellent post on Social Security reform, and some very nice things to say about me (a GOPologist? Maybe, but it's easy when they're the only game in town). Much appreciated and I'll be glad to get into budget deficits later, as well as, eventually, the story behind "No Monkeyshine"...

Bush Re-Nominates 20 Judges

"Liberals lambasted Mr. Bush for re-nominating what they called 'extremists.' They viewed the move as a precursor to the Supreme Court battle in which they expect him to nominate justices who would outlaw abortion. "

What are the libs going to do? This is their most sacred of beliefs. A woman's right to choose. They cannot allow this tenet to go down to defeat. They will stop at nothing to derail this train. If you thought the Clarence Thomas proceedings were something, just wait. The judiciary is where these people get things done.

I'm encouraged by this move, as the appointees should be allowed a vote, up or down. Period.

Merry Christmas!

Yes, Merry Christmas. Not Happy Holidays. Not Season's Greetings. Merry Christmas! This Country was founded and built on Christian principles. This holiday was built on the celebration of Christ's birth. If you are not of the Christian faith, then celebrate whatever and however you would like and thank whoever you worship for the freedom to do so. But the fact is, most of the country is Christian. Get over it.

Mosul Bombing

Haven't blogged much as I've been busy, and not really any specific news items at the moment that get my blood pressure up. But I will comment on the bombing of the mess tent in Mosul, Iraq, and the situation in Iraq in general.

Sometimes I am at a loss to understand the left because their views are so distorted to me. The anti-war movement during Vietnam had legitimate concerns and they were a small minority battling conformity, the system, and "the man" that was keeping them down. Now, they are "the man", keeping everyone else down through political correctness and their smug, condescending attitudes toward anyone who disagrees. They control all of the government bureaucracy, all of academia, the main stream press and much of the judicial branch of government.

And what is the nature today of the anti-war movement? What is the source of the passion with which they disagree with our policy in Iraq? How can they be so vehemently opposed to this action? I will admit that I don't understand it, and much of the reason for that is probably our differing perspectives at the start. So, I will try to outline my thoughts and where I come from on the issue. If anyone can explain the nature of their opposition, it would be much appreciated.

First, I don't know if attacking Iraq was the right thing to do or not. But it seemed reasonable and logical enough to me that if that is what the president decided was necessary in the wake of 9/11, I was on board. Why do people act like it was an outrageous act of aggression? Why do they act like Bush made it all up? I don't know about anyone else, but I've been following the news the last several years. I know what Iraq and Hussein represented. The murder, persecution, weapons programs and the threat to the U.S. After 9/11, when the terrorists proved they could hit us, and hit us hard, on our own soil, could we risk a regime like Iraq supplying them with WMD's? Yeah, WMD's. I'll bring it up. Because I remember that everyone knew they were there prior to our going in.

All that being said, the fact is we are in Iraq today. So looking at it currently and where we go from here, I see it this way. What we accomplished in Afghanistan is nothing short of amazing. Does anyone remember Russia's campaign there? Or any of the history of the region? Afghanistan has gone from binLaden's playground to democratic country in less than 5 years. Is it all over and a done deal there? Obviously not, but the progress to date is still remarkable.

As for Iraq, I saw a picture in the paper of some election officials being executed in the street. Election officials. What these people fear most is freedom, and that is the same commodity that helps us the most. What countries have been some of our most staunch allies through this conflict? Eastern Europe. People who value their newly won freedom. I can think of no blow to Islamo-fascism more deadly than democracies sprouting up in the Middle East.

So why is it so hard now to get on board with this effort? Regardless of whether you thought it was the right thing to do in the beginning, how do you not see that seeing it through is now the right thing to do? The Afghans and Iraqis are risking their lives for freedom. We are taking the fight to the enemy. We have accomplished amazing things in a short time period with very few casualties. (Not to mention the fact that we have had no more attacks on our soil. Who would have put money on that on 9/12?).

And yet what do I hear in the news? Rumsfeld has got to go. 20 soldiers were killed in a suicide attack - maybe this is just not worth it. The world hates us. Bush is a moron and a simpleton.

I'm sorry, I guess I'm a simpleton too because I just can't see things that way. Fire the SECDEF after all these accomplishments? 20 soldiers? God bless them and their families, but the loss of 20 soldiers is going to have us questioning our resolve? Bush is a moron? Well, they said the same thing about Reagan as he was bringing the Soviets to their knees. My Christmas wish is that we always have such morons leading the country in times of crisis.

