Rob links to a post at another blog which links to this little video which shows just how dangerous a cat can be. Click the play button below the picture to start it.
Of course, this isn't the first post in which Rob mentions his dislike of cats and how people delight in sending him pictures of their feline companions. What's interesting is that the very first post on my blog was about my cat. I posted it shortly after we brought him home from his previous house where he had to compete with three other cats. Let's just say he wasn't top cat on the totem pole and this lead to a not inconsiderable amount of stress in his life.
So, Rob, if you happen to follow the trackback here, click the link, look at my cat, and leave a comment letting me know you were here. I won't mind if you say you want to drop-kick him into the next county. Sometimes I feel that way myself....
Tuesday, February 15, 2005
Review: The Chronicles of Riddick: Escape from Butcher Bay (PC)
Last year, as you may know, the sequal to the film "Pitch Black" was released. Titled "The Chronicles of Riddick" it, well, chronicled the continuing adventures of one Richard B. Riddick, portrayed by Vin Diesel, as he becomes involved in civilization's fight against the evil Necromonger horde. A coworker of mine characterized the movie as "ass." My take was that it was enjoyable but it had a lot of gaping plot holes and really wasn't as good as I had hoped it would be. It's worth a cheap rental but I certainly wouldn't buy the DVD.
At about the same time, a small company named Starbreeze Studios released the now-obligatory companion computer game, which was published by Vivendi Universal. In this case it was for the Xbox console. The game garnered surprisingly good reviews given that most games based on movies tend to suck royally. Since the Xbox is essentially a special-purpose PC, it didn't take long for Starbreeze to port the game over to the PC world. I just finished the game and here are my thoughts.
Modern 3D engine
I would say that the 3D rendering engine used for "Riddick" looks almost as good as the Doom 3 engine. The look of the graphics is very similar and the engine uses many of the same cutting-edge rendering techniques. Of special note are the shadows, all of which are dynamic as in Doom 3. The shadows are sharp-edged like in Doom 3, as opposed to the soft shadows used in Half-Life 2. However, HL2 had to cut some corners on shadows to keep performance high so not all of them are dynamic, and those that are have only one light source and, in the one big flaw in the Source engine, can be cast through objects (so, for example, a person walking along an elevated walkway casts a shadow that appears beneath the walkway). In "Riddick" multiple light sources can exist and the shadows do not (as far as I could see anyway) cast through opaque objects.
It's obvious, however, that the programmers either aren't quite as experienced as those at iD, or didn't have as much time to polish the engine. There are minor rendering glitches, such as visible seams on character models and texture z-order issues, but they are minor and don't detract much from the experience. Everything else good about the game more than makes up for them.
The engine does require a reasonably powerful machine to run well although it will scale down if necessary. In my system I run it at 1024x768 with all the visual goodies turned on. Running at 1280x1024 results in an unacceptably low framerate. Even so, it's still considerably higher resolution than Xbox players get on their televisions.
Immersive gameplay
The gameplay in "Riddick" is first-person most of the time. It switches to third-person for cutscenes, which are rendered real-time by the engine, and when you are doing certain things like climbing. In first-person mode you really get a sense that you are the title character. This game does something that most other games don't do: The player's character model is completely rendered. This means that you cast shadows and you can see your own body if you look down. In HL2, the character is basically a disembodied camera floating above the ground. The arms and weapons are rendered but the rest of the model doesn't exist. When you pick something up, it just floats in front of you instead of showing your hands holding it. In "Riddick" the camera moves with the character's head. The way the camera moves is a little different because of this. Instead of the player moving the camera, the player moves the model which is fully animated, and the movement of the model's head determines where the camera is and which direction it's facing. It provides for a more realistic movement of the point of view. It takes a little getting used to but really adds to the feeling of immersion.
The style of gameplay varies throughout the game. Sometimes you have weapons, others just your fists. Sometimes you charge in guns blazing, other times you sneak around in the shadows and snap your enemies necks from behind. A couple of places involve stepping into an armored mech and stomping to your destination, chainguns blazing. The list of personal weapons is relatively standard and is kept simple; there are no BFG 9000's or laser swords in this game. Instead you get things like shivs and clubs for melee combat and, for longer range, your basic pistol, automatic rifle, and shotgun. There are a couple of specialty weapons you'll get to use at various points but nothing too exotic.
