LowerCaseRepublican

A few wrestling things: 1) Anybody watch the CNN report they did last night about wrestling? It was alright. It was a lot about Benoit and his life. They talked about his idolizing of the Dynamite Kid and then about how much of a prick Dynamite was (as if Dynamite pulling a shotgun and sticking it to his wife's head was a reason for Benoit doing what he did) even with an interview of DK. Cena looked like he was sweating more than a whore in church when he had to answer the question about if he ever did steroids. 2) Fire Pro Wrestling Returns comes out for the PS2 on Nov. 13. I already ordered it online. It is a 2D wrestling fighter from Japan but it is one of the most awesome wrestling games ever. I've seen a lot on it and it looks cool. What other game allows for barb wire exploding ring death matches and tons of customizable characters? And for the price of $15-20 (I found it on Amazon for $14.99), it is a must buy.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071107/ap_on_...ELJyJryoTADW7oF Parents Ken and Leona Tyree found certain scenes in "The Prince of Tides" "obscene and offensive." Leona Tyree said she was unable to finish the book. Their son has since left Shamblin's Advanced Placement literature class. Another parent, Karen Frazier, complained about violence in "Beach Music," and told school board members last month she wants guidelines for books used in public schools. "If a teacher was on a computer and sending this filth to underage students, they'd probably be arrested," Frazier said at last month's meeting. -- And yet, I'm sure the kid finished the Bible which has plenty of murder, rape, incest, murder for hire, lust, etc. And that's just what protagonists are doing. Why not have me avoid talking about what happened to Native Americans and also avoid what the Spanish and other Europeans did in the Americas because that might offend them? Why not avoid talking about slavery so black people won't get offended? Ad nauseum. Also from the article: Leona Tyree said she was unable to finish the book. -- I guess too many non-monosyllabic words?

People who think that teachers are just uppity, lazy unionists that want the union to get them a sweet contract and then do no work. People who think that teachers do no work outside of professional hours. People who give non-drinkers s*** about not drinking. People that think that pro wrestling is dumb because it is "fake". However, you never hear them complain the same way about other written mediums like books, movies, TV shows, etc. People who get upset that a man used a word that some find offensive and then demand this huge media blitz as an "apology" -- which just serves to give the word more power to harm people.

QUOTE(Alpha Dog @ Nov 3, 2007 -> 11:08 PM) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Rq2ztTEp5k The Reverend in all his hysterical glory. "Hysterical nincompoop" - Hey Phelps, it's pot calling the kettle black. As for the free speech issue, as much as I think that Phelps and Co.'s statements are reprehensible (I've actually had the opportunity to see it first hand when they protested a funeral in town -- and they got a very slow passing middle finger from moi), I think that they are legally able to do this sort of stuff. If the 1st Amendment can protect people like that, then it sure as hell can protect me. And I know that people don't like MM but this one is pretty good when he and a group take on the Phelps crowd.

QUOTE(Brian @ Nov 2, 2007 -> 05:03 PM) Hall appeared at Impact tapings and said he is NOT Sting's partner. I'm going with Booker. Critic, I know you hate Nash but I just saw his new RF Shoot and it is funny how he mocks the net. Talks about all his surgeries and sarcastically goes, "I had knee surgery cuz I didn't want to job to The Giant, Had my quad re-attached cuz I didn't want to job to Hunter, Had my shoulder operated on cuz I didn't want to job to Sabin. That is why I have all these surgeries to avoid putting others over." NASH FTW Hall can still be the partner...but it'll just be a SWERVE! SWERVE! SWERVE!

