[60 years since The Fall]

I don't believe that most nations, except for, perhaps, the losers, learned anything from World War II. Sure, a few nations (France, Great Britain) have learned some, but immediately after World War II ended, the Cold War began. They both armed themselves with nuclear weapons, picked sides, et cetera. Essentially, all that was learned is that fighting wars on your home soil sucks. So, they managed to avoid it, which may considered a lesson. Albeit, it should've already been learned during World War I, another war that was supposed to teach the world "lessons" about the horrors of war.

At least there hasn't been any sort of genocide in non-Eastern Europe since World War II. But that may be more of a function of having killed most of those who would be genocided. However, I am fearful of the response to the growing number of Moslem immigrants into Old Europe, especially when it comes to parties such as Vlaams Belang (I hope I spelled that right), however small they may be.

[kilroy was here]

Well we had world war two, didn't we? Democracy withstanded that in countries like France, Belgium and The Netherlands. There are indeed small blows to democracy from time to time, and we don't live in a real democracy, but it certainly is much closer to democracy than dictatorship. Things like a large economic crisis can indeed threaten democracy, but not people like Pim Fortuyn or Kilroy imo.

All three of those countries were conquered by Germany, and their governments either disbanded or replaced with puppets. France got a new Constitution (their fourth, I think) after WWII.

People such as Kilroy and Fortuyn do, however, wish to bring semi-democracy closer to dictatorship. Hitler and Mussolini, too, were no intellectual slouches. Mussolini was a qualified political genius, but he, unforunately, became the dictator of Italy (Note: Italy's war record since fall of Rome = 0 wins with team started on). Hitler was a master of controlling masses both in speeches and behind the scenes. His genius in designing pageants and demonstrations is almost unparalleled. I greatly fear all such movements, having seen what they've done in the past, and what the (admittedly small number of) similiarities between what they are saying now.

While there might not be a large economic crisis in the future, the issues with Muslims is rapidly becoming a large culturaly crisis. I believe that some rights of Muslims (headscarves, if I'm not mistaken) have been restricted in France, already. These leaders are clever and devious enough to capitalize on the populace's fear and racism for their own political gain.

Personally, my belief is that they should be silenced. Does this sound itself a bit undemocratic? I suppose. However, these people only foster hate and racism. Whether or not they have some leftist views is irrelevent. They may unleash a force that they cannot control. Humanity has never had a very good record in regards to racism; if it is focused, it becomes a dangerous instrument for even harsher right-wingers to use.

Imprison him. Fostering hate is not to be allowed.

[kilroy was here]

Hmm, why was Hitler a dictatorship of the people? The people never asked him to become a dictator, he took the power himself. Nor had the people anything to say under Hitler, only he and other NSDAP'ers did.

What makes you think we live in chaos? The only thing I see is a small-scale crisis from time to time, but definetly not chaos. 

Hitler had popular support from when he took power to around 1943-1944, when the progress of the war had begun to turn against Germany. Hitler won a great deal of seats in the Reichstag legitimately, and only "took the power himself" after he already had control of the legislative and executive branches. All he did was really cut the bureaucratic mess that kept him from exercising power quickly and directly; he already had the power.

The people loved Hitler. He gave them pride, belonging, and power that France and England had denied them with the Treaty of Versailles. Hitler was, indeed, a dictator of the people. His legislation rarely deviated from the people's beliefs, and if they did, the people were content, anyway. Even scores of Belgians, Austrians, and other Germanic peoples supported Hitler. This may seem a bit long of a post to discount that one point, but I felt it needed to be stated.

Now, to come back on topic, I don't see why Vlaams Belang, Pim Fortuyn or Kilroy-Silk could lead to a dictatorship. This is not Germany of the 30s, we now have the EU, international courts, NATO, etc. Our political parties don't have large militaristic groups anymore like SS or SA, nor do we have a big army or a police force that is one-sided. In other words: our democracy has matured, something that wasn't the case in countries that fell to dictators. They'll have to survive in our democratic society or die.

It is difficult for organizations like the SS and SA to form sucessfully, now; however, the desire and intent of those who formed those organizations live on today. It is only a matter of capability, not maturity.

Democracy has not matured. Democracy hasn't had a shock such as the Great Depression since the Great Depression. In all honesty, I believe American democracy would topple if such an event happened again; democracy came closer to destruction here after 9/11 than since the Sedition Acts of WWI with the Patriot Act, the TIA, and "T.I.P.S." (look the last two up, they're frightening). Such an event like the Great Depression would drop the Western world into similiar circumstances as the Middle East. It's a certain breeding down for traumatic occurances. Democracy could not withstand it.