Speaking of melee combat, this makes up a significant part of the fighting you will be doing. Riddick can fight with his fists or with a melee weapon and you'll use both in the course of the game. The control system is relatively straightfoward. You can even go up against opponents with firearms with just your fists, and you'll need to do so at least a few times. It's best if you can sneak up behind them but even toe-to-toe it's relatively easy to put a finishing move on the guy. You'll know it when you see it.
There are several side missions you can accomplish if you wish, although they are not necessary to proceed through the game. Also, there are many packs of cigarettes secreted throughout the game. Collecting them unlocks various additional features, such as game art and videos. You can also collect money, either by finding it lying around or by completing side missions for which you get paid, which you can use to buy various items. Again, it's not strictly necessary but certain items will help considerably if you get them. This adds an element of role-playing to the game although it doesn't overshadow the first-person action aspect at all.
The level design is well done and really gives the impression that you are in a bleak and dirty correctional and industrial facility. Of course there are the obligatory crates and exploding barrels but they do fit in with this setting and only exist where it would make sense.
Voice talent
Vin Diesel lends his voice to the character of Riddick and, based on the credits, appears to have had a pretty large role in designing and scripting the game. It definitely shows. In addition to Deisel, Cole Hauser provides the voice of Johns the bounty hunter, the character he portrayed in "Pitch Black." Additional voices are provided by Dwight Schultz (Murdock from "The A-Team" and Reginald Barkley in "Star Trek: The Next Generation" and "Star Trek: Voyager."), rap artist Xzibit, and Ron Perlman. The performances from these actors, as well as the other voice actors who voiced myriad other characters, are very well done. One reviewer noted that Diesel and Hauser actually underplayed their roles which, in my opinion, really reinforced these characters as hard, pragmatic men who do what is necessary to achieve their goals.
Miscellaneous
Some have noted that the game is relatively short. For me personally it was about the right length. Trying to pad it out longer would have made it repetitive.
Every single character you encounter in the game is an individual with his own unique model and voice. Some actors voice multiple characters but they change inflection, tone, and accent to personalize their voice to each one. The character voiced by Xzibit even looks more or less like him and, of course, the models for Riddick and Johns look like their respective actors.
The PC version of the game has a section not present in the Xbox version. This is the first time you get into a mech and go stomping around shooting everything that moves.
There is one really nasty glaring bug in the game. When I died, the game would crash when reloading the level. I did some searching around on the forums and discovered that the solution was to unplug my joystick. Since I wasn't using it anyway, this was no big deal but it does represent a rather glaring example of something that was missed by their testers. I'm guessing that, since the game was ported from the Xbox, the code that deals with interacting with controllers wasn't completely ported over properly and, when it tries to figure out what's all plugged into the machine, it chokes on the joystick. Maybe the game thinks it's an Xbox controller or something. Other than that, I don't recall the game ever crashing.
As noted above, there are some minor rendering issues. I did, however, encounter a whopping huge one late in the game. I opened this large door and, on the other side, it was this tan blankness. Once I stepped through, the area on the other side rendered and the area I just came from was now blank. It didn't keep me from playing the game, but it was a bit disconcerting.
Conclusion
If you like first-person games and you have the machine to run it reasonably well I definitely recommend this game. It's a fine example of how to make a movie-related game the right way.
At about the same time, a small company named Starbreeze Studios released the now-obligatory companion computer game, which was published by Vivendi Universal. In this case it was for the Xbox console. The game garnered surprisingly good reviews given that most games based on movies tend to suck royally. Since the Xbox is essentially a special-purpose PC, it didn't take long for Starbreeze to port the game over to the PC world. I just finished the game and here are my thoughts.
Modern 3D engine
I would say that the 3D rendering engine used for "Riddick" looks almost as good as the Doom 3 engine. The look of the graphics is very similar and the engine uses many of the same cutting-edge rendering techniques. Of special note are the shadows, all of which are dynamic as in Doom 3. The shadows are sharp-edged like in Doom 3, as opposed to the soft shadows used in Half-Life 2. However, HL2 had to cut some corners on shadows to keep performance high so not all of them are dynamic, and those that are have only one light source and, in the one big flaw in the Source engine, can be cast through objects (so, for example, a person walking along an elevated walkway casts a shadow that appears beneath the walkway). In "Riddick" multiple light sources can exist and the shadows do not (as far as I could see anyway) cast through opaque objects.