QUOTE(Texsox @ Oct 27, 2007 -> 10:29 PM) I must be missing your point, it appears you are are saying If we are going to accept war, we have to accept depictions of violence in our entertainment. If we are going to accept that adults enjoy sex, that pornography is ok. A pivotal factor here that needs to be discussed is this, is mankind becoming more or less violent? Once that is secured then we can look at the effects of violent books, songs, movies, games, etc. Certainly we have developed horrific methods to kill many more people at a time. Where ancient man had to be satisfied with killing one enemy at a time, we now can wipe entire cities off the map. Where we once needed to travel thousands of miles and engage the enemy face to face, we can now press a button and kill someone thousands of miles away. But that does not answer the core question, are we more or less violent? I believe we are more violent than at anytime in the history of civilization. Perhaps there is some primal energy that is not released when we pick up our steaks at Jewel. Is depictions of violence making that worse, much research seems to agree. Before I drift to far away, I'm wondering if I am still missing you point. If a person accepts war as a feasible, sustainable reality and actively promotes such activities as a means to solve problems -- then why not accept violence in entertainment? If you don't want to see the show, movie or play the game -- don't play it yourself and don't let your kids play it. It is just an incongruent act in their belief structure. If pixelated, fantasy violence is the utmost threat to them, simply turning off the game system or the TV set to that channel ends the threat. Shouldn't they focus their efforts on people who are actually being put through the proverbial meat grinder in a brutal war? But, oddly (and to me not surprisingly) top Christians laud Bush's actions without even seeing this glaring insanity.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,306526,00.html Goulet: Are you sure this is the casino? I think I should call my manager. Nelson: Your manager says for you to shut up! Goulet: Vera said that? "...The Batmobile lost its wheel and the Joker got away, hey!" /singing.in.the.treehouse. RIP to a quality singer and artist who didn't take himself too seriously and provided a lot of entertainment to people in a variety of spheres.

QUOTE(Texsox @ Oct 27, 2007 -> 06:39 PM) It appeared as if you compared the actual war with entertainment choices. It would be possible to compare the depiction of real war and TV content. The answer then would be to limit the war coverage and perhaps not allowing younger adults and kids to view the war coverage. That is different than editoralizing on sending people off to battle. It would be very consistent to believe it is ok to send soldiers off to stop a genocide, and not allowing children to see the violence. Tex, it isn't even just war coverage. It is the mentality in America that the soldier is the quintessential male, that bravery on the battlefield is the highest form of honor and respect a person can get, "He gave his life for his country", (and on that note " I hate it when they say, ‘He gave his life for his country.’ They don’t die for the honor and glory of their country. We kill them." ~Rear Admiral Gene R. LaRocque) etc. It stuns me that there are so many programs to stamp out violent movies, violent music and violent video games because these images and activities reinforce negative aspects of human culture that we do not want children to grow up affirming as a way to solve problems or act in their adult lives. If this is to be such the case, then why do these people fail to take their logic to its simple progression? Violent activity and the urge to copulate have been around far longer than Playboy, Hustler, internet porn and video games. Pray tell, what video games did Stalin, Pol Pot, Kristic and Mao play to inspire them on their slaughters? It is more politically expedient and easier to score political points with the partisans to go after Hollywood and video game/music makers rather than serious question the fundamental workings and philosophies of the statist structure and their usages of the military complexes ingrained in the society. How insane is it to tell a child "I'm sorry, you can't see that film or play that video game because it depicts violence but here -- go shake the hand of this person who actually has killed people."? If there wasn't such a glorification of all murder -- be it in gangsta rap music all the way to the way that militaries are portrayed inside the US and throughout the world -- then perhaps we'd not have so many games like GTA becoming massive best sellers, especially in (as these moralists against nudies and violence would argue) a wholly Christian nation. If it were truly that Christian nation, then perhaps the value of loving our enemies would be one that we should embrace. It's a very deep hypocrisy to say from the highest halls of government (even if the statement is actually indeed factually inaccurate about the Christian roots of the US) that we're a proud Christian nation and then have a philosophy that flies in the face of basic Christian tenets.

If anybody ever gets a chance, Evan Greer's song "Go Call FEMA" goes along these lines of FEMA bashing -- and he put it in a much more entertaining way than I could.

