Jack's Blog

Carville, Begala and Zimmerman

Jack — Sat, 26 Jan 2008 15:12:00 GMT

The link: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/01/24/carville-begala-temporar_n_83174.html

So, from the Huffington Post, quoted in its entirity for hilariousness:

Okay, this is interesting. I've just learned that CNN has told top Dem strategists James Carville, Paul Begala, and Robert Zimmerman -- who are CNN mainstays but are all Hillary supporters -- that they will not be doing any more political analysis on the network until the Democratic primary has reached a conclusion.

I'm also told that this move came after the Obama campaign repeatedly complained to high level officials at CNN about the presence of Carville and Begala on the network.

Incredible. One little event that gives countless insights into the utter corruption of the MSM.

Obviously, when it's the Democrat's primary, CNN is concerned about unduly influencing the results with partisan commentators. The rest of the time, no problem.

The first question I have to ask: If Hillary happens to win the Democratic nomination, will Carville, Begala and Zimmerman be banned form commenting through the end of the Presidential election? I think we all know that's not going to be the case.

So that gives a little insight into CNN's outlook, and the outlook of the MSM in general. It's proof that they're aware that their commentators have a bias, that this bias can influence the outcomes of elections, and that they think it's acceptable to silence voices in order to remove bias.

So what does this mean?

They know their commentators have a bias: The MSM loves to keep up a facade of impartiality and objectivity, but everyone outside the far left fringe knows they're just the propaganda wing of the Democratic party. The only question is whether you find this bias disgusting (as I do) or you just think they're telling the truth (as my parents do). Regardless, this move by CNN is a tacit admission that they know they're not impartial or objective. Instead, they employ partisan hacks to do their commentary. And these aren't just left leaning people. They aren't just former Democrat staffers. These guys (Carville and Begala) were primary figures in Bill Clinton's run for President. That's how far from impartiality and objectivism CNN is. They employ people who are probably the two biggest Clinton cheerleaders in the entire world. It's literally as close as they could get to letting the Clintons themselves comment on the Clintons.

They think it's acceptable to silence voices in order to remove bias: The left's double standard on free speech is incomprehensibly stupid. When an arm of their own party is silencing a viewpoint that's “interesting.” When anybody else fails to trumpet their views from the rooftops, that's “Orwellian censorship and shredding the Bill of Rights.” Or whatever hyperbolic stupidity they come up with at the time. Imagine the outrage if this move was made during a national Presidential election. In the end, just one more example of the utopia the left has planned for us. One where your freedom of speech will be protected by silencing anybody who doesn't promote free speech. The left doesn't value free speech, it's just a rhetorical tool to them. Your rights exist so long as they can use them they're useful to lib speechwriters.

In any case, the precedent has been set at CNN. Let's all chuckle as they discard it in time for the Presidential election.

Call of Duty 4 (9/10)

Jack — Sun, 30 Dec 2007 23:07:00 GMT

I got a new video card, an 8800GT based XFX card overclocked to 670mhz. It's a pretty great card, especially for the money, and it runs COD4 like crazy. Even with pretty high detail, it seems to be able to sustain 60+ FPS easily, usually more like 90.

That's also really what makes COD4 impressive in my eyes. I've been playing Crysis as well, and my machine struggles with it. COD4 is not the graphical masterpiece Crysis is, nor is it nearly as open ended, but it's still very nice graphically, and it plays FAST. The COD4 engine might be a step or two behind Crysis in terms of features, but it seems a step or two ahead in terms of efficiency.

The single player game in COD4 is solid. The story is surprisingly depressing and casualty laden, but there are some pretty good moments. Flying as a gunner in a Specter gunship looked just like all the YouTube videos of gun camera footage, I was totally blown away how well the engine rendered it, and made it feel like the real thing looks. The missions in Chernobyl were impressively atmospheric, and show how S.T.A.L.K.E.R should have looked, but didn't.

In general the missions are challenging, but not too hard, a bit cartoonish on the volume of killing going on, but effective overall. There're enough different features worked in, from wounded enemies limping, or falling and pulling their pistol, that there will definitely be moments that seem very cinematic, which I think has been a goal of the COD series all along.

Given the briefness of the single player campaign, and the obvious efforts put into the multiplayer, I tend to think this was their ultimate focus for the game. And multiplayer is tough for me to rate.

On one hand, there's a very rich set of options there. As you play you gain rank and experience and unlock new weapons, weapon upgrades, and personal upgrades called “perks.” Tons of different weapon models and skins are on display, all nicely done. There are a bunch of different mission types, the usual team deathmatch, plant and defuse bombs, hold map positions, etc. etc. There are different realism levels from “hardcore” where you have only iron sights to aim with, and single shots usually kill you, to a more cartoonish version where leaping around spraying with SMGs works far, far too well.

On the other hand, I find it to be totally frustrating to play, and in the end, very unrewarding. At some point I may have to accept that I'm getting too old and slow, or something along those lines, but I tended to just get beat up in this game. I just don't find any of the modes particularly fun. They're either too hectic and pointless, or too drawn out and slow. I guess I've never really been a twitch player, I've always gotten by on maneuvering and situational awareness, not on being fast with the mouse. I was able to use that skillset to dominate the Battlefield games, but in COD4, I'm a perpetual victim.

In the hectic game modes, COD4 seems to have some sort of rolling spawn system so that you're generally spawning surrounded by friendlies. This is nice, in that you rarely get spawn camped, but ultimately I don't think it works, since it means that the enemy can be coming from anywhere, and you can never really flank them. I've never been shot in the back so many times as I was in this game, and it's really not a case of making mistakes, the enemy simply is appearing behind you. I applaud the developers for trying to find a way to get rid of spawn camping, but if the cost is a game with no tactical logic to it, no meaning to maneuvering, it's a cost not worth paying.

All in all, I found the multiplayer to just be totally wrong in some way I have to ultimately blame on myself. I'm not arrogant or liberal enough to pretend the whole world is wrong except for me, but this game sure did feel that way. I certainly missed my fair share of shots, and cursed my clumsy aim, but a LOT more often than that, I found myself wonder what in holy hell I could do better to get myself the kill.

Ultimately the multiplayer component of this game is like Counterstrike++. It's got even more potential for greatness, and yet it's even EVEN more infuriatingly inexplicable. It's an endless parade of getting the jump on a guy, laying into him, and having him somehow turn around and kill you. It's a constant festival of grenades being thrown blind and smoking you. The game includes a killcam to show you what the other guy saw as he took you out, and I was endlessly amazed by how little they were doing, how poor their aim was, how often they were just guessing with their grenades, and yet beating me out pretty consistently.

On a few servers I also got the strong impression that people were cheating. Their killcam footage showed ultra-precise aiming, even while hopping, and never making any use of the weapon's sights, which the game generally requires for accurate aim. COD4 uses Punkbuster for cheat prevention, which appears to be an industry standard, but given that I had to jump through hoops to get it installed, and I've had trouble with it in the past, I tend to think it's a piece of crap that doesn't work.

The multiplayer maps are a mixed bag. Some are pretty good, some are utterly terrible. All are a bit too small, and artificially boxed in. By and large, I'd consider the map design in multiplayer to be a definite weak spot.

All in all, COD4 is a very nice engine with a lot of nice content. The multiplayer experience so totally soured me to the game that I find it hard to be as positive as I should for this review, because the game is very good at its core.

James McHaney...

Jack — Mon, 03 Dec 2007 21:22:00 GMT

The link: http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2007/1203072senate1.html

So, just to be sure it's clear, anybody associated with a Republican who gets caught for soliciting gay sex, big news. Lots of stories about Bob Allen, a McCain supporter, who solicited gay sex from an adult. Not nearly so much coverage of a staffer for Democrat Senator Maria Cantwell. Not even when he describes having anal sex with a 13 year old boy as “hot.”

Now, granted, this is merely a staff member, while Bob Allen is/was a state rep, but he wasn't trying to have anal sex with a 13 year old boy.

Republican gay sex scandals: huge news.

Democrat gay sex scandals: not news.

In fact, how dare you pry into their private lives?

A new direction...

Jack — Sat, 01 Dec 2007 15:51:00 GMT

The link: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22054151/

The Democrats love to talk about how they're going to take things in a new direction. What they're less likely to mention, is that their awesome new direction involves more government and more bureaucracy. What they're yet more and yet still more unlikely to mention is that they've had control of the House and Senate since the last election, and they're doing almost nothing at all.