It's obvious, however, that the programmers either aren't quite as experienced as those at iD, or didn't have as much time to polish the engine. There are minor rendering glitches, such as visible seams on character models and texture z-order issues, but they are minor and don't detract much from the experience. Everything else good about the game more than makes up for them.
The engine does require a reasonably powerful machine to run well although it will scale down if necessary. In my system I run it at 1024x768 with all the visual goodies turned on. Running at 1280x1024 results in an unacceptably low framerate. Even so, it's still considerably higher resolution than Xbox players get on their televisions.
Immersive gameplay
The gameplay in "Riddick" is first-person most of the time. It switches to third-person for cutscenes, which are rendered real-time by the engine, and when you are doing certain things like climbing. In first-person mode you really get a sense that you are the title character. This game does something that most other games don't do: The player's character model is completely rendered. This means that you cast shadows and you can see your own body if you look down. In HL2, the character is basically a disembodied camera floating above the ground. The arms and weapons are rendered but the rest of the model doesn't exist. When you pick something up, it just floats in front of you instead of showing your hands holding it. In "Riddick" the camera moves with the character's head. The way the camera moves is a little different because of this. Instead of the player moving the camera, the player moves the model which is fully animated, and the movement of the model's head determines where the camera is and which direction it's facing. It provides for a more realistic movement of the point of view. It takes a little getting used to but really adds to the feeling of immersion.
The style of gameplay varies throughout the game. Sometimes you have weapons, others just your fists. Sometimes you charge in guns blazing, other times you sneak around in the shadows and snap your enemies necks from behind. A couple of places involve stepping into an armored mech and stomping to your destination, chainguns blazing. The list of personal weapons is relatively standard and is kept simple; there are no BFG 9000's or laser swords in this game. Instead you get things like shivs and clubs for melee combat and, for longer range, your basic pistol, automatic rifle, and shotgun. There are a couple of specialty weapons you'll get to use at various points but nothing too exotic.
Speaking of melee combat, this makes up a significant part of the fighting you will be doing. Riddick can fight with his fists or with a melee weapon and you'll use both in the course of the game. The control system is relatively straightfoward. You can even go up against opponents with firearms with just your fists, and you'll need to do so at least a few times. It's best if you can sneak up behind them but even toe-to-toe it's relatively easy to put a finishing move on the guy. You'll know it when you see it.
There are several side missions you can accomplish if you wish, although they are not necessary to proceed through the game. Also, there are many packs of cigarettes secreted throughout the game. Collecting them unlocks various additional features, such as game art and videos. You can also collect money, either by finding it lying around or by completing side missions for which you get paid, which you can use to buy various items. Again, it's not strictly necessary but certain items will help considerably if you get them. This adds an element of role-playing to the game although it doesn't overshadow the first-person action aspect at all.
The level design is well done and really gives the impression that you are in a bleak and dirty correctional and industrial facility. Of course there are the obligatory crates and exploding barrels but they do fit in with this setting and only exist where it would make sense.
Voice talent
Vin Diesel lends his voice to the character of Riddick and, based on the credits, appears to have had a pretty large role in designing and scripting the game. It definitely shows. In addition to Deisel, Cole Hauser provides the voice of Johns the bounty hunter, the character he portrayed in "Pitch Black." Additional voices are provided by Dwight Schultz (Murdock from "The A-Team" and Reginald Barkley in "Star Trek: The Next Generation" and "Star Trek: Voyager."), rap artist Xzibit, and Ron Perlman. The performances from these actors, as well as the other voice actors who voiced myriad other characters, are very well done. One reviewer noted that Diesel and Hauser actually underplayed their roles which, in my opinion, really reinforced these characters as hard, pragmatic men who do what is necessary to achieve their goals.
Miscellaneous
Some have noted that the game is relatively short. For me personally it was about the right length. Trying to pad it out longer would have made it repetitive.
Every single character you encounter in the game is an individual with his own unique model and voice. Some actors voice multiple characters but they change inflection, tone, and accent to personalize their voice to each one. The character voiced by Xzibit even looks more or less like him and, of course, the models for Riddick and Johns look like their respective actors.
The PC version of the game has a section not present in the Xbox version. This is the first time you get into a mech and go stomping around shooting everything that moves.