[New Pope]

Why would you expect the most ancient Christian church to suddenly change many of its core beliefs? There were several beliefs that were recently changed, but that was because most of those had no Biblical base. However, the core ideals which many are demanding to be changed are actually able to be strongly reinforced.

For instance, I Corinthians actually lists homosexuality as a sin in the same list as murder and theft. Wives are told to be submissive to their husbands at several occassions.

What many are demanding is that an organization dedicated to a certain book violate things stated -directly- in that book. I don't necessarily agree with the book their using, but it is an entirely different thing to agree with the unreasonable demands that seem to be demanded of the Roman Catholic church.

[What books are you reading these days?]

I'm reading "Ancient Greek Civilization". It's thoroughly modern book (2004). The check-out lady's comment was that I was the first one to check it out. It was very thrilling, I promise you. I'm just now getting to the good part with Athens and Sparta, so I'm happy.

[Your significant other]

Wow...She's...quite large. You're wearing a nice dress though, David.

My "significant other" is moving to Northern California this summer. (nearly 800 miles away, for those of you uninitiated in the height of Cali). She's really cute. And blah di blah [insert sickening sweet stuff].

[Vocab]

Here's a word that you have probably heard, but couldn't use in a sentence: "Antidisestablishmentarianism". It means, in my words, someone who is against the disestablishment movement, which stated that there should be a seperation between church and state. Here are a couple ways you could use it (it really impresses professors):

"Both Voltaire and Thomas Jefferson stood staunch against the attacks of antidisestablishmentarianism on their beliefs."

"Many of the newly reelected President's Evangelical supporters are antidisestablishmentarianists".

[What would be your opinion on Terri Schiavo's case]

That's a "loaded question", a form of an illogical argument. I'm not attempting to impune your education, but I think it would be wise to learn informal logic; however, in this case, I can understand where you believe I'm coming from.. I, and almost certainly Yieul, don't unconditionally trust the media (except for, in my case, NPR they are actually held to fairness and accuracy standards because they recieve government money), and I quoted very little data derived from the media. Most of them are from private study, personal experience, and discussions with medical experts

If you're counting the "medical expert" numbers (my only quoted fact), I checked at least a handful of sources (NBC, BBC, NPR, CBS, ABC), and scanned fact checking organizations for confirmation. Besides...if they were to quote the wrong numbers, that would be possible grounds for slander and defamation accusations (more lawsuits). The only way the media can legally "slant" data is to distort the information to A) misrepresent the meaning or quality of the data or not quote the data at all.

I have a different worldview which is Christian

At this point, most of those who are a part of Western Civilization views the world from a semi-Christian worldview (no cannibalism, monogamy). What I believe you're referring to is to the hard-line Christian viewpoint, which tends to view things in two shades: black and white. The Schiavo case is not simply a "she's either dead or alive" matter. It's a matter of determining Mrs. Schiavo's level of conciousness, and then furthermore deciding whether this level allows her emotions, sensation, coherance, and/or will to live. And, according to all but one doctor who looked at her, she had none of those things, beyond the occasional sensation or response to a commonly asked question.

[Any freeware WW2 games?]

It's difficult to find RTS or other more graphically advanced games that are freeware. That's part of what makes Wildfire Games' two projects so special.

Except in extremely cool and rare circumstances, you'll have to sacrifice quite a bit to find one, especially if you have a specific genre and setting.

If you wish to make a WWII-type game in the future, I might want to help with research and game design. But not until 0 A.D. is finished, of course.

[What would be your opinion on Terri Schiavo's case]

Appearances can be very deceptive. Also, note the source...these videos are clearly edited to show her very rare semi-active state.

If any doctor had noticed that much amount of activity while viewing Mrs. Schiavo, than there is no way that he or she should recommend removing the feeding tube without facing massive amounts of malpractice reperation suits from Mrs. Schiavo's relatives.

However, these videos only show reflexive actions, very similiar to muscle memory or instincts. When someone says "good morning", one doesn't even have to register who or why said it... one simply responds "good morning" right back.

Also, since she was apparently so concious, why didn't she say "put the feeding tube back in"? Or ask for food? Or request to be released? The fact is, she couldn't. She was in a near-persistant vegetative state, where the vast majority of time is spent in vegetative status, with brief periods of reflexive lucidity.

[Goldenratiophi gets an avatar!]

It should be a rule or something that you can't change your avatar at random. I don't even think of a lot of people's screennames. If Paul didn't have his legionaries, I'd be horribly disoriented for the rest of the year, for example.

[New Pope]

John Paul II did do institute a great deal of reforms in his time, though he did not change the entire foundation and structure of the Catholic Church (unmarried, male clergy) in the process, as many people seem to desire.

I do not believe the Catholic Church will so quickly change to society's standards, especially such radical ones.