Now look at how these fuckwits are handling their own primary. “Democratic leaders voted Saturday to strip Michigan of all its delegates to the national convention next year as punishment for scheduling an early presidential primary in violation of party rules.”

That's right. These idiots, who think that government is the answer to all ills, can't even run their own primary process withing infighting, confusion, and disenfranchisement of their constituents.

I can't say it enough: The only people I hate more than Republicans are Democrats.

Look at these miserable douchebags. They can't even run a primary correctly. They're literally looking for ways to lose elections that only they participate in.

The Black KKK...

Jack — Sat, 01 Dec 2007 11:39:00 GMT

The link: http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/7499442

I really admire Jason Whitlock. In this day and age, for a black man to even begin to ask the questions he asks, it takes real courage. In the old days, speaking out against racism could get you blacklisted and ruined. These days, failing to worship at the alter of political correctness, failing to blame white racism for all problems confronting American blacks, that is what can get you blacklisted and ruined.

Whitlock came out before any arrests were made, and said with confidence that Sean Taylor's killers would be black. We see now that 3 of the 4 accused are indeed black (one appears to be Latino).

I really admire Whitlock for putting his neck out there like that, and for being right when he did. I admire a guy who can remind his own race of their hatred for the KKK, even as they now terrorize and murder themselves worse than the KKK ever did.

“But we don't want to deal with ourselves. We take great joy in prescribing medicine to cure the hate in other people's hearts. Meanwhile, our self-hatred, on full display for the world to see, remains untreated, undiagnosed and unrepentant.”

Whitlock is 100% correct here. But I wish he would go further. I wish he'd see the big picture with more clarity. He blames rap music for the problems black people face. I think this is merely a symptom. I believe the real problem facing black Americans is that they're the ultimate realization of the poisonous effects of American socialism. Until black people fully realize the horrible damage that has been inflicted upon them by the Democrats, they will never be able to improve their lives.

No other block of people votes more consistently Democrat than black people. And no other block of people votes more consistently Republican than Mormons. Which group of people is happier, more successful, has stronger family structure? It's not like Mormons are well liked or treated in this country. People feel very free to mock their beliefs and call them crazy at every opportunity. But in the end, they're the ultimate realization of Republican ideals. They value faith, family, hard work and self-reliance. Mormons may seem a little goofy or gullible, but they're happy, they're stable and they're successful.

Socialism is poison. At the core of Democrat ideology is the idea that everyone is a victim, nobody can care for themself, and everyone needs the government to intervene on their behalf. Black people are told, endlessly, by the Democrats that they are hated, that they have no opportunity to succeed, that they need government programs to get by. They are the perfect realization of the Democrat ideology. Create helpless, self-loathing dependants, and convince them that they need you to survive. You're guaranteed votes forever.

Or, at least until people like Jason Whitlock start to realize what you're doing to his people. You're getting there, Jason. You're starting to see the big picture. You're clearly a smart guy to see through the bullshit that's been forced on you since birth. You're clearly a brave guy to go against the Uncle Tom Machine that demonizes and destroys anybody who doesn't toe the liberal line on race in America.

But rap isn't the problem. Rap is just a symptom.

Socialism is the problem. A self-perpetuating nanny-state is the problem. The Democrats are the problem. Democrat pawns like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton are the problem.

Gears of War (8/10)

Jack — Sat, 24 Nov 2007 21:49:00 GMT

I struggled with this game initially, because I couldn't accept that I had to play it on the lowest difficulty setting. After getting over that mental block, I had a lot of fun with it.

Gears of War is a third person shooter that ends up playing a lot like a first person shooter, but with the benefits of getting to see your character run around the world in all his beefy glory. With so many shooters on the market, so many attempts at new gameplay ideas, it's hard to come up with much new that's worth having. Gears of War manages to streamline and make good on a mechanic that other games have tried to varying degrees, and add a few wrinkles of its own.

At the core of GoW is the cover mechanic. Your character will lean against doorframes, crouch behind low walls, and lean in and out of these cover elements in a relatively seamless and intuitive fashion. There are certainly moments where this can go wrong, and you find yourself sticking to something you didn't intend to, or failing to take cover when you'd want to, but for the most part it works well. It creates a sense of tactical movement, and indeed forces the player to use cover, to move tactically, to suppress the enemy, and not to just run around blasting at things. When this mechanic works, it really works, and all the fun, memorable sections of this game revolve around it.

Another nice touch is the rapid reload mechanic. A little timing bar appears under your weapon on your HUD as you reload, and if you hit your reload button at the right time, you can reload faster, or even gain a damage bonus. Hit it at the wrong time, and your character will fumble the reload, taking even longer, and cursing his failure. It's not hard to get used to, but it adds another element to gunfights, creates another point of rythym, so that when a player is on top of things and in control, they feel the reloads, and when they're out of sorts and hurried, they lose it.

Graphics are also very good, both technically and artistically. The big beefy character models are great, and the cartoony facial animations are effective and interesting. The world is very detailed and immersive. My system felt a bit overtaxed at times, but I made no effort to tune the settings to get better performance. It was a bit choppy, but not unplayable. The game really looks great, and feels solid and gritty. I was particularly impressed by the bouncing, chaotic feel produced as your character races forward with his head down, avoiding fire. It's a cleverly realistic simulation of the tunnel vision one experiences in such a situation.

The weapons are good, although perhaps a bit feeble, as it often requires extended assault rifle bursts to down even basic enemies, although blind firing around cover, or letting loose from the hip can be bloody and fun. The Torque Bow is also particularly fun to use.

All the good news aside, GoW does have a few issues which keep it from being perfect.

One is that it leans too heavily on the “babysit the AI” mechanic that squad based games suffer from. Your squadmates are fairly useless, and fairly brainless, often running into situations that get them killed quickly. This is less of an issue on lower difficulty settings, where they're also less vital to your success, but it's still an annoyance. They never actually die, but they will lay there and moan at you until you come over to help them. In a game that's generally top notch, they're awfully brainless.

Another issue is the occasional gimmick fights that are frustrating to deal with, and generally add nothing to the gameplay. The fights with the blind Berserker enemies are a particularly good example. Periodically the run and gun gameplay will be interrupted by a scene in which a Berseker shows up, a monster you can't kill with your normal weapons, and you have to somehow fool it into a special tricky way of getting killed. The trick is obvious immediately, but getting it pulled off is incredibly tiresome, especially with your squadmate randomly letting the Berseker kill him (this is one way your squadmate can actually die).

The biggest issue is the difficulty settings. There are only three levels, Casual, Hardcore and Insane. Initially Hardcore is very doable, but rapidly becomes pointlessly difficult. Casual is generally too easy, but at times challenging, particularly later in the game. A big part of this game is to play in co-op mode with another player. This explains why the Hardcore and Insane levels are there. With another human, instead of the extremely lackluster AI, Hardcore would be very doable, and (I presume) Insane as well. But, considering that the difficulty settings seem to mainly effect damage taken and damage dealt, there's really no reason for not having a finer level of tuning, certainly something between Casual and Hardcore.

All in all GoW is a great game, one that sets new trends and creates new ideas in the genre. Its issues are comparatively minor, but so unnecessary and easily avoided that they really stuck out for me.

Frank Herbert has LSD for blood...

Jack — Sat, 24 Nov 2007 21:09:00 GMT

Hussain loves the Dune series, by Frank Herbert. A lot. The more I read it, the more I realize that it's a formative influence on his whole entire shit. I was prepared to share in his enthusiasm after reading the first book, but then I had the misfortune of reading the next two (Dune Messiah and Children of Dune). Hussain seems to agree that these books try the patience, which is strange since he loves them, but he's an English Major, so maybe he enjoys books that feel like pulling teeth. Maybe thats a challenge or something. If that's the case, then he should read more Gene Wolfe, cause that dude is about as insane as Frank Herbert, but somehow a lot less intolerable.

