deganawida

Who are you and what have you done with Volourn?! He always says "fried"! :D

At one point, my absolute favorite comic was Green Lantern. Though I preferred (and still do) Batman as a hero, after the introduction of Kyle Rayner I found it easier to get into GL. Now, I loved the Ron Marz run on Green Lantern. Then, Judd Winnick took over, and I watched things go downhill for Kyle. Previous bits of Kyle's established history were thrown out the window in favor of Winnick's convoluted nonsensical plots involving Kyle's dad being a former Mexican, former American spy, and former double agent working in the IRA of all places for the American government. For those of you not in the know, Kyle's father was always something of a mystery, though Kyle met his uncle in the "Return to Desolation" story arc, and in a Giant issue speaks of his paternal grandfather (also named Rayner), who was a famous adventurer. Further, Winnick turned Kyle into a god, redesigned his entire personality, ignored previously established characters in favor of new ones (with no mention ever of the other characters), and turned the comic into a political statement. After Winnick left, an event for which I thanked God, I hoped that the series would turn around. Unfortunately, the stories were bland and utterly forgettable. Kyle had fled into space at the end of the Winick run, and the new writer had him trying to reform the Corps, although he convienently ignored the GLs that Kyle trained in "The New Corps" miniseries. The best GL stories were now being found in JLA (especially the Atlantis saga, forgot the name of that one though). However, all this isn't what has ticked me off. Since we had the baby, I haven't been able to keep up with my comics, so tonight I went to DC's site to see what was up in the DCU. What do I find? Green Lantern: Rebirth, a miniseries designed to bring Hal Jordan back as the premier Green Lantern. ***@!!2! Why can't people let Jordan stay dead? I will probably never read another Green Lantern again, as this is the kind of crap that put me off on the X-Men, and is a sorry excuse for writing. Anyone else feel the same?

In the arena of states (read: nations) and politics, power is, unfortunately, all that matters. Without power, a state ceases to function effictively, or at all. As the purpose of government is to both protect its citizenry and ensure that trade is regulated, a lack of power causes a state to fail in both regards. Continuing, the more power that a state has, the better able it is to protect its citizenry and their wealth. Thus, one can conclude that the best thing for any state is to dictate the policies of other nations, thus ensuring that the best interests of its citizenry are always served.

To take the "the only remaining superpower" argument further: As the only remaining superpower on the planet, I have decided that henceforth it is in the world's best interests for the United States and its citizenry to henceforth dictate who will be elected in every nation, whether enemy or ally. This will be done by flooding all lines of communication with whom Americans believe would be best suited, and a never-ceasing stream of letters, paid advertisements, and films. Sound like fun to you? As the only remaining superpower in the world, we are well within our rights to do such a thing, and even go further. However, for the most part, we leave other countries to sort out their own affairs. I suggest y'all learn to do the same.

Not only did the Norweigians put out a full-page ad, Di, but The Guardian of London is encouraging Brits to write to voters in Cook County, OH, where they believe the election will be decided, to encourage them to vote for Kerry. Several British celebraties, such as David Cornwell (whose nom de plume is John Le Carr

The Kerry campaign advisor-Burkett article is here. I saw another copy of the report on Yahoo! earlier today, but I can't find it now (Yahoo! tends to cycle through AP & Reuters reports every 15 min. or so, and I'm at work, so I can't just bookmark it). No proof of collusion, though.

Boy, that raised quite the uproar. Wasn't it Karzak who went ape-nuts over the "Drow breast size" issue?

He wants a steamy sex-scandal between ice-queen Hilary Clinton and stone-golem Al Gore! With pics!

Yup, the best soldiers aren't those who will kill you with a smile on their face and a song on their lips, but those who will kill you with a tear in their eye and heart of regret. They are individuals who will kill you because you need to die in order to save other lives, not because they want you dead.

So, you're in favor of raising the voting age, drinking age, and driving age to 30? Nice to know, thanks. <_<

