Funny propaganda work by the AP, if you read my comment to it.
Archive for May 2008
I saw this movie and it was pretty funny and entertaining in a somewhat exotic and unfamiliar fashion.
It’s the usual story of an underdog undergoing a journey that changes him into something better. On that score, it’s not very special. On another score, the addition of some funny fighters and party members, along with the “Jade Empire” terminology that was better portrayed in “Jade Empire” PC Game by Bioware, such as “Golden Sparrow” or “Stone Fist” made it incredibly refreshing. Often times Chinese is translated into these flowery types of words because Chinese characters have more than one meaning and it is Chinese characters that make up a Chinese word. So there’s also a secondary meaning to something like “Sparrow” and perhaps “Golden” that you never really get just with the translated phrase of “Golden Sparrow”. All you have to define yourself with are English connotations of Golden and Sparrow, which do not match the Chinese connotations of such words in Chinese. This is usually why these translations don’t make sense. But they do paint a very nice artistic picture, you may say.
The way Golden Sparrow keeps refering to herself in the second person is very funny and endearing.
I know some Mandarine as well and could follow along with the more common words like “not have anymore”. That’s actually what the word the guard used when he answered the Jade Warlord’s question about “have you anything more to tell me”.
The exact word was Mei-Yo-Ah. Yo-Ah, or whatever that translates to in terms of Chinese characters, means “I have that”. Mei means no, since technically there it goes.
Of course, my primary complaint with Hollywood movies is that they don’t show real violence. Of course, Bruce Lee, Jet Li, and (ah forgot his name) would be the first to tell you that Hollywood martial arts is for show and relies upon an extra in terms of motion and energy expended. Martial arts tends to conserve energy more and usually aren’t that flashy since flashy wastes energy and is hard to create balance while moving around like that.
If you want to see real violence, take a look at the hand to hand scenes in Legends of the Galactic Heroes. That’s the stuff I like to see. Not for your regular 13 year olds, of course. Heck, not for your regular pacifist 50 year olds either.
Back to the complaint. The main character, Jason someguy, gets his arse beat by some thugs. That’s not really a spoiler since there’s no other way for the plot to occur than to have your protagonist demonstrate his weakness by being beaten to death, only to go on a journey of self-discovery and training to get stronger.
I have no problem with Dragon Ball Z type plots like that. I actually tend to like them. However, when you come back from learning real violence, what you won’t be doing is kicking a man so he loses his balance and falls, THEN you wait for him to get up. No no, real violence is you kick a man into the ground, then you step across his throat and chest and drop your knee ontop of him with all of your body wait situated directly over that knee. Real violence is rushing forward while the first target has cracked his head and wrist on the concrete by falling down, and slamming the knee cap of the second thug in towards the ground so that it bends inwards like a dog’s hindleg. Real violence is not a “duel” where you “wait” for the other guy to “get up” and put up his “dukes” so that you may fight him once more on equal terms.
Real violence is about kicking them while they’re down and breaking organs and limbs.
Also if you know he has a weapon and he chooses to fight you with his bare fists because his pride wants to beat your arse in without knives or guns, then you had better take advantage of that situation by cracking his neck in a 180 degree angle or breaking his fingers, wrist, elbow, or shoulder. If he is dumb enough to want to hold back on you, you might as well make him non-functional so that he couldn’t use a weapon even if he got his hands on one.
The question of multiculturalism and how the more diversified the community the better it becomes, is a question of common sense.
Do, in fact, people want to live in a diversified community full of people they hate, disagree with, and are functioning via mutually exclusive philosophies with? Like say, they eat pork and you don’t. They kill animals for sacrifice and you are part of PETA. Do people actively seek out such “diversified” communities because they believe it creates a better community or state in human affairs?
No, they don’t. What people seek out is others like themselves. You ever see a mess hall in which a bunch of strangers in High School are just meeting each other? They will naturally gravitate towards people like themselves, whether Asians with Asians or people that dress in similar fashions or people who are on the same social activity teams. People congregate with people that they see as alike to themselves.
As Medea of Code Pink said on a conservative radio host, “diversity” in Berkley means diversified fake liberal beliefs, which allows conservatives to have a say “in some other city”. This might seem tolerant and “diversified” to Medea, but what it is is extreme parochialism and an exemplification of how and why multiculturalism is not only fake, but it doesn’t work. Some fakes work, but this doesn’t even pretend to work, let alone actually work for more than a femtosecond.