In any case, I thought I would blog a Herbert simulation, which is basically exactly what the entire second half of Children of Dune sounds like:

Leto pressed his consciousness against the wall of voices that rose and fell like the fluttering froth of a roiled sea, and felt them give way to a new perception, a pleux d'gleubloix of half-truths, truths, and something beyond truth, which flitted at the edge of vision, like moths around a sietch glowglobe. For a moment, Leto drifted above this awareness, lost in the time-place, when he found himself plunging into a vision of a girl, making spice coffee, sitting on a spice mat, surrounded by spice cushions and old spice receipts from past spicy spice purchases. The melange seemed to be everywhere, part of everything, past-present, present-past, now-past, now-now, and now-past-present now. Beyond her the emerald waving of pampas grass was dappled with a silver dusting of sunlight, as she gazed out over the open bled, which I always italicize for reasons that only the spice trance can possibly fucking explain. She sang to herself, another one of those tuneless, totally impossible to imagine songs that are sprinkled throughout this series.

I come to you my love
Dying as we did live
Beside the pampas grass

And you did grind the beans
Like so many lives reclaimed
Beside the pampas grass

And this adds nothing to the story
Nor explains any of the trippy bullshit I've been inflicting on you for going on five hundred pages
Beside the pampas grass

Once again the inner memories washed over Leto's consciousness and spun him around, bubbles seething across his eyes, and leaving him deposited back on the open bled. His mouth felt dry, and the flinty smell of sand, mixed with the cinnamon scent of melange greeted him. His eyes tracked along the rock formation that the Fremen called Quirz al-Ashemmi in the old tongue, which meant “more Arabic sounding bullshit,” but when said with a Choksoba lilt, and the twist of eyebrow which implied that one was speaking to a nephew or first cousin in a situation involving three legged seating accomodations, such as a stool, or low backed chair, it would mean “the same rock formation I've mentioned several times previously, but you don't know why.”

Abruptly, the presence of the lumpen Gurney Halleck conjoined itself with Leto's awareness, and the inkvine scar on his jaw writhed like Shai-hulud as he spoke. “It's page 475, child. Don't you think it's time you proved to me that there's at least some semblance of a plot to this book, or some point to the parched expanse of hallucinations and meaninglessness you've made me sit through?” His hand crept to his crysknife in a way that would imply tension, if you had any idea what in holy hell was going on.

In that moment, with Gurney impatiently checking his chronothopter, it all became clear to Leto. Time wasn't a dimension at all, but a perception of all things equivocal and impermanent, as those things interpose themselves on a backdrop of the self, the spice, the now. The now, as a representation of the self, which for Leto was a many-self, a composite of past selves, numerous to innumerability, but captured in one friendly liege, known only as Huflungpoo. And so it was then that Leto knew he was ready to proceed the plot, at long last, so we can stop wasting our time in this ridiculous peyote fueled vision quest. He turned a smiling, sun blushed face up to Gurney.

“You think me a child? I am so much more. I am the memories of the past, the vision of the future, the incredible disinterest of the now. Gurney! Gurney! Can you see the gift I will give to you? The possibilities I remove and the probabilities I create? Now, quickly, my old friend, old self, let's have a strange non-conversation, in which you use your knife as a visual aid to convey the fine line I'm walking with my words, and the tension of this scene which can only be appreciated by the drug addled mind which authored it!”

Halleck's hand tensed on his crysknife, and he withdrew it enough that Leto could see the sun glinting from a hair's breadth of worm tooth. “Watch what you say,” Gurney growled, “my loyalty is with the Lady Jessica, and I'm going to respond aggressively to the nonsense you just barfed up.”

Leto smoothed the sand at his side, felt its flinty taste at the back of his pallete, caught up a handfull and let if fall between his fingers. “Time, Gurney. Like sand. Like water. Like spice. J'ete plus de les stylo sur la table! Plus de les stylos! That was French Gurney. And in italics. I know now how to advance the plot, Gurney. Indicate a reduction in tension, again via your kife.”

Gurney seemed satisfied, and the glint of wormtooth disappeared. “Aye, lad, I'm a warrior and a lutemaster. But I play the lute a ton, and never ever fight. Now speak the words I need to hear in order to advance the plot.”

Leto dusted his hands on his thighs, and let understanding come to him. PSYCHE! He didn't understand it at all! Back to acid trip! If you skip ahead, you might miss something that explains why Hussain likes this crap! And then you'd also have wasted your time, because you missed the point! So, next paragraph, sucker! You lose, acid wins!

Leto felt his conscious slip parallel to the timeflow, but outside it, watching a million Gurney Hallecks, a million possible outcomes, so many resulting in a crysknife, point first buried under his chin, so many terrible purposes, like the spice threads on a sietch loom, clattering and scraping against one another, terrifying Leto with their persistance, their certainty, their impossibility. Leto felt the father-presence rise up to him, dark and warm, comforting him. Use caution, my son. The paths are many, and singular. Never forget that inner voices use italics, and not quotes, as it was decreed by Ibn Harq.

Gurney Halleck watched the child's eyes roll back in his head, and blew out a disgusted snort. “I'm going to go play Gears of War, this is fucking bullshit.”

Splendor...

Jack — Sun, 18 Nov 2007 22:36:00 GMT

The link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dgi5ESpueX8&feature=related

Thanks to Hussain for finding a video that so nicely captures this event.

Here's a link that covers the story in more detail.

This whole thing is a serious hoot, starting off with the fact that these idiots are blocking equipment that's returning from Iraq. They want to stop the war in Iraq, so they're blocking equipment from returning to base in the US. Should the military just dump it overboard at sea? No, then you'd be out in an inflatable dinghy protesting the environmental impact.

First off, the video. Some real highlights for me:

“The people united will never be defeated.” Their initial chant, is very inspiring for them, I'm sure. I guess in dipshit-speak “the people” means “roughly a hundred children all under the age of 25.”

The cops start pepper spraying the wall of protestors. One of them starts yelling: “That's an illegal use of force. You are under arrest, sir.” To a cop, he says this. Apparently he's a legal scholar. And apparently pepper spray is “force.” And apparently yelling makes you correct.

“Whose streets? Our streets! Whose ports? Our ports!” Really? Yours? Cause you're an American? Are the cops not Americans? Is it not also the cops ports and streets? Or even moreso? Cause, see, the cops, being that they're cops, have a job. Which means they pay taxes. Which means it's most definitely “their streets” and “their ports.” But you, protestor guy? You're about 22, and you probably don't have a job. How exactly does any of this stuff belong to you?

“Medic! Medic!” Hussain pointed this one out for me. I wouldn't have noticed it, but it's cute. When they get pepper sprayed, a pre-planned cry of “medic” arises from the protestors. Traditionally this is something a soldier might say when he's been severely injured. Say, a bullet has shattered his femur. Or and explosion has shredded off his arm. But, hey, I bet getting pepper sprayed is almost as bad, right? Sure. You guys are soldiers too, only on the side of justice!

“Shame on you!” This is a big one. They really think it means something. They really think it's something one says from the moral highground. It hasn't occurred to them that it's the cops job to move them, and they're doing it in the most efficient, nonviolent manner possible.

Around 3:42, the awkward tall guy tries to make a break back to the road they've been blocking. He gets stopped dead, then immediately pepper sprayed. It's serious highlight reel riot-copping, I've got to say.

Then, for me, the high point of the video. As the crowd chants “shame on you,” yet more, one protestor begins screaming “kill the fucking cops.” Apparently one of the things you do on the moral highground, is demand the death of people who are just doing their job. People who are, in fact, doing their job with a level of professionalism I can't even fathom. It's a wonder to me that more cops don't just lose it on these crowds of priviledged little infants, and start laying into them with their batons. As you can see in this video, they stick to pepper spray and dragging them out of the way. I didn't see a single baton strike administered in the whole thing.

On to the article:

“Olympia police spokesman Dick Machlan said 43 people were arrested and then released while prosecutors decide whether to charge them.” That's the level of thuggery going on under the evil Bush administration. People arrested for interfering with the operation of our military, something which could reasonably considered treason, probably won't even be charged with a crime. It's really hard for the accusations of oppression to carry weight when you're just let go.

“Anna-Marie Murano, a member of the coordination group, said she has had leg and neck pain since police hit her in the chest last week.” They want, so badly, to be victims. This chick thinks a stiff neck is her badge of courage in the righteous struggle. Seriously? You think this is the real deal? Sweetheart, in the real world, people get shot, killed, they get their familes shot and killed. They get tortured, they watch their families tortured. That's the real deal. Tzarist Russia, the USSR, Mao's China, Cambodia, south America, North Korea, etc. etc. etc. That's where real opporession lives, and where real victims are made. You're so far from a victim, you can't even see what it'd be like. You're playing pretend, and we're humoring you. Please figure that out.