There is one really nasty glaring bug in the game. When I died, the game would crash when reloading the level. I did some searching around on the forums and discovered that the solution was to unplug my joystick. Since I wasn't using it anyway, this was no big deal but it does represent a rather glaring example of something that was missed by their testers. I'm guessing that, since the game was ported from the Xbox, the code that deals with interacting with controllers wasn't completely ported over properly and, when it tries to figure out what's all plugged into the machine, it chokes on the joystick. Maybe the game thinks it's an Xbox controller or something. Other than that, I don't recall the game ever crashing.
As noted above, there are some minor rendering issues. I did, however, encounter a whopping huge one late in the game. I opened this large door and, on the other side, it was this tan blankness. Once I stepped through, the area on the other side rendered and the area I just came from was now blank. It didn't keep me from playing the game, but it was a bit disconcerting.
Conclusion
If you like first-person games and you have the machine to run it reasonably well I definitely recommend this game. It's a fine example of how to make a movie-related game the right way.
Friday, February 11, 2005
Improved sanity in Florida
Via the ever-irascible Kim du Toit comes the link to this article at floridatoday.com which heralds a welcome change in the law regarding home defense:
In short, if someone breaks into your home or your car, the assumption under the law is that he or she intends to inflict bodily harm upon you. Therefore you are completely justified in defending yourself using deadly force regardless of whether or not the intruder is armed or what his or her intentions really are.
It provides for erring on the side of caution. It also recognizes that, when someone breaks the law and intrudes on your property, thereby violating your rights, they automatically forfeit their right not to be harmed. They have initiated the illegal action, they are responsible for what happens, and they must bear the consequences.
As I understand the law in Washington State, it is much like current Florida law (I need to review my copy of Washington Gun Rights and Responsibilities). You have the legal right to shoot an intruder but there will be an investigation into whether or not it was reasonable for you to believe you were in danger. Shooting the guy as he's climbing back out the window, for example, is not a good idea. I wouldn't advocate doing that in any circumstance, even if it were allowed, but the trick is determining whether or not you really are in danger. In a situation like that, your perception tends to narrow (tunnel vision) and you don't have time to think things through. You don't have the luxury of taking the time to evaluate fully whether or not the intruder presents a threat. By putting the onus on the intruder where it belongs, this new law will protect homeowners who are simply trying to defend themselves as best they can, and can't afford to take any chances.
Florida is an interesting state. On the one hand, it is the state that has its own category on Fark for all the wacky stuff that goes on there. Many of its residents are those that have retired there from the large metropolitan areas of the east such as New York, and probably take the liberal values they grew up among with them. On the other hand, I can apply for a Florida concealed weapon permit which would allow me as a non-resident to carry a concealed pistol if I were to visit the state. And now comes this law which takes the support of law-abiding gun owners to a higher level. Interesting indeed.
A gun barrel to the head was enough to convince Sen. Jim King to favor broadening the state's deadly force laws. Another senator on the Criminal Justice Committee also is a believer after twice facing intruders in her bedroom.
The National Rifle Association-backed bill establishes a legal presumption that a home intruder is there to do bodily harm. Any use of deadly force by a homeowner is then justified by definition. The same presumption applies to someone who forcibly enters a car.
In short, if someone breaks into your home or your car, the assumption under the law is that he or she intends to inflict bodily harm upon you. Therefore you are completely justified in defending yourself using deadly force regardless of whether or not the intruder is armed or what his or her intentions really are.
It provides for erring on the side of caution. It also recognizes that, when someone breaks the law and intrudes on your property, thereby violating your rights, they automatically forfeit their right not to be harmed. They have initiated the illegal action, they are responsible for what happens, and they must bear the consequences.
As I understand the law in Washington State, it is much like current Florida law (I need to review my copy of Washington Gun Rights and Responsibilities). You have the legal right to shoot an intruder but there will be an investigation into whether or not it was reasonable for you to believe you were in danger. Shooting the guy as he's climbing back out the window, for example, is not a good idea. I wouldn't advocate doing that in any circumstance, even if it were allowed, but the trick is determining whether or not you really are in danger. In a situation like that, your perception tends to narrow (tunnel vision) and you don't have time to think things through. You don't have the luxury of taking the time to evaluate fully whether or not the intruder presents a threat. By putting the onus on the intruder where it belongs, this new law will protect homeowners who are simply trying to defend themselves as best they can, and can't afford to take any chances.