When you mix cultures together with no regard for inherent superiority of those cultures or people, what you get is a war like the Balkans or Darfur. You don’t get “harmony” or “superior social states”. That’s cause the natural reactions of human beings is to be suspicious of people that aren’t like themselves. The Leftist’ God Complex seems to demand that they change human nature itself for their petty whims to work. They aren’t Gods and they sure as heck have neither the power nor wisdom of a god.
A few days ago (Friday, May 23rd) 18 year-old Ben Smith was stopped, in a routine check by a police officer, while driving his Vauxhall Corsa to his home in Melksham, Wiltshire. The officer found nothing amiss, but noticed an England flag on the parcel shelf (which Mr. Smith used to cover his music system from potential thieves) and ordered him to remove it. According to Smith:
He saw the flag and said it was racist towards immigrants and if I refused to take it down I would get a £30 fine. I laughed because I thought he was joking, but then I realized he was serious so I had to take it down straight away. I thought it was silly – it’s my country and I want to show my support for my country.
If you hate your nation so much, don’t be surprised when somebody comes in and purges those of weak faith out of existence.
Neo has up a pretty good post and comment section here. Some highlights.
# strcpy Says:
May 31st, 2008 at 1:05 am
Where I was they were mostly liberal – most of them were out of the large cities and large universities. Interestingly enough most of the mathematicians where I worked were on the conservative end of the spectrum.
Where I went to college (East Tennessee State Uni) what you said is true and I also find it true when you get to the rank and file technologists (where I am at now).
However medium to large academics pretty much only hire liberals unless the individual in question is in some way famous in their chosen field and then all bets are off on anything.
I also know some companies sometimes do not hire outside of a liberal persuasion. I’ve interviewed in a few places (Amazon.com for one) that “not fitting into the corporate culture” was the reason for not hiring me (shortly after an explicit question on something about politics – you could hear the disappointment in the voice). Though I will readily admit that was just one HR person and may just be them too.
Outside of our group most fit right in at Slashdot social, but then we were also developing Open Source software and that end of software tends to attract leftist, socialists, and communist (not that it has too – I like many of the concepts of OSS but I don’t see it as a political/semi-religious movement either).
# Beverly Says:
May 31st, 2008 at 3:10 am
Y’all are cracking me up. I’m in New York City, aka Moscow on the Hudson, which is at all times swimming in a smog of lefty smug. It’s now the new bonding ritual to make a Bush-bashing remark on being introduced, to establish your bona fides, dontchya know. People speaking in public, ditto. It’s amazing to me that they’re so bloody arrogant that they assume that EVERYONE IN THE ROOM must of Course agree with them: they’re all bien-pensants, aren’t they?
Yesterday I stopped to talk with the (young) receptionist at the studio where I work, and somehow we discovered that we both had, ahem, antediluvian ideas. We smacked each other such a high-five that our hands stung! I’ve been working there since 2001, and she’s been there a bit longer: but even in an office with just a dozen people, the pressure to conform is almost unbearable. And in NYC, it’s really as much as your job’s worth to “come out” as a conservative. Or even a liberal hawk.
Her parents, like mine, were country-club Republicans, and naturally neither of us grew up thinking republicans had horns and tails. But this vicious nonsense is permeating our nation.
Well, I simply must drop down for the night. Good rest to you all.
(BTW, I loved the anecdote by the Southern man about being mistaken for a dolt by the Yankee bigots. I’ve had the same thing happen to me in NYC, being a (National Merit Scholar, etc., etc.) Carolina girl originally. Just keep messin’ with their minds, bro. ;-))
Gotta love those antediluvan and downright anachronistic folks.
How come this person who’s capable of deductive logic can not see screaming irregularities in his leftist rationalizations?
Because deductive logic requires a person to assume certain premises to be true. In this case, their premises are not the same as yours, and mostly mutually exclusive in addition as well.
I’m almost to the end of this wonderful and magnificent series on human nature, warfare, politics, and the conflict between military rule and civilian rule.
A person will learn more from this series than they would from viewing the media reports of a conflict like Iraq or WWII, not just if they saw the media reports one time, but a million times.
You come across fascinating topics that make you really attempt to decipher the Gordian Knot between the fact that liberty and democracy must have a military to protect it, yet the military must and also will often be sacrificed for the benefits of the civilian leadership in control. The military exists to protect democracy and to obey the political leaders appointed over them by the people, from which all power rests. Yet if the military is the ultimate defender of the lives of the people, if not their liberties under democracy, how should the military tolerate actions by the political leadership to sacrifice and destroy military power? That will not only inconvenience and destroy the military, but it will weaken democracy and strip the protection away from the people. yet the military cannot go up against the civilian architecture in a coup detat without also destroying the liberty of the people via martial law and military dictatorship.