Hell, look at the bearded dipshit getting limp body carried by the cops in the picture in the article. He's looking all peppy and self-righteous as the cops carry him off. Dude, are you aware that in real protests, with real thug cops, people are getting dragged like that because they're fucking unconscious from water cannons and baton blows to the head? You're not part of anything important, you're a childish embarassment. Go ask a black person who really protested back in the 50s how that shit went. No pepper spray. Just big fucking German shepherds gnawing on you, repeated blows from billy clubs, and a water cannon to smash your face into a curb. That's courage. You're a fucking child.

We're not doing our species any favors by keeping these clowns in the gene pool. I think we'd do everyone involved a huge favor by directing machinegun fire on these protests whenever and wherever they happen.

For the protestors, the benefits are obvious. They want to be victims, and they want to be brave. How can they be brave victims when nobody will victimize them? But with machinegun fire, they start dying, and then anybody who still shows up is genuinely brave, and also being genuinely oppressed. Can we really be so cruel as to NOT fulfill their dreams in this way?

For the rest of us, there are also clear benefits. Humans are social creatures. We survive based upon our ability to socialize, to understand the structure of society, and to fill a useful role in that society. Bears, as another example, survive by hunting and foraging. If a given bear spent his entire day dry humping a pine tree, that bear is a retard, he clearly doesn't have anything useful to contribute to the future of beardom, and he should (and will) be left to die without propagating his sad, worthless seed. The same goes for these protetors. They are trying, desperately, to fail at life. They're trying to show us that they are so completely unable to find a useful role in our society that they would like for nature to take its course and kill them off. When we refuse to do this, we're not only hurting the gene pool, but we're really defying nature itself. It's literally unnatural NOT to fire a belt or two of machinegun fire into the crowd.

So, folks, come on. Think of the protestors. Think of society. Think of the law of nature itself. All demand that we send hot, copper jacketed lead hurtling into these people at supersonic speeds. Let's not disappoint them any more.

How close I came...

Jack — Tue, 13 Nov 2007 21:39:00 GMT

The link: http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/11/13/clinton.planted/?iref=hpmostpop

In an exclusive on-camera interview with CNN, Muriel Gallo-Chasanoff, a 19-year-old sophomore at Grinnell College in Grinnell, Iowa, said giving anyone specific questions to ask is "dishonest," and the whole incident has given her a negative outlook on politics.

Holy crap, if I could have only been at Grinnell when this happened, I would probably know this chick, and could totally be part of an awesome and important national scandal in some tangential sort of way. It's a small school, so I definitely would have known her, if only by name.

I've always thought of Grinnell as an institution primarily concerned with liberal brainwashing, but it would appear that this girl's experience matches my own: it's a place when liberal brainwashing is attempted, but ends up being douchebaggery is so on display, causing you form a permanent aversion and distrust for it.

Whatever, though, she's got a hyphenated last name, she's probably just so far left that even Hillary is too conservative for her.

Portal (10/10)

Jack — Sun, 11 Nov 2007 01:36:00 GMT

Portal is a puzzle game built on the Source engine, and sharing a lot of the look and feel of the Half-Life 2 games. It's a bit short of play time and content to be a true standalone game, but what it has is so perfect it outshines many full featured games.

Basically what Portal boils down to is a puzzle game with a backstory and sense of humor. It's probably best not to give too much away, as the humor and fun of the game depend on experiencing it with a mostly open mind.

All of that translates to a pretty brief, pretty useless review, but if you weren't planning on play Portal, then this will be the most useful review you've read in a while: Play it. Seriously. It's a quick game to get through, but not nearly as quick as it initially seems. It's funny, it's fun, it's got great puzzles that make you think and then make you feel good about the answer when you solve them.

Is it torture?

Jack — Fri, 09 Nov 2007 23:20:00 GMT

The link: http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=d8c_1194307197

In case this liveleak goes away in the distant future, it's video of a public demonstration of waterboarding by dipshits who think they're proving that it's torture and evil. After they demonstrate it (complete with fictional interrogation lead in), the “victim” cries about how horrible it is for a while.

Let me help you fucking clowns out with something: if you're willingly going out in public and getting “tortured” then it's not fucking torture. If you can undergo torture, then give an impassioned monologue that sounds like it's from a high school play you wrote and directed, it's not torture. You're a coddled dipshit hippy. If you can deal with the discomfort of waterboarding for the purposes of making your faggy little web video, then it's NOT FUCKING TORTURE.

Here is a list of actual tortures: http://www.medievality.com/torture.html

I would like for the makers of the liveleak video above to pick just ONE torture off that list and do it in a similarly public setting in order to compare and contrast. For example, why not try out the knee splitter? Or perhaps the saw. Give those a shot. If you feel that water boarding is as bad, then I'll believe you.

Quake Wars: Enemy Territory (6/10)

Jack — Sat, 27 Oct 2007 22:33:00 GMT

Quake Wars is a Battlefield style FPS based on the Quake series of games. It pits the human GDF faction against the alient Strogg, and features the same objective based gameplay, assault, medic, engineer and sniper classes most games of this genre include.

Where it begins to differ is in the nature of the missions and in the scoring system. Battlefield games have a very straightforward mission system (capture objectives), and very straightforward scoring system (killing people is the quickest way to get points). QW:ET places less emphasis on killing enemies, and more on completing objectives. At any given time, each class will have a mission it can accomplish, one of which is central to advancing the progression of the current map. There's an attacker and defender, and generally three steps to completing the mission.

The mission system seems interesting at first, but it's difficult to figure out in the heat of battle, which leads to a slower learning curve than the Battlefield games. It's also probably not worth all the complication, as the missions tend to blur together, and ultimately boil down to the same basic concept: control a piece of ground for long enough and you win.

Personal weapons are good but nothing exceptional. They seem well balanced, have a decently solid feel, and fulfil a range of roles. There are also various bigger weapons that are part of the map, such as constructable anti-infatry and anti-tank turrets, and huge artillery rocket attacks with corresponding defenses that can be built to stop them. It's interesting, but again, tough to figure out for a first time player.

The graphics engine is excellent, rendering extremely long view distances with smooth frame rates, and is by far the most impressive part of the game.

Playing this game gave me a newfound respect for the Battlefield series. As solid and technically competent as QW:ET is, there's just something fake and tinny about the gameplay. The weapons almost seem too accurate, while players are able to run and leap around too quickly. It's too frantic and twitchy up close, and too easy to hit from afar. I realize now how well tuned the Battlefield games are, where movement rates don't feel too slow, yet enemies don't seem to be flying around at exaggerated speeds.

Ultimately I was impressed with aspects of this game. It seems more tactically deep than the Battlefield games, and the graphics engine is definitely superior. However, the complexity of the game seems unncessary and is more of an impediment to involving new players. Above all, there's something about the game that just feels wrong, too much like the arcade style of Quake III, and less like the tactical FPS games it's following.

Kinsley strikes again...

Jack — Wed, 24 Oct 2007 22:29:00 GMT

The link: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1673265,00.html

Michael Kinsley is one of my new favorite figures in “journalism.” As his wikipedia entry informs us, he hosted Crossfire opposite Path Buchanan. This is already pretty hilarious, because many people on the left consider Pat Buchanan to be slightly more conservative and authoritarian than Hitler, so casting somebody as a balance to him would suggest that person is about as liberal as you can possibly be. And that's Michael Kinsley. But what makes it particularly hilarious is that he's given editorials in Time magazine, given Slate to direct, etc. etc. etc.

Can you imagine a major publication giving Pat Buchanan that sort of power?

No, his stuff gets printed in The American Conservative. I AM an American conservative and I've never heard of it. Oh, and Yahoo! news. So that gives you an idea of how shit works. If you're a liberal, expect to get an editorial page in Time magazine, which we're all told is a wonderful, important publication. If you're a conservative, well, go get a blog.

But enough backstory on Kinsley. Today what he's doing is working as a Democrat operative in the media. He's forming public opinion in a way he thinks is most favorable to the Democrats. Now, as Hussain points out, he's not a knee-jerk apologist, but as I point out to Hussain, that doesn't matter. He's still a Democrat. He still writes everything from the perspective of “here's one thing we're doing wrong, fellow Democrats, let's fix that and we'll take over!”