Florida is an interesting state. On the one hand, it is the state that has its own category on Fark for all the wacky stuff that goes on there. Many of its residents are those that have retired there from the large metropolitan areas of the east such as New York, and probably take the liberal values they grew up among with them. On the other hand, I can apply for a Florida concealed weapon permit which would allow me as a non-resident to carry a concealed pistol if I were to visit the state. And now comes this law which takes the support of law-abiding gun owners to a higher level. Interesting indeed.
Wednesday, February 09, 2005
Birth of a nation
Via Harvey at Bad Example (Hi Harv!) comes the link to this amazing photo montage of Iraqis voting in a free election. The link is directly to the video in WMV format.
He links as well to the post at The Zoo where he found the video link. The author, krakatoa, said some important words, some few of which I reproduce here:
When I went to bed the night before the elections I had no small measure of trepidation. What if it doesn't go well? What if the efforts to protect the polling places fail miserably and the terrorists succeed in creating the bloodbath they so desperately wanted?
Then came the morning and, when I turned on the news, I could not help but exult in the knowledge that the worst had not happened and, indeed, it had turned out even better than I had hoped. I don't believe it is hyperbole to use such words as exultation and rejoicing. It was clear in the video of Iraqis dancing for joy in the streets that they were feeling those very emotions.
<mode="captain metaphor">
That night, while I slept, the old Iraq was finally and inalterably destroyed. The new Iraq, like a phoenix from the ashes, arose and took its first unsteady steps, gaining confidence as does a foal as it learns to walk and then, ultimately, to run with the wind.
</mode>
He links as well to the post at The Zoo where he found the video link. The author, krakatoa, said some important words, some few of which I reproduce here:
More importantly than what we did, the Iraqi people, slowly, cautiously, began to hope again, and began to act on that hope.
One can not be surprised that their words and actions have been guarded in light of so many factors: The loss of trust after the '91 debacle. Our own recent elections, where the opposition party would give no assurances of seeing Iraq through to liberty against the region's tyrants. Indeed, many of our opposition vowing we would leave Iraq to its fate alone if Kerry won. Europe, led by France and Germany, constantly preaching the refrain that removing Saddam was a mistake. The Arab community, full of intrigue and violent resolve, financing, arming and even manning the terrorist militias. And tying it all together, the world Press, ignoring 10 positive stories to sieze on 1 setback, painting the prospect of free elections in Iraq as merely the neo-con pipe dream of a simple-minded Cowboy.
When I went to bed the night before the elections I had no small measure of trepidation. What if it doesn't go well? What if the efforts to protect the polling places fail miserably and the terrorists succeed in creating the bloodbath they so desperately wanted?
Then came the morning and, when I turned on the news, I could not help but exult in the knowledge that the worst had not happened and, indeed, it had turned out even better than I had hoped. I don't believe it is hyperbole to use such words as exultation and rejoicing. It was clear in the video of Iraqis dancing for joy in the streets that they were feeling those very emotions.
<mode="captain metaphor">
That night, while I slept, the old Iraq was finally and inalterably destroyed. The new Iraq, like a phoenix from the ashes, arose and took its first unsteady steps, gaining confidence as does a foal as it learns to walk and then, ultimately, to run with the wind.
</mode>
Tuesday, February 08, 2005
Justice is served
It seems an Ohio State Supreme Court Justice had a wee bit to drink before driving one day last week and got caught. Of course, this story wouldn't be complete without the justice in question trying to get the state trooper to let her off because, you know, she's a judge and all.
Joe Kelley, from whose blog I got the link, rightly commends the state patrol officer for not acceeding to Justice Resnick's request and going ahead and arresting her. One hopes that the judge in her case also does not allow her status to overshadow his duty to mete out justice, even if it's to a Justice.
There's an old saying: "In wine is truth." This means, of course, that when you're drunk you're more likely to say what's really on your mind. Her BAC was 0.22%, almost three times the legal limit, and she was certainly drunk by just about anyone's definition. It certainly appears that the old adage is true in this case.
In the video, shot by a camera on the dashboard of the patrol car, a police sergeant questioning Justice Resnick tells her that he can smell alcohol on her breath.