Complicated answer. My dad's a moderate Southern Baptist minister (some would say liberal, but that isn't accurate, and I don't care what those people say anyway). His ministry and life have been made much more difficult by the Fundamentalists in the denomination, and so no one in the family likes mixing religion and politics. We are all glad that Bush is a Christian. (Allow me to diverge a moment. A lot of Bush's detractors and the press like calling him a Fundamentalist. In point of fact, though, he isn't. He's an evangelical, which is totally different. Though the two movements share some similarities on some issues, such as abortion and homosexual marriage, Fundamentalism is primarily a legalistic, political movement, while the evangelical movement is primarily a spiritual movement focusing on the role of the Holy Spirit and spreading the Gospel.) Now, we all support Bush, and for much of the same reasons. Though we're all dirt-poor (my current salary is a little over $15,000, and that's with two degrees), we've never relied on the government to provide for us. If we didn't have the money for something, we went without luxuries. I realize that it's a radical concept nowadays, but one doesn't have to have cable, two plus new cars (we have junkers, but they get us where we're going), DSL, a top-of-the-line computer, money to blow eating at restaurants, and so on. We are able to live comfortably by doing without such luxuries (which is partially why I am so picky when it comes to games, as I can't afford to make a bad choice when I buy one). Would we like to have them? Yeah, you bet! However, we believe that it is morally and ethically wrong to expect others to pay for our excess, and we are determined to work our butts off until we can afford those luxuries ourselves. Second, we've never liked big government. Now, there isn't much of a difference between Republicans and Democrats when it comes to government size, and even less of a difference when one looks at Bush's domestic spending agenda, but there is a difference, and we like to err on the side that spends less. Third, we don't like the Democrat Party's stance on criminals, the role of the courts, and abortion. IMO, the Dems are too lenient on criminals (and, yes, I do know how prison environments can have a detrimental effect on rehabilitation). We don't view it as the government's responsibility to rehabilitate criminals (the onus there is on the criminal, as no one else can change them), but to enforce the law and punish the guilty. We don't believe that new laws should be made in the courts (I've never found "right to choose" in the Constitution), but that they should be made in the legislature and determined in the courts if they violate our founding documents only. Regarding abortion, none of us believe in it. I have two adopted sisters, whose mothers were originally planning to abort; I'm eternally grateful that they didn't. Personally, I don't buy the whole "when can a fetus survive on it's own" argument, because I know for a fact that children can't survive without constant adult supervision until at least 4 years of age (medical research, BTW, has shown that newborns will die without human contact). Further, the argument to me is whether or not the fetus has a unique genetic signature; as human cloning has yet to be accomplished, the answer to that question is always yes, and as such the zygote/fetus/baby is a person (BTW, ever wonder what "fetus" means, since there seems to be a distinction between fetus and baby in all talk on abortion? It means "baby".). There's always an exception (such as endangering the life of the mother), but I hate how we've cheapened human life. Finally, and this opinion is pretty much mine, as most of my family doesn't get this deep into politics, the concept of an American empire doesn't bother me. When one looks through human history, the most enlightened times in our civilizations have been when most of the world was controlled by an empire. Whether said empire was the Persian, Greek, Macedonian, Roman, Holy Roman, or British, we wouldn't have gotten where we are today without the stability offered by those empires. Science has flourished in the majority of these empires (Holy Roman being the exception, though art did advance quite significantly, as well as exploration), and the lot of people after the empires fell or turned inward was better than it was before the empire. The US has been thrust into the position of being the most powerful nation on earth, and I believe that it is folly to not try to use our power to help improve the lot of those living on this wondrous orb. Will we screw up? Yup. Will some people get mad at us no matter what we do? Yup. Will some people view us as oppressors rather than liberators or helpers? Yup. Does this mean we shouldn't try? Nope. I've only lived on this earth for 28 years, and I've seen both the best and worst from people, and have concluded that no one is perfect, nor will anyone ever be. Imperfection, though, is not an excuse to not try to better the world. No, it won't be perfect, but it could be much better than what currently exists. For example, by behaving more as an empire in Africa and the Middle East, we could significantly reduce the slave trade in those areas (as slavery is illegal in our laws), which currently is greater than at any other time in the world, even during the 17th and 18th centuries. That's just one example. Before you dismiss the idea as folly, though, take a moment and try to imagine where the world would be without the empires that have dominated our histories. Also, look at how empires behave, as far as generally not being too involved in subject nations' internal affairs (though there was some involvement, in each case the empire left most things up the the subject nations' native governments). Finally, remember that science, art, literacy, mathematics, and jurisprudence wouldn't be where they are today without the stability offered by the empires and the far-reaching influence that they had to spread those concepts.

Lucky. I'd kill for a fifth of Stoli right now.

Product, read a little closer. This is an Associated Press story, not a Fox News story. Thus, no "Fox News spin".

To support the domestication argument, corn has been modified so much that no one knows what the original plant was.

At least one, in Iraq, according to taks' source.

Read this. Before anyone gets their panties in a bunch, take note of the byline, which says, "Associated Press". You know, 4 years ago I knew a dangerous precedent was being set, and now it appears that I was right.

Okay, now that we have that out of the way, what's it about?

Huh?

Well, the basic premise is that full citizenship (that is, citizenship with voting rights) is only accorded to those who have served in the military. Other citizens have rights, they just can't vote. The idea behind this rule is that only those individuals who are willing to face maiming and death, who demonstrate their love of country and dedication of its ideals by being willing to fight and die for it, are the only individuals who should have the right to vote, as they have already proven themselves to be responsible and dedicated. Also, active military personnel aren't allowed to be in public office (so it isn't a military dictatorship disguised as democracy). Oh, and you aren't old, Di!

Di, something like what Hienlein had in Starship Troopers?

I, on the other hand, guarantee that by 2060 I will be known as the greatest sex god in history, richest man in the universe, and secret head of the Illuminated Seers of Bavaria. Oh, yeah, and I'm really Batman. Really. Just ask Hell Kitty. Edited for spelling, 'cause the baby was on my head.

I knew it.

I have issues with people who don't have issues.

BWAAAHAAAHAAA!!! You too. I used to be that way, then becoming disgusted with the church and life in general, I retreated and encased myself in my room, and most frequently, in the box of Silicon and Aluminum that I created. The internet is my new life. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Small world, ain't it? So, do you feel like you're constantly being judged, as well? Most PKs I've talked to have a kind of paranoia where they feel that people are always watching, waiting for the slightest screw-up or hint of human fallacy. NOTE: For those who don't know or understand, many minister's kids have to, from at the latest 5 years old onward, hold to the same standard of behavior that is expected of the minister. Many church congregations (wrongly in my opinion, but I do recognize that an individual or group being wrong does not necessarily invalidate their beliefs, as humans are fallable, and, on the whole, lazy thinkers) will hold the minister responsible for any untoward act commited by his/her children. Basically, the "good" PKs (not the rebellious ones) tend to act like their thirty while still preteens, simply because their parents' job and well-being depends on it. We also tend to be a bit behind when it comes to social maturity, as no one wants to hang out with somber kids who never want to have fun (where fun equals dangerous or trouble). EDIT: Perhaps I shouldn't say "congregations", and should instead say "some individuals within church congregations", as that is more accurate in my experience.

<Guffaws>