So I enjoy reading his articles, because they fit nicely into the new genre of editorials I'm following lately, which is sorta the “DNC Combat Engineering Corps” of the MSM. They head in before the battle to prepare the field for their comrades, making things as favorable and defensible as possible. They drive their bulldozers back and forth over the minds of Americans, and put some nice gun positions, tank berms, etc. etc.

They camoflauge their earth movers by pretending they're just informing and commenting on a recent trend, but what they're really doing is making sure that before anybody gets too far ahead and starts understanding new concepts on their own terms, they're instead given the correct, left leaning view of the phenomenon.

It's not suprising, in these days of bipartisan government incomepetence and contemptibility, that focus groups and polling agencies are noting a rise in the significance of libertarianism. See, libertarianism is the value system that most Americans (I've heard 60%) actually subscribe to, but they rarely get to vote for, since Republicans will mostly only pay lip service to it, and Democrats are the polar opposite of it.

But it's a popular idea with Americans, so Mr. Kinsley needs to get out there and go to work on it. As he does in all his articles, he intersperses some nicely slanted commentary to remind the readers who is really likeable, and who isn't.

“Democrats treasure civil liberties, whereas Republicans are more tolerant of government censorship to protect children from pornography, or of wiretapping to catch a criminal, or of torture in the war against terrorism.”

Democrats are unflinchingly committed to your personal freedoms, whereas Republicans aren't so much. Maybe for good reason, but probably not, right? Right.

Wrong. Democrats love to control what people say and do when it comes to their sacred cows. They work to ban “hatespeech,” and their agents and operatives ceaselessly attack those who aren't sensitive enough to gays, minorities, etc. etc. They long for the return of the “fairness doctrine,” a far more transparent and deliberate attack on free speech than anything contemplated by modern Republicans. They're happy to impose laws that control our right to keep and bear arms, they've steadily whittled it away over time. And that's the 2nd Amendment. Not the 29th. Not some diddly state law. It's the Bill of Rights.

These guys treasure my civil liberties Mike? Fuck you they do.

Why is Mike saying this? He's trying to lay the groundwork for the idea that libertarians will find a nicer home in the Democrat party than the Republican party. Libertarians typically associate with Republicans, thanks to the Republican fancy for smaller government. Mike knows this. It's the open exposed flank of the Democrats. He's building berms for his party to hide behind, when their contempt for personal freedom is exposed.

The simple answer is that “Democrats are for Big Government; Republicans are against it.” But the more “nuanced” answer is that you should vote Democrat.

“Republicans also consider themselves more concerned about the moral tone of the country, and they are more disposed toward using the government in trying to improve it.”

Hey, even Republicans admit they're more of the moral police, right? Right? Again, you're full of shit Mike. Some people think homosexuality is immoral. Some people think hating homsexuality is immoral. Then they argue. Both sides are trying to impose their own morality. It's just that Republicans tend to refer to it as “morality” and the left uses its own version of the same, something like “compassion” or “conscience” or just “the truth.”

See, I actually AM a libertarian. I lean more “Republican conservative” than some libertarians, but that's where I'm at fundamentally. And when you're a libertarian, you're not about gay people. You're about leaving people alone. So if two people want to be gay with each other, who gives a shit? And if some guy wants to yell about how awful fags are, again, who gives a shit? Libertarianism isn't about supporting freedoms that liberals like. It's about leaving people the fuck alone.

But Mike is a liberal, and the only freedoms he's even aware of are the ones he cares about.

Liberals can't see any viewpoint by their own. They think Republicans are attacking their freedoms. Last time I checked, you could still get a legal abortion in this country. Last time I checked, there's been no federal ban on gay marriage, and instead a slow march towards it. It's typical liberal perspective at work here. Liberals are never forced to hear conservative views. They're never forced to live in a conservative media bubble. They're never forced to take stock of all the issues they got their way, or imagine living for decades under policy that is not as they desire. To them, nothing short of total compliance with their desires is “fair.” The very idea that gay marriage might be banned is an assault on them, as far as they're concerned.

The Christian right has watched abortion go on legally since 1973. That's 34 years. And, in their eyes, it's millions of innocent lives lost.

The American left has watched the war in Iraq go on for four years, and they're out of their fucking minds with it.

“Many people feel that neither party offers a coherent set of principles that they can agree with. For them, the choice is whether you believe in Big Government or you don't. And if you don't, you call yourself a libertarian.”

Mike says: Hey, libertarian, I'm talking to you. I know you're frustrated with your government. I feel you. Now, read on, and see my objective examination of your options.

“And what is the opposite of libertarianism? Libertarians would say fascism. But in the American political context, it is something infinitely milder that calls itself communitarianism.”

Mike is a true battlefield engineer. He sees how the fight will evolve, he knows the weaknesses of his allies, and he's building defenses. See, the word that Mike is looking for, and pretending not to see, is “socialism.” The opposite of libertarianism in American politics is socialism. It's not “communitariansm.” It doesn't call itself that. It calls itself “progressive” or “open-minded” or some other positive term that doesn't admit that it's actually socialism, which, even with a head full of bulldozers, Americans know is a bad thing.

The word “socialism“ doesn't appear ONCE in the entire article. You'd think the political system espoused by half of our political leaders would at least get a mention, wouldn't you? Of course not. Mike knows that word is poison for his Democrats.

It's a two pronged assault. He's coming in from one side, and if the target evades that attack, he'll pin them in with the the other. "If you consider yourself a libertarian, you're a Democrat! And also, if you don't buy that, and see that Democrats are the exact opposite of you, well, that's a harmless thing called socialism! No! I mean socialtasticness! Yeah! Vote Hillary!"

“And yet Republicans have a clearer vision of what constitutes a good society and a well-run planet and are quicker to try to impose this vision on the rest of us.”

First prong. A lie, but still an effective attack, since the DNC/MSM knows nobody will ever be given a voice to challenge it.

“Very few Democrats self-identify as libertarians, but they are in fact much more likely to have a live-and-let-live attitude toward the lesbian couple next door or the Islamofascist dictator halfway around the world.”

Yeah? And how live-and-let-live do they feel about the Christian fundamentalist next door? How live-and-let-live do they feel about the guy driving the gas guzzling Hummer? How live-and-let-live do they feel about people who talk bad about gays, minorities or socialist dictators in South America? Oh, wait, I mean socialistastic...

He's hammering the point. Democrats don't want to control you, libertarian! Never mind that they want to shut down the radio stations you listen to. Never mind that they want to take your guns away. Never mind that they want near total control over every aspect of your life. They're ok with the big important freedoms like guys fucking in the ass, and the Taliban. That's right up your alley, right? Right?

No, Mike. Not at all. Good luck with those berms, buddy. You may know how to plan a battle, but with the people you've got behind you, I don't think there's anything you can do.

Shooter (6/10)

Jack — Sun, 21 Oct 2007 01:05:00 GMT

This is a mediocre movie with an unrealistic perception of how sharpshooting works, some good action scenes, and a very generous helping of Hollywood partisanship. The theme of a lot of my recent posts has been the total impregnation of American media with liberal messages. I literally can't watch a movie anymore without obvious, heavy handed attacks on the Bush administration. So, this is a decent action movie with strangely mumbled and inaudible diologue. I enjoyed watching it, but not a ton.

On to the ridiculous partisanship.

First off, there's this: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/thomas-de-zengotita/must-see-movie-shoot_b_45406.html

“Ok, I saw this movie yesterday, on impulse, just plugging into my retrograde and boyish American male love of bang-bang action movies--and lo and behold what did I find? A really smart bit of left wing (I'm for it!) propaganda aimed at the Bush administration, the Iraq War and, especially, Dick Cheney.“

Smart? Dude? It was hamhanded and obvious, and not at all insightful. It had all the usual “they fight wars for oil, but nobody will challenge them on it“ crap that makes my skin crawl. Nobody challenges them on it? Please go kill yourself.

But anyway, the arch badguy is a Senator named Charles Meachum, and he's meant to be Dick Cheney, only much more obese, poncey and ridiculous. He's a Senator from Montana... Which borders Wyoming... And we cut to a scene of him shooting clay pigeons, and making gay eyes at a waiter tending to his opulent outdoor spread. And later we cut to a scene of Danny Glover's character joking with him, saying “So I said, nice shot Senator! In the face!'' AHAHAH! Cause Dick Cheney shot a guy in the face, remember that?