Saturday Night Live

"'Would we have done this to [John] Belushi? [Chris] Farley?' the source said on Sunday from New York. The source asked not to be identified fearing retribution from SNL's executive producer Lorne Michaels. 'We've had more fu**ing drug addicts on this show through the years... more tragedy. I have lost count. Did we ever have some laughs about Robert Downey Jr.'s serious drug addiction?'"

But there is no media bias.

Memo from Dept. of Justice

This memo states the the 2nd Amendment refers to an individual right:

"The Second Amendment's recognition of a "right" that belongs to "the people" indicates a right of individuals. The word "right," standing by itself in the Constitution, is clear. Although in some contexts entities other than individuals are said to have "rights," (37) the Constitution itself does not use the word "right" in this manner. Setting aside the Second Amendment, not once does the Constitution confer a "right" on any governmental entity, state or federal. Nor does it confer any "right" restricted to persons in governmental service, such as members of an organized military unit. In addition to its various references to a "right of the people" discussed below, the Constitution in the Sixth Amendment secures "right[s]" to an accused person, and in the Seventh secures a person's "right" to a jury trial in civil cases. (38) By contrast, governments, whether state or federal, have in the Constitution only "powers" or "authority." (39) It would be a marked anomaly if "right" in the Second Amendment departed from such uniform usage throughout the Constitution.
In any event, any possible doubt vanishes when "right" is conjoined with "the people," as it is in the Second Amendment. Such a right belongs to individuals: The "people" are not a "State," nor are they identical with the "Militia." Indeed, the Second Amendment distinctly uses all three of these terms, yet it secures a "right" only to the "people." The phrase "the right of the people" appears two other times in the Bill of Rights, and both times refers to a personal right, which belongs to individuals. The First Amendment secures "the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances," and the Fourth safeguards "[t]he right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures." In addition, the Ninth Amendment refers to "rights . . . retained by the people." We see no reason to read the phrase in the Second Amendment to mean something other than what it plainly means in these neighboring and contemporaneous amendments. " (ViaInstapundit)

Why I Blog

Let me get this out early on. I am an opinionated SOB. I am also very passionate about our country and it's direction and mostly, about freedom. So, I started this blog to 1) have my opinions heard by more people 2) possibly influence those people and 3) have my views challenged and possibly influenced by others.

Therefore, I am not here to do anything objectively. I'm doing this because I feel that I have the power to make a difference.

Empire State Jumper

his absence has gone unnoticed by the world

That's some sad shit...

When Does Life Begin?

Let's face it. In the U.S. today, what constitutes whether an unborn child is a life or not is whether or not the mother wants the child. If she chooses that she wants the baby, then any harm done to it is a crime. However, if she chooses she does not want it, it is nothing more than tissue mass and may be disposed of at her whim. What is the basis for this? Where does this right originate? Is this what a woman's right to privacy grants her? Maybe I've got it all wrong, but I don't think they would have issued an amber alert for this woman's liver. (Via Drudge)

Texas To Crack Down On Poker Players?

I'm not an attorney, but how exactly do you call something gambling when you don't put up any money? According to dictionary.com gambling is: "To take a risk in the hope of gaining an advantage or a benefit". If entry into a poker tournament is free, what are you risking? What would be the difference in that and a billiards tournament for prizes?

The Apprentice - what a joke

What is it with The Apprentice trotting out Omarosa for the finale tonight? Isn't this show supposedly about business? What business wants a liar and a cheat? Or is it really about celebrity and TV ratings? Seems to me if they were trying to be real world, Omarosa would be truly fired.

And resurrecting the O'Jays? Yeeeesh.

Marc Broussard

I noticed tonight that Marc Broussard, an artist I mentioned in my first post, is having one of his songs used as the theme song to a new TV show. NBC's new series Medium is using his song Home. Way to go Marc! He's a little too overproduced for me, a little too pop-sounding, but talented. Good to see some roots music making it.

Revolvers Outdated?

First, let's address the matter of caliber. The .38 is probably equivalent to the 9mm. However, upgrade the revolver to .357 mag, and you have a far superior caliber. Granted, the recoil from this cartridge is much greater, but I'll address that later.

Now, we can discuss the differences in the weapons themselves:

"The newer guns were easier to reload and held 15 rounds in the magazine and one on the chamber, almost three times as many as the revolver."

Yeah, true, but what does that mean in practical terms? Does it truly matter in real world applications? Later in the article we find the answer:

"To date in 2004, the average number of rounds fired by a single officer in a police shooting is 2.8, down from 4.6 in 2000 and 5.0 in 1995."

This is, after all, police work, not warfare. And I believe that the semi-auto has led to a deterioration in practical shooting skills.

"Detective Tomasa Rodriguez, with the Midtown South precinct, remembered the announcement for everyone with revolvers to step aside to a separate range."