QUOTE(Texsox @ Oct 26, 2007 -> 10:36 AM) The level of necessity differentiates going to war and entertainment. It is a bad analogy, and I'm a little surprised you would have used it. My mentality is for a continuity of thought and consistency. If one thinks that pixelated and fantasy violence causes kids to be more violent then what would real examples of violence (i.e. war) in coverage and reporting cause kids to feel and be? If the moralists believe in the inherent dignity of all human life then why are these same people also very synonymous with cheerleaders supporting the war effort? Men like Fr. Daniel Berrigan is a proponent of a consistent life ethic. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Berrigan

I watched iMPACT! last night. I turned it off midway through the first hour because it was so unwatchable. The Dudleys promo against the entire X Division which just buried them as "boys in a men's sport" followed by destroying 4 X Div. wrestlers during a match was insane. The Dudleys are already over. However, just running down your opponent doesn't help -- if they are boys in a men's division then who cares that you beat them up? Nobody. And what happens if the MCMG or somebody beats you? Then you've been beaten by boys and where does that you put you, eh Dudleys? And the whole Kurt Angle and Kevin Nash crap...god, it was garbage.

QUOTE(juddling @ Oct 24, 2007 -> 02:41 PM) SALT LAKE CITY, UT - The national office of the Council on Decency in Broadcasting has issued a letter to NBC demanding that male contestants on the popular show 'The Biggest Loser' keep their shirts on during the show. Traditionally, male contestants will remove their shirts during the weigh-in portion of the program, attempting to save precious ounces on the scales. The Council contends that the practice violates regulations on nudity. "These guys have breasts bigger than a lot of women." said Irene Gillman, Executive Director of the council. "I don't think NBC is sending the right message by exposing them on national television. It's not like that t-shirt is going to make much difference anyway - affecting the weigh-in, I mean." Fans of the show interviewed by The Daily Redundancy had mixed feelings on the issue. "I think its disgusting." said Heather Bancroft, aerobics instructor and part-owner of the Tofu 4U Vegetarian Deli. "I know they're men, but they need to cover those things up. They look like a big candle melting in the sun." "The reality is that a lot of people look like that." said Henry 'Bubba' Green, short order cook at Steakburger's on Melson street. "We're not all underwear models." Officials at NBC could not be reached for comment. Man boobs can't be seen on television but damnit if it isn't seen as a good and patriotic mission by a man of God for the US to send in the military to fight and die in a grisly foreign war in far off lands in the Middle East. It always boggles my mind that many (not all but the vast majority) of the people who want decency in TV, movies, video games etc. somehow conveniently miss the fact that they also promote actual warfare compared to pixelated and controlled (i.e. wrestling) violence and indecency.

QUOTE(Alpha Dog @ Oct 24, 2007 -> 04:39 PM) Response from the media that has got it all wrong to date? Firstly, it wouldn't surprise me that the lazy, for profit, corporate media got a lot of this wrong -- because it is more about sensationalism, emotional involvement and a cheap bottom line for production rates to get the highest rating possible rather than actual substantive news (i.e. eating sugar vs eating spinach...how many people like to eat spinach when they could get candy?) Secondly, from Reason Magazine http://reason.com/blog/show/123167.html /throws a few more logs on the fire...

QUOTE(Alpha Dog @ Oct 21, 2007 -> 01:02 PM) Maybe 'leftists' have something to feel guilty about, which is why they consider it an insult? Maybe 'neocons' have something to feel guilty about, which is why they consider it an insult? Cheap labels cheapen the polemics. "The candidate can choose from two platforms, but remember -- no substitutions. For example, do you support universal health care? Then you must also want a ban on assault weapons. Pro limited government? Congratulations, you are also anti-abortion. Luckily, all human opinion falls neatly into one of two clearly defined camps. Thus the two party system elegantly reflects the bichromatic rainbow of American political thought." - Jon Stewart

Saw was pretty cool the first time I saw it with a very interesting and somewhat sympathetic killer (if that makes any sense). The idea that perfectly healthy people do so much stupid crap with their lives while he'd give anything to have more time to enjoy his life -- so he took it upon himself to see if they truly did want to live -- was pretty fascinating and a nice take on the traditional horror genre. I have yet to see Saw II or Saw III but I may rent them this weekend if they are as good as the first which I thought was pretty damn good. Do the sequels stand up to the original?