It's just laden with anti-Bush messages, to the point it starts to get a bit sad and embarassing. And I have to sit through this.

How many movies have you seen where there's a Hillary Clinton character, who is comically evil, pandering and power hungry? How many movies have you seen where there's a John Kerry character who fakes his military service and is really a coward and an idiot? None.

So, sure, you're probably saying “Hollywood is liberal, duh, tell us something we don't know.” To that I would respond that it certainly is obvious, and given how obvious it is, it's a mystery to me why we can't be equally objective about the fact that the left has near total control over all other media (not just movies) consumed by our populace, and that they use it constantly to push their message?

Ultimately this movie's argument is a paradox. It proffers up the argument that greedy men like Dick Cheney go to war for oil, and we, as a nation, are too scared to face that fact. But this is a major motion picture, a popcorn flick, and it's making the very argument it claims is off limits. If we're not allowed to to talk about how evil Republicans fight wars for oil, then how come we do it so much that it's become a mandatory inclusion in every political thriller in the past three years?

We're not allowed to talk about it? You sure? I think we're more than allowed to talk about it. I think we're required to talk about it, to the point it's become a meme in our society.

But, whatever, you fuckwits over at Huffington Post can keep telling yourself it's “subtle.” Then it'll be ok for me to shoot you in the face, because that'd just be “argumentative.”

P.S: The character played by Elias Koteas is ridiculous, and I forbid Hollywood to include this forumla in any more films. He's that bizzare, gropey, sexual badguy who always seems to get his hands on the female love interest, and start slurping words into her ear, and acting all manic and deranged when the hero is in peril. It speaks to the “subtlety” of this film that they felt the badguys weren't suitably evil when they murdered a bunch of Etheopian villagers, murdered an Etheopian Cardinal, framed an American hero, and generally acted like jerks. The need to be rapist perverts, too.

Game review two pack...

Jack — Sun, 21 Oct 2007 00:33:00 GMT

My hatred for Madden 08 reminded me that I need to review BioShock and Half Life 2: Episode 2.

BioShock (9/10): I loved System Shock, I loved System Shock 2, and I loved BioShock. They're basically all the same game, but they're all still fun. You show up in some strange environment where shit's gone totally wrong and there's monsters and gun turrets and all manner of evil going on, and you have to shoot your way through it, horde ammo and weapons, upgrade yourself, and use special abilities to get through the game.

BioShock takes place in the undersea city of Rapture, which has an art deco theme, and is very heavily based on Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand. So, when Ayn Rand's ideals are taken to their logical conclusion, you end up with a burned out city full of gene-modified psychopaths. I could point out, again, how every single facet of popular media is permeated with liberal messages, but I'll save that for my review of Shooter.

So, anyway, what the game ultimately amounts to is a series of inerestingly designed levels that end up being combat puzzles for you to explore with your various weapons. Throughout the level there are “Little Sisters” escorted by “Big Daddies” which you need to kill to power yourself up. Attacking these guys can be tough, and demands you set up traps, or use your arsenal in creative ways to take them out.

The graphics are good, although game ran a bit spotty in frame rate on my machine, so it's pretty demanding. I've got a pair of 7900GTX cards, not the top of the line, but respectable.

The weapons are fun to use, with lots of creative options, but some, particularly the submachine gun, feel a bit fake and powerless.

All in all, it's a great game with a lot of interesting concepts, a really immersive atmosphere, an engaging storyline, and some fun combat mechanics.

Half-Life 2: Episode 2 (7/10): The Source engine is really fantastic, so any game built on it is going to have a head start. It looks amazing, yet plays fast and smooth, which is very big for me. After the jaggy frame rates I was seeing in BioShock, it felt great to be able to run and gun and really see what was going on, pull off amazing shots, etc. etc. Unfortunately, there's not as much shooting as I'd really like to see in Episode 2. The franchise seems to be getting increasingly cinematic, with more and more set pieces, in game conversations between NPCs, etc. etc. A lot of this is what Half Life is based on, and the facial animations in game are so realistic and lifelike, I can see why the developers want to exercise it, but I just wish they had more solo shooting action.

I like to go against a whole warehouse full of Combine soldiers, to set up my attack, to use my weapons effectively, and to play a straightforward solo shooter. I don't need the whole game to be this way, but I'd like I'd like to see more of it than Episode 2 offered.

Instead of getting that, a lot of times you're running around with Alyx, or a Vortigaunt, and you're bantering back and forth and shooting badguys together. These NPCs do ok for themselves, they don't seem to be killable, but they do have a habit of blocking you during gunfights, or messing up your attempts at stealth. I don't mind Alyx around for some fights, but I'd rather the great majority of the fighting was done solo.

There's more of the “drive through the countryside and come upon settlements” gameplay that was so fun in Half Life 2, but it seems like a lot of work by the developers for not much payoff. I'd like to see the little sub-areas have a bit more going on, more Combine soldiers, etc.

All in all it's a fun game with some good shootouts (though not enough), some neat and inventive battles (the final one in particular is pretty unique), all built on an engine that delivers stunning visuals and wonderfully smooth gameplay.

Madden 08...

Jack — Sun, 21 Oct 2007 00:08:00 GMT

The link: http://www.vicegrip.net/blog/archive/2005/09/11/1045.aspx

I used to just uninstall games that pissed me off, but I've found that eventually I'll forget how much they pissed me off, and all that will be left is my competitive streak, and the need to beat them. So I reinstall them, and because they're fundamentally shitty games, they piss me off again. My new policy is to actually destroy the media that the game came on, so I can't possibly play it again. Madden 08 is now in two pieces in my garbage can.

I thought Madden 08 was better than Madden used to be. As it turns out, the only thing that got better was me. I got so good at playing the game, I could overcome all the miserable bullshit it pretends is a football simulation, and I mistook that for it having actually improved. It hasn't. It hasn't at all.

I had gotten to the point where I could just destroy the computer at All-Pro level, so I decided to try it at All-Madden level. This was a mistake.

Now, I can't be certain, maybe I'm wrong, but Madden seems to have some sort of fucked up “catch up mechanism” built in. As soon as you take the lead, the whole game starts conspiring to fuck you out in ways that defy logic. I can't be certain. I don't have the code in front of me. But I've seen it happen so many times, with such totally obvious fuckery, I can't believe it's not a deliberatly programmed system.

The events that precipitated the destruction of my Madden 08 DVD are as follows:

I tried to play a season as the Patriots. It took me three tries to beat the Jets. The first two games were full of bizzare completions into triple coverage on 3rd and long, kickoffs broken for touchdowns, and other such bullshit, until I suddenly win the third game 34-17. Did I suddenly get great at the game, or is there some sort of dipshit “momentum“ system behind the scenes?

Then came the Chargers. After about five tries again full of insane coincidences that favored the Chargers, in my sixth attempt, I was playing a flawless game. I was finally feeling glad about how frustrating the game was, because I was playing great, and was about to overcome it. I was going to be paid off for my perserverence.

I score a touchdown at the start of the 4th quarter to go up by 10, and I kick off. Apparently 10 points is where Madden turns on the bullshit. The Chargers runback guy proceeds to shed, LITERALLY, about 5 tackles to run the kick back. This already is madness. My players never shed more than one tackle. Even the way the game grossly favors the computer on All-Madden, it never does this. But the game had decided I needed to lose, and it was going to see to it.

So, whatever, still up 3. Get the ball back, and start marching down the field. It's a picture perfect drive, I'm doing everything right. With about 40 yards to go, Wes Welker comes wide open on a slant route, and I throw at him. He's got about three steps on the defender. As soon as I throw the pass, he slows up. The safety speeds up, runs under the pass and picks it. I've never seen this before. Receivers don't just pull up on routes in this game, but when I'm winning in All-Madden mode, apparently there are new rules.

So I'm on defense, where I play as Adelius Thomas. We go through about 40 yards of Ladanian Tomlinson being completely impossible to tackle before I have an amazing set of downs, tackling Tomlinson for a loss, swatting down a pass, then hitting Rivers as he throws to force an interception. The intercepting player immediately fumbles. I challenge it and overturn it. That's one fumble overturned.

The very next play I give the ball to Maroney, and run him up the middle. He fumbles. It's after the 2:00 minute warning, the booth reviews, and it's overturned. Another fumble overturned.