Justice Resnick assures the officer she can drive safely, but he asks her to take a portable breath-analysis test. She then lowers her voice and says, "I did have something to drink."
The justice also repeatedly asks to be let go, saying, "My God, you know I decide all these cases in your favor. And my golly, look what you're doing to me."
Joe Kelley, from whose blog I got the link, rightly commends the state patrol officer for not acceeding to Justice Resnick's request and going ahead and arresting her. One hopes that the judge in her case also does not allow her status to overshadow his duty to mete out justice, even if it's to a Justice.
There's an old saying: "In wine is truth." This means, of course, that when you're drunk you're more likely to say what's really on your mind. Her BAC was 0.22%, almost three times the legal limit, and she was certainly drunk by just about anyone's definition. It certainly appears that the old adage is true in this case.
Sugar subsidies
Via Boortz comes a link to this article which discusses the sugar industry's reaction to artificial sweeteners, notably Splenda, and also addresses government subsidies of the sugar industry and how it results in artificially high prices, additional costs to taxpayers, and other related deleterious effects.
On a recent trip to Victoria, British Columbia, the Geekette and I went into a shop selling various souvenir items and assorted snacks. I purchased a Coke because I had heard that in Canada (as well as in Mexico and other countries) it is made with real cane sugar. Here in the United States, high fructose corn sweetener is used instead. What I had heard was correct and, indeed, the taste was noticeably different than the Coke we have down here. (I also learned that in Canada Mountain Dew has no caffeine due to some sort of law or regulation dictating that only brown-colored drinks such as colas can contain caffeine.)
So why is this? The artificially high price of sugar from the aforementioned subsidies is the cause. Soft drink manufacturers can't afford to pay the price for sugar and sell their products at a competitive price. Therefore they turn to a less expensive alternative that may not taste as good, but is good enough. This brings me to a point that the linked article did not address.
Enter Archer Daniels Midland. As the leading manufacturer of high fructose corn syrup, it is in the best interest of their bottom line for sugar prices to remain higher than the price of an equivalent quantity, in terms of sweetening ability, of their product. Therefore they lobby heavily, backed by large political contributions, to keep the sugar subsidies going. It's a double-whammy. The sugar industry makes inordinate profit on what they sell and ADM makes an inordinate profit on what they sell. It's a clear example of why this kind of corporate welfare is so damaging to the economy and so unfair to taxpayers and consumers.
On a recent trip to Victoria, British Columbia, the Geekette and I went into a shop selling various souvenir items and assorted snacks. I purchased a Coke because I had heard that in Canada (as well as in Mexico and other countries) it is made with real cane sugar. Here in the United States, high fructose corn sweetener is used instead. What I had heard was correct and, indeed, the taste was noticeably different than the Coke we have down here. (I also learned that in Canada Mountain Dew has no caffeine due to some sort of law or regulation dictating that only brown-colored drinks such as colas can contain caffeine.)
So why is this? The artificially high price of sugar from the aforementioned subsidies is the cause. Soft drink manufacturers can't afford to pay the price for sugar and sell their products at a competitive price. Therefore they turn to a less expensive alternative that may not taste as good, but is good enough. This brings me to a point that the linked article did not address.
Enter Archer Daniels Midland. As the leading manufacturer of high fructose corn syrup, it is in the best interest of their bottom line for sugar prices to remain higher than the price of an equivalent quantity, in terms of sweetening ability, of their product. Therefore they lobby heavily, backed by large political contributions, to keep the sugar subsidies going. It's a double-whammy. The sugar industry makes inordinate profit on what they sell and ADM makes an inordinate profit on what they sell. It's a clear example of why this kind of corporate welfare is so damaging to the economy and so unfair to taxpayers and consumers.
And then there was one
The only other candidate for chairman of the Democratic National Committee besides Howard Dean has bowed out of the race.
That's the best news I've heard all day!
That's the best news I've heard all day!
Relative lack of posting
It's not like I post very regularly anyway but the last several days have seen less than usual due to an injury I sustained Thursday morning. Without going into too much detail, I threw out my lower back and am now recovering. I see a chiropractor regularly and it wouldn't surprise me if that helped keep it from being even worse than it was. I'm getting better every day, though. I missed a couple of days of work but I've been back since yesterday.