Why? Because revolvers don't lend themselves to the range, which involves shooting many rounds through many reloads. Hence the problem with the magnum recoil mentioned earlier. But as noted earlier, this is not the typical police encounter. The semi-auto, with it's many rounds and ease of reloading, has resulted in a spraying mentality as opposed to the "old school" of making the first shot count. And if the average shots in an encounter is 2.8, the first one may be all you get.

Then there is the matter of reliability. There is essentially nothing to go wrong with a revolver. It is a simple machine. Not the case at all for semi-autos which incorporate many moving parts.

The bottom line is, I still prefer my revolver. If I ever need a pistol in a life and death situation, I want to be certain it is going to function. I want to have stopping power with one shot. And I don't want the thought in the back of my mind that I have plenty of firepower, so forget all the training, and just start spraying lead.

Finally, the article sums up these old timers and their decision to keep their revolvers this way:

"'I hate change.'

'It looks cool.'"

This is what the author thinks of these police veterans that have put their lives on the line every day for years? That the decision of which weapon best suits their needs to possibly save their own lives or the lives of others is how it looks on their hip?

I think it is the younger crowd that is more concerned with appearances and image. I think the summary of the article can be found in this quote:

"the department switched from revolvers to semiautomatics, primarily to meet the advanced weaponry carried by criminals and dispel the perception that the officers were outgunned." (emphasis mine)

My Horoscope for Tomorrow

The spirit of invention is alive. It’s too bad the rest of the world isn’t ready for you. You’re doing this for you, happy that you still have the touch. Eventually others will see you for the genius you are.

Chevy Chase: Bush Started a Jihad

Do these people actually believe this drivel? Or do they think that by being as extreme as possible they will scare people into their camp? I have trouble responding to this kind of crap because it's like arguing with someone that the world is not flat. Where to begin?

Further, I believe that this type of ranting about a president indicts the entire country. This is not a dictatorship. No president is free to act on his own. Congress, made up of the peoples' elected representatives, authorized the use of the military and funded it. Chase is not accusing Bush of starting a Jihad, but the United States of America. And as a Bush supporter, a supporter of the war on terror (all of its fronts), and a proud American, I take deep personal offense to that charge.

Peterson Trial Is Over

The Peterson trial is finally over. A crime was committed. A trial was held. The verdict was guilty. The sentence was death. Do any of you losers who have been following it like it was Days of Our Lives feel a little let down by the whole thing?

From instapundit:

Instapundit.com: "MORE MPAA LAWSUITS PLANNED, this time against BitTorrent and eDonkey."

Though I couldn't care less about the MPAA, it does bring to mind the lawsuits being carried out by the recording industry, which I do care about. I don't blame them for the suits, and I have stopped downloading music peer-to-peer. I never felt right about it anyway, as many of the artists I listen to will never get any air time on the radio and need every dollar they can get.

However, as long as the recording industry continues to blame file sharing for all their problems, they will remain in their slump for some time. I'm not saying it isn't an issue, but it is not the only, and maybe not even the biggest, reason for the recording industry's decline.

I stopped listening to music years ago, when Rush Limbaugh started to make it big and talk radio emerged. I was raised on country music and love it, along with the blues and roots rock. And in the 90's you couldn't find that stuff on the radio to save your life. Country was co-opted by pop, rock had splintered into punk, grunge, hip-hop, alternative. Roots music was dead.

MTV had a lot to do with this transformation. As I heard a DJ ask once, "Don't fat chicks make music anymore?". The recording industry had abandoned any pretense at finding and marketing good music, and were now into marketing a package. The look, the image, the style, the attitude is what mattered. Mediocre music could be made a hit with the right music video.

The real audiophiles like myself were left in the cold. It was on finding a maverick radio station in Dallas - KHYI - that I realized there was still good music being written, performed and recorded. You just had to dig for it. Now, with the internet, satellite radio, digital satellite tv, etc., it can be heard.

The biggest threat to the recording industry is not file sharing, it is the same as the threat to MSM: choice. People don't have to listen to local radio and be served up the industry's lowest common denominator, packaged-up crap. And this means that the recording industry might have to (gasp!) respond to the market and appeal to a broader audience than the 12-25 crowd. Have the record execs ever considered that it's not that the industry has responded to the only demographic that buys music, but that the demographic buying music is the only one being marketed to?

My First Post On My First Blog!

Getting ready for the big day - 1/1/05. That's the first day of the rest of my life. Listening to Marc Broussard, Jesse Dayton (Talkin' Bobby Dale's Hard Luck Blues - cool!), Mary Gauthier. Playing some Paradise Poker and holding my own, and trying to avoid my job until the new year. What's going on in the real world?