I'm trying to run clock, so I keep running, but now I'm not allowed to get anywhere. So it's 3rd and 8, and Randy Moss comes open on a cross. I hit him, he takes two steps gets hit, fumbles. That's the third fumble in about six plays. This time the booth doesn't review, and I have to defend my 3 point lead. It's not raining or anything. The game is just making my players fumble until it gets the ball back. I don't care if the defense is trying to strip the ball. Three fumbles in six plays? When has that EVER happened?

After a few short passes that my defense refuses to cover, Rivers throws deep into triple coverage and completes it. Of course. And the receiver sheds a couple tackles before being dragged down at the 5. So now I have to come up with some ridiculous shit to stop a TD. And of course, I do. I sack Rivers, I stop Tomlinson on the 3, and then I swat down a pass into the end zone. Adelius Thomas is the only person playing defense, the game has literally turned my team off to make the Chargers win. But I hold them to a field goal single handed, and the game is tied. Even now, after the sheer insanity, the obviousness of the cheating the game has to do to keep the score close, I'm still thinking I will win because I'm playing so well.

Thomas has to have a dozen tackles at this point, a bunch for a loss, at least two sacks, four passes batted down, I'm just controlling the field on defense with him.

I go on offense with about a minute to play, and I start passing. Nobody on my team can catch, but I manage to get to about midfield. There's three seconds on the clock, so I send Moss deep and chuck it at him. He's in single coverage. And, of course, it's picked. When Rivers throws into triple coverage at one of the mediocre fucks that the Chargers have at wideout, it's complete. When I throw at Randy Moss in single coverage, it's pick. Neat. So, Moss attempts to tackle the DB. Fails. The DB takes the ball from the 10 yard line, all the way down the field. My offensive linemen just sorta stand there and let him run by. I'm staring in disbelief that my players don't even try to make a tackle. I'm still controlling Brady, so I run to tackle him and catch him around the 10. I execute a perfect tackle, he runs right through it.

Touchdown, game over, I lose.

Out come the scissors.

What the fuck is this? Who thinks that's fun?

In the real world, New England won that game 38-14.

Why can't the assholes get difficulty right? All-Pro is so easy to beat, it's ridiculous. All-Madden won't allow you to win. And it does it with bizzare made up shit that doesn't even look like a football team winning a game.

I play BioShock, I enjoy myself thoroughly. I play Half-Life 2: Episode 2 and I enjoy myself thoroughly. I'm not impossible to please. Write a game that's not a total piece of shit, and I'll enjoy it.

Another difference...

Jack — Sat, 20 Oct 2007 01:17:00 GMT

The link: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21386016/

A few posts ago, I said this: “The only differences between Rush Limbaugh and the mainstream media, is that Rush admits he's partisan, and Rush actually has talent.”

I guess I should add another difference: Rush Limbaugh raised $2.1 million, and gave $2.1 million of his own money to a foundation that helps the families of fallen soldiers and police officers.

It's just unreal.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not some huge Limbaugh supporter, thinking he's the savior of America. All I'm saying, is that whatever he is, wherever he stands, he's giving millions of dollars of his own money to help American families.

You can accuse him of whatever you want, but at the end of the day, he gave $2.1 million dollars to deserving American families, and I'm pretty goddamn certain you didn't.

I was listening to his show today, and the father of a soldier killed in Iraq called in, near tears, and thanked Rush Limbaugh for comforting him and his family, and helping them remember the ideals their son believed in and died for.

I have a hard time being impressed with the “journalists” who pat themselves on the back for “telling the truth” about Iraq, and think themselves insightful and valuable because they figured out that war is hell, and spreading democracy is hard.

It's doubly hard when the guy I'm supposed to think is part of the problem, who I'm supposed to think is a greedy oppressor, who I'm supposed to distrust and dislike, is giving millions of his money away to support American soldiers and policemen.

A major breakthrough...

Jack — Fri, 12 Oct 2007 21:30:00 GMT

The link: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/sfgate/detail?blogid=14&entry_id=21062

When Al Gore had to cancel an appearance at a fundraiser for Barbara Boxer, she sent this out to her flock: “I just got a call from Vice President Al Gore. He told me that he needs to travel abroad tomorrow for an exciting and urgent mission that could result in a major breakthrough in the fight against global warming.”

As we all now know, that “major breakthrough” was winning the Nobel Peace Prize. And notice that I've chosen an article that discusses how Hollywood is also masturbating itself over this award, which is, in and of itself worth a blog post, but gets lost in the wash of sheer fucking STUPIDITY that is the American left.

But, hey, we've got a “major breakthrough” here. Al Gore won a Nobel Prize. I guess that means global warming is over! Right? I mean, Al won, he beat global warming! Right?

The fantasy world that these people inhabit is hard to fathom. Barbara Boxer honestly thinks that this award somehow matters. It's just an award, lady. It didn't save a single polar bear. Do you not understand that it's basically just you giving yourself an award? The Nobel committee are a pack of international socialists, they're exactly the same person as you, or Al. You're all just patting yourself on the back, and pretending that something is coming from it.

Let me tell you what's actually happening Barabara. You're an incompetent and a moron, and you and your colleagues in Washington are driving this country into the ground.

The other day, I watched, in total awe, as they Daily Show played clips of the Petraus Senate hearings. I watched as Joe Biden, the longest talking motherfucker in the face of this planet, told Petraus to keep his answers short, so the Senators could get their questions in. I then watched as you, Barbara, spent your entire nine minute question period jabbering, without asking a fucking question. This is the general in charge of combat operations in Iraq. Your constituents want you to hold his feet to the fire. You can't even get ONE fucking question off. Then, Chuck Hagel, a Republican, proceeds to lay into Petraus on the war.

Lady, when you're a Democrat, and you fuck up so bad the Daily Show has to call you out on it, then you're a serious fuckup.

But none of this is even the best part. See, the recent trend in Congress is to draft nonbinding resolutions. They even drafted one condemning MoveOn.org's attack ad against Petraus. And in the process of doing so, they actually argued and debating which other political attacks they should condemn at the same time. These people actually fucking debate the content of a NONBINDING RESOLUTION.

And that's still not the best part.

See, when I saw all these nonbinding resolutions, I was amazed by Congress' ability to do absolutely nothing of value. What I didn't realize was that they were getting ready to up the ante. They had a plan in the works to draft a nonbinding resolution that would not only fail to accomplish anything useful, but would in fact damage the security of the United States.

This is fucking unreal.

“Turkey, which is a key supply route to U.S. troops in Iraq, recalled its ambassador to Washington on Thursday and warned of serious repercussions if Congress labels the killing of Armenians by Turks a century ago as genocide.”

Nancy Pelosi explained the timing: “Why do it now? Because there’s never a good time and all of us in the Democratic leadership have supported” it, she said.

So, let me get this straight. There was never a good time, but the time that you eventually chose, out of the century since the event, was one of about 5 years in which we've been flying supplies through Turkey, to a warzone. A war you don't support? Is that a fucking coincidence? You're going to slap Turkey in the face, for absolutely no benefit to the United States, despite the fact that they're a major supply hub for our soldiers? Despite the fact that they're a neighbor to Iraq, and their cooperation and goodwill is critical to our success there?

And people get upset when Democrats are labelled traitors. Deliberately attacking our ability to supply our troops in the field constitutes treason, in my opinion.

And they did it with a nonbinding resolution. Amazing.

Aren't the Democrats the ones who love to lecture the Bush administration on alienating allies? Is this their model for diplomacy? Could they be any more thoroughly incompetent?

This type of shit just blows my mind. I feel like I'm living a practical joke. These people CAN'T be this stupid. They CAN'T be this incompetent.

People love to scream about what a failure Iraq is. I've got to admit, it's gone very poorly, cost us American lives, a lot of money, and a lot of national peace of mind. It's not over yet, but it certainly looks like it's going to be a failure. So, sure, Bush tried to do something big and he failed.

But what people are too stupid and brainwashed to notice, is that while Bush has shown he will try big things and fail, the Democrats have shown that they're capable of doing nothing at all and STILL FAILING.

I've never said Bush is a great President. But he's still a better leader than any one else in Washington, and I mean that entirely as an insult to every worthless one of them.

You people in Congress are all incompetents, every last one of you, and if you had an ounce of patriotism in your body, you'd shoot yourself in the fucking face, and spare us all having to tolerate you.

Tolerance...