All I can say is maintain a healthy back if you can. You really really don't want to feel this kind of discomfort. It's amazing how much my mobility has been limited since this happened. On the other hand, I also have a greater appreciation and understanding of how people adapt to disabilities.
All I can say is maintain a healthy back if you can. You really really don't want to feel this kind of discomfort. It's amazing how much my mobility has been limited since this happened. On the other hand, I also have a greater appreciation and understanding of how people adapt to disabilities.
Cease fire in Israel (until it's broken)
So, Sharon and Abbas have declared an end to violence between Israel and the Palenstinians.
Of course, not all is happiness and light...
So, when the next Hamas bomb goes off somewhere in Israel, and Israel responds with military action against Hamas terrorists, guess who is going to be the target of all the international recrimination, resolutions in the UN condemning their actions, and all the usual censure that they have endured for so long? Hint: their flag has a six-pointed star on it.
I know that many, if not most Palestinians really want peace. Perhaps Abbas is among them. But those that don't won't care about this cease fire. They want only the destruction of Israel and the murder of all of its citizens. It remains to be seen whether or not the Palestinian leadership can exercise control over these people. Frankly, I'm not holding my breath. Only when all Palestinians realize that continued struggle is not in their best interest, when they understand it at a fundamental level, will the violence stop. Either that or when they're all dead. I hope the former happens. I fear the second will.
"We have agreed on halting all violent actions against Palestinians and Israelis wherever they are," Abbas declared in a statement made after the meetings, as he, Sharon, Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak and Jordan's King Abdullah II sat at a round table.
Sharon made a similar pledge.
"Today, in my meeting with chairman Abbas, we agreed that all Palestinians will stop all acts of violence against all Israelis everywhere, and, at the same time, Israel will cease all its military activity against all Palestinians everywhere," he said.
Of course, not all is happiness and light...
But the Palestinian militant group Hamas immediately called the deal into question. The group's representative in Lebanon, Osama Hamdan, told The Associated Press it would not be bound by the Israeli-Palestinian cease-fire declarations.
So, when the next Hamas bomb goes off somewhere in Israel, and Israel responds with military action against Hamas terrorists, guess who is going to be the target of all the international recrimination, resolutions in the UN condemning their actions, and all the usual censure that they have endured for so long? Hint: their flag has a six-pointed star on it.
I know that many, if not most Palestinians really want peace. Perhaps Abbas is among them. But those that don't won't care about this cease fire. They want only the destruction of Israel and the murder of all of its citizens. It remains to be seen whether or not the Palestinian leadership can exercise control over these people. Frankly, I'm not holding my breath. Only when all Palestinians realize that continued struggle is not in their best interest, when they understand it at a fundamental level, will the violence stop. Either that or when they're all dead. I hope the former happens. I fear the second will.
Wednesday, February 02, 2005
Britain regains (some) sanity
According to this article in The Independent:
Well that's good to hear. It's not as good as if Britain was allowing its citizens to own handguns once more but, hopefully, it will put an end to homeowners being arrested, charged, and put in jail for defending themselves in their own homes. Now, how about clearing the records of those who already went through that travesty?
It's not without its issues, however:
What someone believes is necessary and how frightened someone is are entirely subjective. How are the authorities going to determine whether or not someone was frightened enough to use the level of force that was employed against the intruder?
Later in the article:
It's about time you folks figured that out. The way I see it, when a person breaks into my house he or she forfeits any right not to be shot or otherwise harmed by me. The burglar initiates the action which leads to getting hurt so that's who bears the entire responsibility for it.
In short, it's a good sign but there is still a long way to go before Britain returns to full sanity on the subject of personal defense.
Homeowners who confront burglars were told by the Government yesterday that they were entitled to kill in self-defence - and use guns and knives - to protect their family and property.
They were reassured that they will not be prosecuted if they acted "honestly and instinctively" against intruders in the heat of the moment.
Well that's good to hear. It's not as good as if Britain was allowing its citizens to own handguns once more but, hopefully, it will put an end to homeowners being arrested, charged, and put in jail for defending themselves in their own homes. Now, how about clearing the records of those who already went through that travesty?
It's not without its issues, however:
The result was yesterday's leaflet, which will be distributed to libraries and police stations. It was produced by the Crown Prosecution Service and the Association of Chief Police Officers.
