« October 2006 | Main | December 2006 »
Well, it seems I am the purveyor of bad news today. After 240 days in business, Fanatic Games is closing its doors. Unfortunately, most businesses fail within the first year, I'm just sorry this was one of them. The web site will remain open to provide Internet sales, but that will be it. Hopefully, another store will open up to fill the need of the gamers of Memphis.
I gathered together with some friends that didn't have any place to be and we played Flat Top, a WWII sea-based wargame. While not incredibly complex, it was extremely detailed, requiring to you track each aircraft and ship. You had to track the aircraft reloading status, whether they were at a high or low altitude, fighter screens and everything.
I played the Japanese Fleet Commander, and commanded 2 Carriers, a Light Carrier, three Battleships and various support and transport vessels up against three American Carriers, a Battleship and support vessels. This was a reenactment of the Battle of Eastern Solomons. My main carrier group and Surface action group hid in a storm, then popped out and launched a strike against the American carrier group. My groups were also sighted at the same time, but his strike concentrated against my battleships. My strike sunk the Saratoga, and we didn't work out his air strike. He shot most of my dive bombers out of the sky, but they did enough damage that the torpedo bombers could finish her off. My light carrier group was right next to the Wasp, and my SAG was within range of his carrier group. Had the game continued, I would have engaged the American groups in a surface battle and would have emerged victorious.
So, I changed the history of the war, but it would only delay the inevitable. With the loss of all three American carriers in the Pacific in 1942, the Japanese could have held on to Guadalcanal, and taken New Guinea. But Japan had no chance at all against the United States in WWII, our economy and resources were several times greater than theirs. We could simply produce more of everything than they could. It was merely a question of time and blood.
Seven Steps To Stagnation:
1. We've Never Done It That Way.
2. We're Not Ready For That.
3. We've Always Done It This Way.
4. We Tried That Once Before.
5. It Costs Too Much.
6. That's Not Our Responsibility.
7. It Just Won't Work.
There is a business that I know of that was very stagnant, the office manager who ran everything (including the boss) was a firm believer of these phrases, especially #'s 1 and 3. She said those to my face one day, when I suggested a better way of doing things. That business is still holding on, but it has less than 10 employees, and there is probably a 50% turnover of employees every year. Without growing the business, you can't pay people what they are worth. Either that or you get 2nd or 3rd line people and you stumble through mediocrity.
Political Correctness:
A doctrine fostered by a delusional, illogical liberal minority, and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end.
Hm. It seems that the distinguished former Senator from North Carolina, John Edwards was caught with his hand in the cookie jar. Again.
Senator Edwards, which has campaigned against Wal-Mart with such things as here, John Edwards on campaign trail again, this time against Wal-Mart, got caught.
In the article above article, Senator Edwards is clearly against everything Wal-Mart stands for. But then this press release comes from Bentonville:
BENTONVILLE, Ark. – Nov. 16, 2006 – Just like the millions of Americans who turn to their neighborhood Wal-Mart for their holiday shopping needs, Wal-Mart announced today that former Sen. John Edwards is seeking to be one of the first to get a Sony PlayStation3, one of the most coveted holiday gift items this Christmas season.Yesterday, a staff person for former Sen. Edwards contacted a Wal-Mart electronics manager in Raleigh, North Carolina to obtain a Sony PlayStation3 on behalf of the Senator's family. Later that night, Sen. Edwards reportedly re-told a homespun story to participants of a United Food and Commercial Workers (UFCW) union-sponsored call about how his son had chided a fellow student for purchasing shoes at Wal-Mart.
Now, just doesn't that beat all? Here he is, campaigning against Wal-Mart, and then being the elitist Liberal he is, wants special privileges at a Wal-Mart to get something for his kid. He's worse than a Liberal, he's a line cutter!
So here he is, campaigning against Wal-Mart, then sends a staffer into Wal-Mart (so he isn't seen going in) to get something, because of the low prices he is campaigning against! Just more of the "for me, but not for thee" miindset of the Liberal.
Mike has already brought a lot of this up, but in the past few days of reflection, I just wanted to bring these points up as well.
In 2000, we had Florida. Because it was so close, and the electoral swing would have made Gore President, every vote was scrutinized. Well, the votes in heavily Democrat populated areas anyway. There was hanging chads, dimpled chads, and a run at the Supreme Court. Democrat accusations of voter fraud and miscounting were as thick as flies over a dead body.
Fast forward to 2004. This time is was Ohio and their Diebold electronic machines. Again, there were accusations of tampering, confusing machines, etc., etc., etc.
Now in 2006, the Democrats win. Suddenly, there is no accusations of chads, or Diebold machines being tampered with. "The people have spoken" and all that. There is no screaming for recounts, even in the races that was decided by a handful of votes. And I am talking 50.001% to 49.999%. The Republicans are not threatening lawsuits over the machines, chads or anything else. There is no accusations of voter fraud, even when there have been many, many documented instances of Democrat voter fraud in the past.
