Month: August 2006

Posted on
by

Bill O’Reilly had White House Press Secretary Tony Snow on the O’Reilly Factor today. They got to talking about all sorts of issues, from the foiled terror plot, to issues in Iraq. Toward the end of the interview, O’Reilly asked Mr. Snow if he saw the Sunni-Shiite conflict as a civil war. Mr. Snow said no because nobody was trying to cecede from Iraq.

Now, this entry is not to debate whether or not there is a civil war going on in Iraq. I just want to present the facts. Webster’s Dictionary defines “civil war” as:

a war between opposing groups of citizens of the same country

However, Webster is not the only source that uses this definition. The Oxford Dictionary also uses pretty much the same definition.

a war between citizens of the same country.

If that wasn’t enough proof, Wikipedia explains things with a similar definition, though it gets more into the subject. However, as I know Wikipedia can be sometimes inaccurate, I looked at some other sources, both of which back up Wikipedia’s explanation.

Yes, a civil war can happen when a section of a country tries ceceding, like in our own Civil War. However, as is clearly shown by three sources, and two of them pretty trustworthy sources, that is not the only form a civil war can take. What is it called when multiple groups of people from the same country start a nationally emcompassing war, if not a civil war? I sure can’t think of a term.

I’ll now use a phrase Mr. O’Reilly often likes to use, or at least a paraphrase if it turns out I don’t get it completely correct. Mr. Snow:
Get your facts straight, sir.

Posted on
by

As I’m sure everyone knows, today the UK foiled a terror plot. I’m happy about this. It’s good to know that safety is still the number one priority, even if it is going to cause a few inconveniences to travellers (and inevitably a traveller somewhere screwed because they were too afraid to bring a carry-on as to not go through extra searching, and then having their luggage lost).

However, in this atmosphere of increased anxiety, it’s likely to bring out some of the racist attitude in the best of us. So, I took issue when I saw the following post made on a forum I frequent:

I don’t want to sound racist, but I’ve noticed how all passengers are being checked at airports; wouldn’t it be best to only check those who match the description of this terrorist attack – Muslim, Middle East origin? I know it’s a very grey thing to say and I will get criticised for writing that, but it’s more sensible?

First of all, what the hell? It’s exactly this kind of attitude that led to increased discrimination against those of Middle Eastern origin and Muslims alike after 9/11. So, this guy wants them to go through this kind of thing again? I mean, lets be honest here. The airports, the FAA, and whatever the UK’s version of the FAA is, can deny it all they want, but I know that Middle Eastern people will be subject to increased scrutiny today and probably for some time after today. Maybe they’ll even be instructed to act in this way. However, to suggest that they be checked extra just because of their origins, is an absolute appalling attitude to have.

I mean, there is apparently increased evidence that Al-Queda is involved in this one. Who do you think they’re going to recruit for this mission? Well, someone of Middle Eastern origin is an obvious answer, but they’re not the only kind of people who have fought for terrorists. Ah, lets see, John Walker Lindh, you know, the American Taliban? The higher up of Al Queda are going to be thinking about this kind of thing, and knowing what kind of discrimination Middle Eastern people have gone through over the past few years. So, who’s to say they won’t try and recruit a white person who is disgruntled with their country? You can’t really tell who it’s going to be, so everybody should be subject to increased searches, not just a certain group of people.

Well, I had to respond, and make it as snarky as possible, so here it is:

And while we’re at, lets stop all black people, because clearly they’re the only ones committing crimes. Oh, and lets lock up the South American Hispanic looking people too, those commies!

Posted on
by

When I created Dymersion, I wanted a place where I could do more than just rant about the latest political topic, or what was happening in the world. I wanted the website to also be a hub of all my creative works. Somewhere where I could express myself in the area I think I do best (besides video): writing.

Well, I’m to announce that in the next week, I’ll be presenting a new department for the site: Dymersion Creative. This will be a blog, set up much like this one, where I can place all the works I consider to be creative in nature. The first of these works is a sort of experiment I’ve always wanted to try. No more about it quite yet, but I’ll fill in all the details when I introduce it. I quite like the idea, and I hope it pans out.

Goodnight, and happy celebrating to all those who won their primaries.

Posted on
by

Well, ladies and gents, it’s all over. While there are still a couple percent of precincts that need to report in, Joe Lieberman has conceded defeat to Ned Lamont, 52% to 48%. It’s not over yet, though. This was only the primary, the general election hasn’t even happened yet, though you might be fooled by watching the aftermath tonight, which looked eerily like that of after-election coverage.

So, where do I stand? Still undecided. However, I do stand by what I said in an earlier entry about Lamont. Although I like his opinons about the war and health care, he needs to show me more before I will decide to vote for him. In general, now that the primary is over, he needs to step back from the war and talk about some other things. Posing Lieberman as pro-war, pro-Bush did him well for the primary, but I don’t think this strategy will work for the general election. Here he not only has to sway Democrats, but Republicans and Independents, too. I think Lamont needs to present himself as more than the one-issue candidate in which he has sometimes been described. He should tell people where he stands elsewhere, and what he’ll do for Connecticut. The healthcare issue is a start, but he needs to show why Connecticut voters, all the Connecticut voters (not just Democrats) should elect him, or I think he’ll loose the general election. Staying the course he’s been going in will not help him come November.

So, where did Lieberman go wrong? Well, most analysts seem to be in agreement that Lamont held many small communities, and that Lieberman would have to count on the cities. I heard a lot about the primary hinging on Waterbury, which he must have lost in the end.