QUOTE(Alpha Dog @ Oct 20, 2007 -> 05:00 PM) I think it is what you said, AND the opposite. I don't think people tend to handle these things in the correct way, but rather go to one extreme or the other. Ignoring it hoping it will go away or because you don't believe it is the wrong thing and could lead to more abuse, lawsuits, etc. But in the teacher case that was referenced earlier, going too far before you have evidence, or even after evidence has been found proving innocence, is also just wrong. Seems common sense isn't too common anymore. As you said people do go to one extreme or the other. People either don't do anything or go too far for a reason: It's a lot of nobody wanting to take the blame. Rationally, it is easier for a district to try to fire a teacher and let the labor union file a grievance. That way, the mediator can shoulder the blame if the teacher is later brought back into the district and it gets the super/school board off the hook of being blamed by parents. As you said, if they don't go too far then they risk possible lawsuits and more abuses happening.

QUOTE(Alpha Dog @ Oct 20, 2007 -> 04:21 PM) This whole letter fiasco sort of represents a good view of the difference between liberals and conservatives. The conservative (Rush)thinks of a free-market way of raising private funds to aid a worthwhile causes and backs his commitment with his own money. The liberal (Reid)asks other people to donate funds, doesn't donate any of his own money, and tries to take credit for the generosity of others. You should become a house painter. You'd be done in seconds with a brush that broad.

There are over 3 million teachers and 2,500 cases. Now, one is too many but this sensationalism is the easy way that educators who do nothing wrong have tons of stuff to fear. In the recent October NEA Today, they ran an article about this -- especially in relation to what teachers who get slimed with these kinds of accusations can do. They told the story of a teacher who had taught for 31 years with an unblemished record. Two sixth grade girls -- one who got an F on an important project before the accusations were made and her best friend -- suddenly begin saying that he was groping them during class. Despite the other students denying that this ever happened, the district eventually suspended him with no pay and attempted to fire him. Almost 700 days later, he was officially exonerated. I also had to dodge a bulls*** bullet as well last year. Two girls continually were talking during my classes. So, I caught one and gave her a detention. Due to Illinois law related to fire safety, all classrooms must have their doors shut during all times unless the school has forked out the $$ for automatic door closing devices. Our school also demands us to have our doors locked as well for security measures. The student reported to detention and it went off without a hitch, or so I thought. Her friend tried to interrupt my detention (somehow everybody kind of let that fly by) by opening my door and upon finding it closed and locked, went home and told mommy and daddy about Mr. LCR having her friend in his room with the door locked. The dad came in and said that he was "afraid something could happen." Despite there being no f***ing evidence at all, I had to go through getting my union representative and hold multiple meetings with the principal, me and the parent. After all that, the parent realized that a whole ton of stupid done fell out of his wordhole. It was a real trial by fire and these people that actually behave in this way make things difficult for those of us who just want to actually teach. Now whenever I have detentions, I prop my door open -- let them fine me for a fire code violation -- or hold my detention with a female staff member also in the room or I talk to the student in the hallway where we're on videotape.

QUOTE(kyyle23 @ Oct 20, 2007 -> 07:30 AM) Luger has had quite a rough go since the end of the WCW, pretty much starting with Ms Elizabeths death. I dont know if this is some sort of karmic b*tch slap, but wow has it been a tough one. Hopefully the gym that he co-owned with Sting is still making him some money browsing through Luger's wikipedia entry regarding the NWA, I came across this: does anyone have a better rundown than this? Im interested in what really happened, there isnt much background on this Here's the match:

QUOTE(NUKE @ Oct 17, 2007 -> 10:46 AM) Wrong again. He was referring to that anti-war activist who claimed he had participated in "war crimes" in Iraq when he had actually been in uniform for a few weeks and never set one foot in Iraq. Not to mention the fact that he defrauded the government out of thousands of dollars in VA benefits. This, of course, has been twisted out of context by leftists like you in a vain attempt to make the man look bad. This is nothing more than an attempted snow job by the leftist media "watchdog" Media Matters, who are basically throwing s*** up against a wall and seeing what sticks. 41 leftist Senators bought this nonsense hook, line, and sinker and now they look like fools for doing so. If you're so f***ing worried about those who smear soldiers you should direct your comments to slime like this Jessie MacBeth or this Private Beauchamp. Both of these people told lies about "war crimes" they "witnessed" in Iraq and smeared everyone in uniform in so doing. Where is all your outrage about men like John Kerry, who lied about "war crimes" he "witnessed" while in Vietnam in front of the United States Senate himself and brought a bunch of fake soldiers, men who had never even been in uniform, to do the same? Truth of the matter is that leftists like you don't give 2 s***s if American Troops get smeared in the media. You think we're all a bunch of baby killing, mercenary, war criminals anyway. All you're interested in is using the sacrifices we make to further your own leftist, anti-war agenda. Do me a favor, save your fake sympathy for someone else. We don't want it. Thanks for the personal attack there, Nuke. I'll be sure to let the mods know. Who said I didn't condemn soldiers who lied? Wrong is wrong no matter who does it or says it. Just because some other guys did or said something wrong does not make what Rush said about soldiers from Vote Vets and other organizations that have become critics of the US handling of the situation of the war in Iraq. Rush acted like a jackoff and weaseled his way out of it. If you want sympathy then don't look towards listeners of Rush Limbaugh for support -- just go check out some of the mail they've sent off to representatives from Vote Vets and other veterans' organizations because they dared to claim that Rush's comments could be divisive towards soldiers who think the Iraq policy is a failure.

QUOTE(Alpha Dog @ Oct 16, 2007 -> 01:12 PM) Of all the stupid things they have done, THAT is the one that i can't fathom. WFT does it matter now, other than it will piss off someone moderately on our side now? Oh wait, did i just answer my question? Seriously, WTF? I can definitely see and do acknowledge the political power play that is being made in bringing up the Armenian genocide now to be acknowledged as such. However, the United States was not a party to the Genocide Convention as a signatory until the Reagan administration -- and only then it was done as a backlash to deflect criticism of Reagan's Bitburg visit. The US would be the 23rd nation to recognize the Armenian genocide -- so the US would hardly be breaking new ground here. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armenian_Genocide Plus, and not to invoke Godwin's Law here, but Hitler was much more emboldened for the Holocaust by famously declaring "Who remembers the annihilation of the Armenians?" The supporter of the genocide convention in me is saddened that the recognition of the Armenian Genocide is coming as what pretty much appears to be a tawdry, political maneuver. However, I am pleased that recognition of a genocide will likely be coming -- and it may carry some weight that the world's superpower deems it a genocide, even if the vote is non-binding. As for Rush, his initial commentary seemed to be geared towards soldiers who came home and became anti-war activists after their experiences. It was nice for a man of his size and stature that he had the wiggle room to get his foot out of his mouth.

I may just show up to a party in a pair of jeans only. I'd be a premature ejaculation -- everywhere I went, I just came in my pants. /rimshot

I had my third discussion with my 7th grade classes. We were talking about the Puritans establishing their colony in the 1630's. However, in the 1640's ad 50's, a group of Quakers kept getting kicked out of the colony. They kept coming back because they thought being kicked out for their religious beliefs was unfair -- and the Puritans passed harsher laws against them (from first just jailing and booting them out to burning holes in the tongue/cutting off the ear) Then, by 1 vote in the Puritan government, they passed a capital punishment offense law for Quakers that kept coming in using self-defense as their argument. A woman named Mary Dyer who disagreed with the Quakers being targeted unfairly (using the idea of Inward Light that peoples' consciences could tell them the will of God) and had been warned numerous other times came back one more time, refused to be let go and was hanged. After the hanging, the public opinion and England took notice and banned the executions. The story led to a pretty interesting discussion about if Mary was right in continuously returning, when people should follow laws, why we follow laws and if it is ever justified for people to break laws that they think are unfair -- and how to develop a criteria for what an unfair law is. As always, they also had to come up with alternatives to the problem in the story that treat everybody involved respectfully.