Then there is the topic of Reinhard and how the best system of governance for making drastic changes is with a charismatic and talented leader in an autocracy. Many people in democracies pretend to be against autocrats and dictators, but what they are really against is corruption, inefficiency, and weakness. When a person of charismatic ability and intent arises, people will flock to his banners, especially in democracies that are morally decadent and suffering from lack of faith and virtue. Thus it is often a paradox of both the military and the democracies they protect that their eternal enemies are often themselves and each other.
The two topics of worth here is the worth and value of a democracy as opposed to a republic and now vis a vis autocracy. A democracy, as is practiced by most of the world’s Western democracies and some Eastern ones as well, is the rule of the minority over the majority via majority rules. It works like this. If 51% of a population, in gross aggregate as proportioned via Ministeries and MPs in Parliaments, can decide for the rest of the 100% what needs to be done, then one must ask who decides for the 51% how they shall act? The answer is 26 percent of the total population, essentially 51% of that 51%. But once again, we have to ask who controls the decisions of that 26% of a democracy’s population? And the answer is 14% of the population. So on we go, for as human hierarchy dictates, there will always be a boss and there will always be people above in the hierarchy that numbers less than those that sit upon a lesser rank in the hierarchy. Eventually, depending on certain factors, you can often get as few as 1% or 5% or 10% of the total population controlling the other 100% through something as simple as majority rules. A republic is a different form of democracy, a form that detests majority rules and acknowledges the idiocy of the population and how easily they are manipulated and prodded like sheep. A republic then excludes majority rule from much, but not all, of its processes. A republic sets in safeguards that prevents majority rules by creating a balance of power, where a super majority must reign supreme in order to dictate to the rest of the population on key fundamental matters. If, instead of 51% of a population, you need 66% support from all the population, you have now increased the risk and difficulty for aristocrats to rise up over the population of a Republic. Now instead of 51% of a 51%, you have 66% of a 66%. The decay is incredibly slowed statistically.
But it doesn’t end there. A republic picks the 2 out of 3 number precisely because a triangle is very stable. A dual monarchy can rule well over a limited territory, so long as the monarchs are in agreement over duties proportioned. However, we cannot assume such an agreement will ever take place, and often they will not or they will collude together to enforce their wills on their enemies and opponents. This would be the death of most democracies, yet a Republic refuses to bow down to such human circumstances. When most people would seek to ignore such human flaws, however, a true Republic seeks to capitalize upon just such flaws. They neither seek to eradicate such flaws nor do they seek to punish people in order to force them into the mold of a “perfect society”. What a Republic does is to constantly use human nature, meaning human corruption and selfishness, to hobble corruption and selfishness that, when unrestrained, would end liberty, democracy, and the republic.
A simple use of the equilateral triangle is all that is necessary to accomplish such lofty goals. When you require a super majority, a 2/3rds of the political body to agree, what you create are essentially 3 different factions. The middle, Centralists or Moderates, the Zealots of Policy 1 and the Zealots of Policy 2. The Zealots will use fire and energy to pursue their own particular political alliance or brand of philosophy, buffered from each other by the Moderates. The Zealots, thus, must now ally themselves with the Moderates in the middle, who partake of no particular brand of philosophy for they are mercenaries that may be bought by anything that appeals to their self-interest or economic ambition. In doing so and in requiring Zealots of all political philosophies in a Republic to seek the approval of the Moderates, we create a power balance between 3 factions that will then eat up the energy that would otherwise be used to control 100% of the body politic through manipulation of 51% of its members.
Not only is this triangular balance of powers created amongst the population and their votes, but it is also created in the bone and marrow of the government and Constitution of the Republic. The entire edifice of government is now constructed solely on the assumption that people will manipulate others and attempt to bring down the Republic through petty ambitions and greed. Thus numerous safeguards are put in place, which allows several to fail yet the Republic to continue to stand.
This, essentially, what we got. There were some diamonds in the coal dust, meaning brave and effective British soldiers or commanders, but those were the exceptions, not the rule.
The entire fiasco with WMDs, the length of time given to Saddam to cook up an insurgency that killed many Americans, all were the sacrifice made by America for the help of the British. What a lovely bargain.
Don’t forget his latest series on the Arab mind.
I’m not quoting anything because it would serve no point other than to ensure that your attention is broken by having to click the link, and then find your way once more.
This is pure analysis, using certain proto-typical psychological principles as well as propaganda principles, on the factions currently at war in the 21st century. It is an interesting read and will provide much food for thought, as it did for me, otherwise I would not have commented as much as I did on his blog nor would I have linked him here.