No Republican is threatening to move out of the country, no Republican is threatening to hold their breath until they get their way. No Republican is signing up for PEST (Post-Election Stress Trauma) therapy. Unlike Democrats, which were guilty of all of the above.
The Republicans have taken their loss with dignity and style. They have redoubled their resolve, and will take the next two years to decide how to get their act straight and become again the party of lesser government, lower taxes and strong on national security.
The Democrats held the House and the Senate for over 30 years before the 1994 revolution. If they think they are going to hold it for another 30 years, they are sadly mistaken. Their own shrill noises will drive them out of office in 2008. They are going to raise taxes, which will crash the economy, they will pull us out of Iraq, which will make that country a theological puppet of Iran, and they will gut every program the President has to catch terrorists. And when that next attack comes, it will be laid on the feet of the Liberal Democrats.
Play this. Now. If you don't cry, you have no heart.
...And so, on the 11th hour of the 11th day of the 11th month, the guns fell silent and the Great War ended. This was supposed to be "the war to end all wars." The amount of carnage and death on each side was horrific to say the least, on a scale previously thought unthinkable.
Today is the day we remember our living veterans. If you know one, thank them for their service. They may have served in peacetime or wartime, Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines or Coast Guard. In any case, they willingly put their lives on the line so that others could enjoy the fruits of freedom.
When a veteran knows another veteran, there is an instant deep bond between them. They may refer to each other as Grunts, Squids, Zoomies or Jarheads, but these are affectionate terms for bonds of people who picked up a weapon and stood watch on that wall that separates us from our enemies. If you are not a veteran and you use those terms, well, let's just say you won't do it twice in front of a veteran.
I close this entry with this poem:
"It is the soldier, not the reporter,
Who has given us freedom of the press."It is the soldier, not the poet,
Who has given us freedom of speech."It is the soldier, not the campus organizer,
Who has given us the freedom to demonstrate."It is the soldier, who salutes the flag,
Who serves beneath the flag,
And whose coffin is draped by the flag,
Who allows the protester to burn the flag."
--Charles M. Province
This is the day where citizenship matters. Make your voice heard and vote for those who you think will do the best job. If you sit home and don't vote, then you have no right to complain, since you didn't try to be part of the solution.
Voting is a sacrament in this and any other country where the citizens can freely vote for whoever they want to.
I don't care if you feel like you're voting for the lesser of two evils, that you have to hold your nose when you pull that lever, GIT R DONE!
I'm off to my polling place now.
...No, not by me. (Thanks, Mike)
Well, I'll let the article speak for itself: Mideast terror leaders to U.S.: Vote Democrat. Withdrawal from Iraq would embolden jihadists to destroy Israel, America
And I quote:
"Of course Americans should vote Democrat," Jihad Jaara, a senior member of the Al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades terror group and the infamous leader of the 2002 siege of Bethlehem's Church of the Nativity, told WND."This is why American Muslims will support the Democrats, because there is an atmosphere in America that encourages those who want to withdraw from Iraq. It is time that the American people support those who want to take them out of this Iraqi mud," said Jaara, speaking to WND from exile in Ireland, where he was sent as part of an internationally brokered deal that ended the church siege.
So, when our enemies ask you to vote for somebody, shouldn't that be a red flag? That maybe the Democrats plan (or lack of a plan) would actually be beneficial to the terrorists?
I urge you to vote tomorrow, and while I care who you vote for, it's more important that you vote for what you believe in.
I can't really advocate the Republican position, but I can come up with some reasons not to vote Democrat:
Do you want higher taxes?
Do you want investigation after investigation (and possible Impeachment) of the White House, that will do nothing but waste time and money?
Do you want the terrorists to win in Iraq?
Do you want an American Islamic State? (No, it won't happen tomorrow, but it will happen for your grandchildren if we start the ball rolling now)
If you answered "Yes" to any of the above questions, then I suggest you examine yourself and why you would want these things to happen.
Here you go, here's my SpecialistCon Trophy:
I have to take the plate in for engraving, but this is going to look SWEET on my computer desk!
This is the response from our troops to the awful "joke" that Kerry told the other day.
And what was Kerry's "apology"?
"I sincerely regret that my words were misinterpreted to wrongly imply anything negative about those in uniform, and I personally apologize to any service member, family member or American who was offended. As a combat veteran, I want to make it clear to anyone in uniform and to their loved ones: My poorly stated joke at a rally was not about, and never intended to refer to any troop."
No where in there do I hear an apology. I hear "you are too stupid to recognize what a great joke teller I am and what I really meant."
"I sincerely regret that my words were misinterpreted" BULLSHIT! That was about as much an apology as blue smoke and mirrors. When you are sorry, you say, "I'm sorry, I did not mean to say what I said."
And this is not his first time either. In earlier speeches, he likened our troops to Pol Pot, the brutal dictator of Cambodia who killed millions of his own citizens. He specifically implied that our troops in Iraq are on the verge of being war criminals, terrorizing women and children.