QUOTE(mr_genius @ Oct 12, 2007 -> 07:13 PM) a) flawed argument, Reagan can't be blamed for the hostage crisis that happened during the Carter admin Iran-Contra and there have been plenty of educated people discussing the feasibility that the Iranians were held there via a relationship between US intelligence activities and the Iranians. b ) the notion that Al Queda is merely a creation of Ronald Reagan is inaccurate to say the least. a very simplistic and fatally flawed conclusion. They received tons of funding, training and backing from the Reaganistas. They cut their teeth in Afghanistan and were ready to fight the US when we continued to have a presence in the US. We knew that OBL etc. were asshats to begin with and still gave them this. c) way over the top. are you some how implying Reagan supported Nazims? As for the Bitburg hubbub, he actually took a lot of flak for it in the 1980s. He went to lay a wreath on SS graves. I couldn't even make this s*** up. From Wiki: d) bad move by Reagan supporting those dictators. but for some reason you like to gloss over atrocities conducted during soviet rule I never said I glossed over Soviet atrocities. Maoist and Stalinist bloodbaths were absolutely horrid. However, the fact that these took place do not make the backing of Pinochet, the support of the Samozas, etc. seem any better by comparison. Wrong is wrong, no matter who does it or says it. As I tell my students -- just because a kid was mean to you does not mean that you have carte blanche to be mean back. e) refer to d). f) a very opportunistic "anti-saddam" statement. so, what, GW Bush shouldn't have righted this wrong? or should he have? It's just one thing to make a bunch of money off the Middle Eastern client state for years, turning a blind eye to ethnic cleansing and even going about helping to arm and fund it in the name of the 'enemy of my enemy is my friend' ideology while claiming that we don't support terrorist activities. Righting the wrong would be to stop funding, arming and assisting a regime that flouts human rights. g) macros regime? Marcos regime in the Philippines -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ferdinand_Marcos h) oh yes, aparthied was Reagan's fault. of course. i) don't you know? Reagan created aids to kill black people and gays. duh. It's amazing that he cuts funding for these diseases and to help the poor yet spends money with corporate welfare. Actually, there is still some bitterness on the far-left due to the fact that their accusations and insistence that Reagan was SURELY going to nuke the world, was an evil dictator, created aids in a lab, ect. has all been proven false. There is a lot of far-left rage that their foolish assements will be marked in history and they are desperately seeking some cover. Thanks for the memories, Ron. We're living with the bulls*** you've festered upon us for generations to come, Mr. Ronald "pollution comes mainly from trees" Reagan.

QUOTE(Soxy @ Oct 12, 2007 -> 01:09 PM) Screw you! Top Cat or nothing! Felix the Feline or Fight! And as for the Goracle winning, hooray increased knowledge and discussion about going green with energy sources. As for Reagan: Peace through strength works. Just ask: a. the US hostages that were needlessly kept in Iran as a political tool to help Reagan's election in 1980 b. the people who have had their lives ended, destroyed and irrevocably altered due to the actions of bin Laden, Al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations that were armed, trained and funded by the Reaganistas c. the families of Holocaust survivors when St. Ronald of Reagan went to lay a wreath at the graves of SS officers in Bitburg d. the people needlessly killed by authoritarians that we sided with (i.e. Pinochet) in Latin America throughout the 1980's simply because they said they were 'anti-Communist' and human rights be damned e. the families of Ita Ford, Oscar Romero, the citizens of El Mazote and numerous other places where US backed and trained thugs like the Atacotl batallion slaughtered unarmed women, children and church workers in the name of anti-Communism while being funded by the Reagan administration f. the people who lost loved ones when the US supported the Shah of Iran and the thuggery of Saddam Hussein -- arming both sides during the Iran/Iraq war and fully facilitating the gassing of thousands of Kurds in ethnic cleansing g. the people subjugated by the Marcos regime h. the people who suffered under apartheid as he supported the apartheid regime i. the people who suffered from AIDS and other diseases as he drastically cut funding to research and treat these diseases, yet always found money for corporate welfare and the billions to be pilfered from Savings and Loan And I haven't even started to research anything yet. To say that Reagan singlehandedly defeated Communism is intellectually dishonest and outright lazy. Even if you believe Reagan singlehandedly beat Communism, then blame him for spawning the current skirge and enemy that we have right now -- fundamentalist Islamic extremists who are incredibly well trained, funded and armed by the original planners in the Reagan administration along with the remnants of the sour taste in the world's mouth in regards to our support of blatant authoritianism due simply to cheap opportunism. /end tangent.