It told householders: "You are not expected to make fine judgments over the level of force you use in the heat of the moment. So long as you only do what you honestly and instinctively believe is necessary in the heat of the moment, that would be the strongest evidence of you acting lawfully and in self-defence."
It said that the more extreme the circumstances and the more frightened householders were, the more force they could lawfully use. But it warned they could still face the courts for using "excessive and gratuitous force".
What someone believes is necessary and how frightened someone is are entirely subjective. How are the authorities going to determine whether or not someone was frightened enough to use the level of force that was employed against the intruder?
Later in the article:
Ken Macdonald, the Director of Public Prosecutions, said: "The key thing to bear in mind is that, as long as someone hasn't stepped over that line into retribution or revenge, it is quite difficult to perceive of a level of violence that would not be regarded as reasonable by a prosecutor. This is something the intruder brings on him or herself. I don't think we need to be too squeamish about the situation." (emphasis mine -RR)
It's about time you folks figured that out. The way I see it, when a person breaks into my house he or she forfeits any right not to be shot or otherwise harmed by me. The burglar initiates the action which leads to getting hurt so that's who bears the entire responsibility for it.
In short, it's a good sign but there is still a long way to go before Britain returns to full sanity on the subject of personal defense.
Tuesday, February 01, 2005
Bulldozing property rights
This is a topic I've yet to address in any detail here. I've been reading Boortz for a while now and this is one of the issues that is most important to him. In today's edition of Neal's Nuze, he links to yet another story of a local government spuriously invoking eminent domain so that it can turn over land to a private developer.
I agree with Neal on this issue. This kind of stunt is totally against the original concept of eminent domain and is intended mostly, if not solely, to increase tax revenue. Originally the idea was that a government could take land if it was needed for a project like a military base or a road; something that is actually part of that government's job to build and maintain. Projects like condos, shopping malls, hotels, etc. do not fit that definition since they are private developments. And even though, in this case, it's being done by a "non-profit organization appointed by the city," it doesn't make any difference. It's still a private organization regardless of its profit status.
Here's the way it's supposed to work. A private firm wants to develop a shopping mall. They try to buy the land from the current owners. If the owners don't want to sell, the firm ups the price. If one or more owners still won't sell regardless of price, that's just tough luck; go somewhere else.
Hopefully, when the Supreme Court rules on the case mentioned in the article, the justices will come down on the side of property rights. If the government can just come in and take your land, your home, your possessions, for any reason whatsoever and especially to give to private developers, then there is no longer any true freedom or liberty. Instead, you're on the way to tyranny.
So when the New London Economic Development Corporation, a non-profit organization appointed by the city, approached about 70 property owners in Fort Trumbull about selling their homes to make space for a luxury hotel, condominiums and office space, these and a handful of other owners declined.
Their property, they said, is not for sale.
In November 2000, however, the city invoked eminent domain – a government right to seize property for public use – and sent out condemnation notices to owners refusing to sell. The city planned to pay the owners fair market value, take possession of the buildings and tear them down.
According to Daniel Krisch, one of the attorney's representing New London and its economic development arm, the city had several good reasons for razing the well-kept middle class neighborhood to replace it with a new, private development.
Krisch contends that the new development would create jobs, boost tax revenue, improve the city's infrastructure and provide public access to the river. It's for the benefit of the entire community, he said.
I agree with Neal on this issue. This kind of stunt is totally against the original concept of eminent domain and is intended mostly, if not solely, to increase tax revenue. Originally the idea was that a government could take land if it was needed for a project like a military base or a road; something that is actually part of that government's job to build and maintain. Projects like condos, shopping malls, hotels, etc. do not fit that definition since they are private developments. And even though, in this case, it's being done by a "non-profit organization appointed by the city," it doesn't make any difference. It's still a private organization regardless of its profit status.
Here's the way it's supposed to work. A private firm wants to develop a shopping mall. They try to buy the land from the current owners. If the owners don't want to sell, the firm ups the price. If one or more owners still won't sell regardless of price, that's just tough luck; go somewhere else.
Hopefully, when the Supreme Court rules on the case mentioned in the article, the justices will come down on the side of property rights. If the government can just come in and take your land, your home, your possessions, for any reason whatsoever and especially to give to private developers, then there is no longer any true freedom or liberty. Instead, you're on the way to tyranny.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)