And if you look further back, when he was running for Congressman, this is what he said about an all-volunteer force:
"I am convinced a volunteer army would be an army of the poor and the black and the brown," Kerry wrote. "We must not repeat the travesty of the inequities present during Vietnam. I also fear having a professional army that views the perpetuation of war crimes as simply 'doing its job.'"Equally as important, a volunteer army with our present constitutional crisis takes accountability away from the president and put the people further from control over military activities,"
Source: My Way News.
A spokesperson for Kerry tried to explain away those words, saying:
"These are the words 34 years ago of a 28-year-old veteran home from a war gone wrong, wondering who in America will bear the cost of battle and shoulder the responsibility of military service."
Kerry has been consistent in those 34 years, deriding the military and anything it represents. Every time he opens hie mouth about the military, something like that comes out.
They have hid Pelosi, Rangel and Murtha to keep their crazy and inflammatory words out of the press so they don't snatch defeat out of the jaws of victory. But Kerry stepped up and did the job for all of them.
I don't much like the Republicans I have to vote for either. I have to hold my nose, but believe me, this is truly the lesser of two evils.
If you want our troops insulted on a regular basis, vote Democrat.
If you want higher taxes, vote Democrat.
If you want to pull out of Iraq and leave it to become a Sharia puppet of Iran, vote Democrat.
If you want to collapse the best economy we've had in 20 years, vote Democrat.
If you want the probability of another 9/11, vote Democrat.
I think that should be enough reasons.
I checked my refer logs this morning and found a back track to Whitescreek Journal, specifically, this post on Social Security.
I quote it so you don't have to go there:
Republicans are Hell bent to destroy Social Security.Actually, they say they want to "Save" Social Security...But we all know that will work the way they "Saved" Iraq"...
In an interview with Marisa Bartiromo of MSNBC, President George Bush said that the privitization of Social Securiy will be back on the Republican agenda. That will essentially destroy Social Security, the most successful government program in the history of America.
From AARP:
A new AARP survey finds that boomer+ voters (age 42 and older) are strongly opposed to using Social Security taxes to fund private accounts. More than seven in ten of those polled (72 percent) said they oppose private accounts. Less than one in six (16 percent) of those polled said they support such accounts.
Oddly, the only attack ads about this so far are by Republicans who mischaracterize what the AARP has said. When will this issue go front and center? If Republicans keep control, they'll do everything they can to take the money and give it to their friends.
Currently, Your social security assets are held in the form of Treasury certificates, not cash. George Bush spent your cash on his war, and now, he's borrowing over $6000 a second to fight the war in Iraq. (Well over half a million of your tax dollars in the time it will take for you to read this rant)
And why do Republicans hate Social Security so much?
Republicans just can't stand seeing a pile of money they can't steal.
First of all, we all know that you can shave points of the poll in your favor by asking questions a certain way. AARP has a definite conflict of interest and could not produce a non-partial poll if they were passing out $20 bills.
Now, let's go over what Social Security actually is. It's a Ponzi scheme.
In simple terms, this is how it goes:
1. You recruit investors.
2. You recruit more investors.
3. You use the money from #2 to pay the investors from #1.
4. Repeat all steps.
You eventually reach a point where you cannot recruit enough new investors to pay the present investors, and the scheme collapses. You either take what you've skimmed off and retreat to Mexico, or you get caught and do 10 years or so for fraud.
When Social Security first started, very few people lived to be 65. Those that did, didn't last very long. There was also a ratio of 7 working people to 1 retiree. Today, people are routinely living into their 80's, meaning we pay them 15+ years of benefits. The ratio has also changed, with 1 working person to 1.1 retirees. That's right, you are starting to support more than one retiree. Which means your Social Security taxes will go up soon, whether you like it or not.
There is no "trust fund" with your money in it. It was raided in the 80's by a Democrat Congress, and it has been raided for every penny of profit it has made since. In about 15 years, just before I retire, the system will collapse. Too many people will be on Social Security that the SS Administration will have to start cashing in those notes that they have. And the money won't be there.
Now, let's look at what President Bush wants to do. He wants to privatize a portion of the taxes you pay into Social Security. This portion will go into a private account, that will be invested in the stock market. Now here's the part that the Democrats and AARP isn't telling you. Bush wants to give everybody the same pension plan as government workers. That's right. You will have the same options, and the same returns as any Federal employee with the amount that is yours.
You know, it's the Liberals who have been screaming, "We only have 20 years before it's too late!" for about 30 or so years now about the environment. Why can't they say "We only have 20 years before Social Security collapses! Let's do something about it!" Because they are the party of all hat and no cattle. They will gnash their teeth and rend their clothes, then do something that is totally ineffective or worse, harmful to the situation (I know, let's raise taxes!), then feel good that they have "done something." What they did was cover the problem with a layer of plaster without fixing the foundation.
President Bush isn't trying to crash Social Security, he's trying to carefully transition it out of the Ponzi scheme and into a sustainable program.