Jack — Fri, 12 Oct 2007 20:52:00 GMT

The link: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/sfgate/detail?blogid=7&entry_id=20391

My last post was about what it's like to be a conservative in America today. To summarize: It's barely tolerable.

What's it like to be a wealthy liberal in America today? Look no further than Barry Manilow for an example of what that experience is like.

Barry felt that the cast of The View is a bit too right leaning for his taste, to the point he cancelled his appearance. That's right, The View. Too far right.

To be specific, Barry does't like Elisabeth Hasselbeck. “I strongly disagree with her views. I think she's dangerous and offensive.” Really, Barry? Dangerous? Is that off-the-chart-leftist speak for “very cute?” Or do you just think it's dangerous behavior to get repeatedly brownbeaten by an obsese lesbian?

No, wait, I think I can guess... “I will not be on the same stage as her. ... I cannot compromise my beliefs." She's dangerous, because she might force Barry to forget one of the pillars of American liberalism: intolerance. You might think, for all the time the left spends praising themselves for their communication skills, for their open mindedness, for their love of diversity, that they would value an opportunity to interact with people of differing views. Not Barry. Not the American left. Their political opposition exists only to be demonized and shunned.

That's tolerance on the American left today. Feign tolerance when courting the votes of your favorite protected classes, but when somebody dares lean right, they're the scum of the earth.

And that's also why American conservatives are far more tolerant people. Now, don't get me wrong, there are plenty of Republicans/conservatives who are totally ignorant and intolerant. But in general, conservatives live their lives listening to liberals prattle on about how wonderful their liberalism is, and learned to deal with it. Conservatives have to learn to bite their tongue in public, when some douchebag Kerry booster thinks their regurgitation of today's talking points are a gift to all who behold. The simple fact is that tolerance of differing viewpoints, for an American conservative, is a necessity for the preservation of sanity.

Grains of sand...

Jack — Thu, 11 Oct 2007 00:02:00 GMT

The link: http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1663424,00.html?cnn=yes

One thing I am constantly unable to explain to liberals is what it's like to be a conserative in America, and to be constantly exposed to the endless flow of liberal views that comprise American print media, television and movies. They might understand why one article is biased, or why one scene in a movie might have a leftward political agenda, but what's the big deal? The big deal is that there's millions upon millions of little jabs of this sort, and like little grains of windblown sand, they just wear your fucking brain raw.

Why do I have to watch Keith Olbermann on Monday Night Football? How would you liberals feel if Rush Limbaugh got a spot on a major football program? Ohh, that's right, you'd have him run out of town in no time flat.

Why do I have to read about how Bush is going to veto a bill to help needy kids get healthcare? How would you liberals feel if the headlines talked about how Bush was being forced to veto yet another bloated Democrat handout package?

The goddamn liberals can't even STAND that Fox News and AM radio exist. You guys think that's bad? Try being a conservative. Try living in a world where every single channel is Fox News, where every single paper is the Washington Times, where every single movie is packed with little handjobs for George W Bush, and Dick Cheney is winning an Oscar for his work in a documentary on the huge and ongoing success in Iraq.

So, as the grains of sand reduce my forebrain to a crusty, bloody pulp, I'll pick one out of the air and show you. Check out the link above...

MoveOn.org runs an ad attacking General David Petraus. It's a legitimately low class hit piece on a guy who is doing nothing more than serving his country to the best of his ability. For years now, the left has been successful in swaying public opinion by “taking umbrage” at anything and everything their opponents say.

When Don Imus made some mildly offensive comments, he was labelled “despicable,” as if "nappy headed hos" was the worst thing ever said by mankind.

When Mike Vick ran a dogfighting ring, the practice of outrage expression had grown so prevalent that it became a fucking parade as everyone was lining up to mention how totally outraged they were.

Conservatives have been sitting by, watching this trend unfold, watching it grow and expand, suffering through the false histrionics of liberals being outraged by the endless injustices heaped upon them and their favorite protected classes.

Then, as conservatives finally become inured to this ridiculousness, finally shrug and say “if you can't beat 'em, join 'em,” Michael Kinsley thinks it's FINALLY time to comment.

Imagine that, liberals. Imagine watching George W Bush refer to freedom ten thousand times to the mewling approval of the anchorman. Imagine Republican Senators asking why Democrats can't be a little more patriotic, and having their words amplified and underwritten by the print media. Then, imagine Hillary Clinton finally mentions freedom in one of her speeches, and the mainstream media decides that there's really been quite enough talk of freedom, and Hillary is really embarassing herself by repeating it so much.

It's the utter fucking height of hypocrisy, and it goes totally unchallenged.

This is what it's like being a conservative in America. Liberals hurl sand in your face, day after day, for years. It fills your eyes, leaves your patience raw and bleeding and you have to take it sitting down. Just when you wonder if you can even stand it any longer, a single grain of sand grazes a liberal's cheek and they raise the alarm.

Fuck you people. Seriously, fuck you people.

The thug caste...

Jack — Wed, 10 Oct 2007 23:18:00 GMT

The link: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20892483/site/newsweek/

As my many readers have noted, my last post was a scholarly piece which examined that shifting tableau of Americana and concluded, with disarming accuracy and unimpeachable objectivity, that Naomi Wolf is a stupid lying whore. If you can tear your eyes away from the brilliance contained within, and glance up at the date I posted it, September 21st, you'll then notice that the link for today is an article last updated on September 20th. Even as I was wondering how Naomi Wolf could be such a lying whore, her fellow Democrat operatives were working hard to provide butresses for her empty blathering.

One precursor of fascism that Naomi brought up was the creation of a thug caste. She attempts to suggest that security contractors are Bush's thugs. It's a claim that holds absolutely no water at all, but it's one the Democrats/MSM want to make stick. Now, I'm not suggesting that Naomi Wolf and Michael Hirsch are working together directly. If they were, it wouldn't surprise me, but I'm not suggesting it. What I am suggesting, is that Naomi Wolf is a professional Democrat hack. She makes her living by looking at the events of the day, and trying to figure out how to package them up in a way that most directly harms the credibility of the Republican party. If it's on her agenda to associate Bush closely with security contractors, then you can rest assured that other Democrat operatives are doing the same.

That's why it's comical to read an article like the excuse for journalism Michael Hirsh has shat out, an article that looks more like a DNC talking points memo than an editorial from a supposedly reputable magazine.

Look at the first and last paragraphs of his article. Horrible violent immorality is a reality in our world, and Bush is to blame. It's as bad as the holocaust, as 1984. How, exactly, is that journalism? It reads like a stump speech by a political opponent, and a vitriolic, mudslinging one at that. It's classic high school essay structure. State your point. Provide support. Restate your point. Hirsch is pounding a message into the head of his reader: It's Bush's fault. It's terrible, and it's Bush's fault.

And how terrible is it?

“Remember the scene at the beginning of the movie “Braveheart,” when the evil English lord claims droit du seigneur—the right to deflower Mel Gibson’s bride—over the powerless Scots? Well, that medieval reality is something like what Iraqis are living with today. This is the “model” George W. Bush will bequeath to the world.”

Good, fucking GOD Mr. Hirsch. Are you serious?

“Uhh, you remember... You remember, like, in Dirty Harry, where Dirty Harry is like 'hey, dude, like, how many shots did I fire? Was it seven... Or, like, all my shots, or do I have more shots?' Remember that, dude? Dude? That was awesome.”

Braveheart was an emotional, violent, hyperbolic movie. The British were comically evil. William Wallace was the epitome of limitless valor and uncompromising morality. Mr. Hirsch, is your version of journalism really to tell us what movies life is like? And when you do pick a movie, you pick one that's an utterly black and white action movie?

This article is utterly incredible. Bush's fault. Emotions. Emotions. EMOTIONS. BUSH'S FAULT.

The sheer scale of Hirsch's failure is beyond belief. Not only does this hack totally abandon any sense of journalistic objectivism or detachment, but he resorts to pointing to the work of others to rouse passions he lacks the intellect or talent to rouse with is own words.

I've said for some time that the only difference between Rush Limbaugh and the mainstream media is that at least Rush admits he's a partisan. I guess I need to amend that:

The only differences between Rush Limbaugh and the mainstream media, is that Rush admits he's partisan, and Rush actually has talent.

Michael Hirsch, you're an embarassment to your profession, to your country, and to your entire species.