Click the link below for my analysis on the DeStefano-Malloy race…
Continue reading →

Posted on
by

Well, this certainly is something. Mally and DeStafano are pretty close right now: 50.43% to 49.57%. Other results I’ve seen are 50% to 50%, but I’m guessing they’re rounding down and up respectively. I just saw this on the news, so I’m not sure, but I believe that any race within half a percent is subject to a run-off primary. The governor race is getting really close, so a run-off is not out of the question. Though, I somehow doubt we’d see another great turnout like today, so maybe it’s better for both candidates that this get decided tonight.

Back to Lamon-Lieberman, Lamont is still keeping a fair lead with 51.88 to Lieberman’s 48.12%, but the gap continues to grow smaller, and I think it is likely to continue to do so as the final results come in.

And, it may be early to call any primary, but the precincts having reported are pretty high, so I’m going to call one now: The Republican primary for U.S. House CT District 1. MacLean is a clear win here. He’s got 62% of the vote to Masullo’s 38%. She would need a miracle to win this one.

I’ll have a primary wrap up (or at least as wrapped up as I can be without staying up ridiculously late) a little later.

Posted on
by

Well, the results are coming in. In the Senate, Lamont currently has the lead, with about 54%, to Lieberman’s 46%. However, since the results have started being reported, I noticed that as the percentages go up, the gap between the candidates comes down. It could end up being a very close race, only 38% of the precincts have reported thus far.

In the governor race, DeStefano is putting up a fair lead with 52%, though that race is already pretty close. I think this race will remain close.

Another race that is close to my heart, since it involves my Congressional district, is that of the Republican primary, the winner going on to face John Larson. Scott MacLean has a strong lead, with 61% of the vote. However, it is far to early to tell who will win. I predict that MacLean will stay pretty strong, though.

Another update later.

Posted on
by

Well, today is a big day. There are dozens of primary races going on in my state, and none are being more carefully followed than that of Ned Lamont and Joe Lieberman. So, who do I think will win? I think it is hard to tell at this point. I already covered what I see as their faults in my last election entry, so I won’t go over it again.

Lamont, who enjoyed a 13 point lead the day of my entry, has slipped a little bit in the polls in the last few days. On the other hand, he still had the lead going into the primary, and if you use that as indicator, it seems that Lamont might win.

However, yesterday Lieberman’s campaign website was hacked. Lieberman’s campaign is blaming it on Lamont’s supporters or even Lamont’s campaign itself, but the truth will probably never be known. For all we know, it could be been any of them, or even one of Lieberman’s supporters, knowing the Lamont would be blamed. Will this hurt Lamont? I doubt it. Lamont has already spent months using the anti-war sentiment to rally people to his name, and I don’t see a rather small hacking as affecting this very much. Similar scandals happened in the last Presidental election, with people stealing campaign signs and the such, but I don’t think that did too much to influence the results.

With so much uncertainty in the air, how can we possibly know what will happen? I honestly think it’s a crapshoot at the moment. The question is, will Lamont’s nack for rallying anti-war supporters win him the primary? Or will Lieberman’s years of experience, and still rather Democratic voting record do the trick? Stay tuned to your news stations for the results tonight, or come here as I follow the results as the precincts report in. I’ll offer my predictions as to who might be the winner once I can see some numbers.

Another big democratic primary race is for the Governor of Connecticut. Mayor of Stamford Dan Malloy, and Mayor of New Haven John DeStefano. I don’t know them as well, so I’ll have to reserve my opinions for when the results come in. Regardless of who wins, however, both have a steep uphill race against Governor Jodi Rell, the Republican candidate. She’s popular since she’s basically the anti-Rowland (as far as we know, anyway), helping to clean house in the state government when she assumed her post.

Stay tuned for more as the results come in tonight.

Posted on
by

Ever wanted to run your own nation? Well, now you can! NationStates is an massive multi-player online replaying game that allows you to create a nation and move it in the direction you want by answering issues on a variety of topics. You can join your nation to a region of your choosing so that you may help that region become powerful in the NationStates world.

A big part of the NationStates game is its roleplaying aspect. Nations can, among other things, start wars, trade, and diplomatic relations with other nations on the NationStates forum, and regions can decide their own affairs within their own regional forums.

So, if you like politics, or have just ever wanted to run your own nation, join NationStates and start nation-building today!

Oh, and if you don’t mind, be sure to join the region of Altera. After you sign up, simply click on your initial region’s name (below the “Logout” link). In the form that appears, put in “Altera” (no quotes) and click on “Search.” This will bring up Altera’s regional page. Finally, click on the “Move Invisionize to Atlantis” link. Yes, I posted this to try and build up my region again.

Posted on
by

Jackie Chan is one of my favorite actors. He has good movies, and is, in my opinion, the master of the comedic martial arts style of film. So, I was happy to hear that he wants to be a good example for kids. I think we all know that most modern Hollywood movies thrive on violence, profanity and sex. It’s what sells; that was the case in the last decade, and I still think it holds true now.

In the midst of these movies come ones with a guy who is defying the standard, bar the violence part, which is still a relief since it isn’t anything gruesome. In all the Jackie Chan movies I’ve seen, he has only sworn a couple times (for comedic purposes), and he doesn’t have sex (well, nothing on screen, there was the scene in Shanghai Noon where he gets married). Not that I’m against these things in movies, if they’re done the right way. It just seems like there was a period where profanity and sex in movies were almost expected, and thrown in for no other reason than trying to get more money at the box office. So, the fact that Chan refuses to do these things is something refreshing.

The fact is, Chan doesn’t need (gruesome) violence, sex, or profanity in his movies. The skills he already has, and in the comedic style he uses these skills, is enough to draw a crowd. Just look at Rush Hour and Rush Hour 2. Two big successes, and his other movies, while not generating as great a return, show that will have a following for years to come.