Remember "religion is the opiate of the masses"? Whether or not one wishes to believe Marx's appraisal of the origin of religion, one cannot deny the glory, wealth, and prestige that runs through the fingers of every ranking member of the Catholic Church, and even most Protestant churches. One thing about wealth and power is that it gives birth to a need to maintain the status quo for those who hold it.

[What would be your opinion on Terri Schiavo's case]

I'm a utilitarian in the sense that I follow the "Principle of Utility". This principle states that "the good in a given situation is determined by calculating which action will do the greatest amount of good for the greatest amount of people".

However, I discard utilitarianims if the "greater good for the greastest number" violates human and/or legal rights. But in matters of public policy, productivity, social progress, et cetera, I believe the principle is a good moral guideline.

Just so you know... Americans call them "Eskimos", still.

Yieul mentioned "healing". I believe that if someone can be healed with a good sense of certainty that it will, indeed, succeed, then heal away. However, if someone is unconcious of their own existance, circumstances, and surroundings with no chance of any sort of recovery, then there is no reason to continue to waste emotional and financial resources on an unfeeling, unsensing humanoid blob of soulless tissue.

It may sound cruel to call somoene like Mrs. Schiavo that, but it is the utter truth of the matter. If one were to believe in an afterlife, it is simply logical for one to release a soul trapped in an unfunctioning body for decades.

[What would be your opinion on Terri Schiavo's case]

I've noticed, both in here, in other discussions and in the media, that there have been many ad hominem attacks against Mrs. Schiavo's (I never knew her, so I don't feel it's proper to call her by her first name) husband. All this talk of "affairs" is sort of silly, and awfully legalistic for a side that seems to want judges to stop judging.

To explain, Mr. Schiavo did not begin the said "affair" until she had been unresponsive for seven years, and he decided that he should move on. He remained married to her because he wanted to allow her to follow her own wishes (it was not just Mrs. Schiavo's husband who claims she said it, it was also several of her close friends).

Because he was the closest of kin, he had the right to end the shell of a life she led. However, the parents brought in judges at this point. Mr. Schiavo promptly brought in a procession of medical specialists and experts in the field, who all agreed that Mrs. Schiavo's state was indeed hopeless, and that she would never recover. Mrs. Schiavo's parents managed to find one doctor in all of Florida that would say that Mrs. Schiavo had a change to recover.

Here's the final score in medical experts' opinions: No Chance -37 , Slight Chance -1.

Next: Why was she starved? Do know how painful it is to starve? Withdrawing food and water, the essentials of human life is okay? You don't have a problem with it? Terri wasn't asked if she wanted to die, all we had was the "word" of her husband, who has an affair with someone else. Why should we believe that? Terri may have wanted to live, but, she can't feed herself, so oh well, that means someone else has to make that decision for her. If she wanted to die, why would she want to starve to death? Why not take some drug that would make her go peacefully? Michael Schiavo didn't love her enough to do that, now, did he?

Mrs. Schiavo was starved for one simple reason: other opportunities were not available, because they are illegal at this point.. She was extensively drugged with pain medications and stabilization medications at all times, so it is highly unlikely that an already unconcious woman with

only occasional reactions to stimuli would have felt anything, much less comprehend the situation or feel the utter pain.

It would appear, by your last sentence, that you are accusing Mr. Schiavo of not caring for his wife. I say this is untrue. He remained married to her long after she had lost conciousness, and moved on only when all possible methods to heal her were exhausted. He remained married to her to carry out her wishes, when he could have simply just divorced her, and re-married. He could have left her with her parents, but he was too concerned about her well-being to simply abandon her.

Finally, I think that very few people would want to be left alive in that condition: riddle me this. What are you doing in that state? What are you accomplishing? Are you moving forward with your life?

If you truly believe that you have a positive afterlife waiting after your death, why keep your mindless body alive with unnatural means?

[democracy and anti-democratic groups]

I don't really count Vlaams Belang as an extreme-right party, then. They're more like slightly more opinionated American conservatives.

Look at Muslim fundamentalism. Did the wars against them solve anything? Absolutely not, since they will only become more fanatic and only get more followers. It's the root of the problems that matters and in European that obviously is a bad immigration policy.

The anti-fascism policies in France and Germany seem to be working very effectively.

Dealing with the religious extreme right, however, requires a different approach. The key is this: there is no approach. The most we can do is try to improve their enviroments to standard levels so that extreme poverty or discrimination will not force them to reactionary groups for solace and hope.

[If you could go back in time, what year would..]

All sorts of controversial events in history:

28 A.D - To see whether Jesus of Nazarene's teachings were transcribed correctly

1770 A.D - Boston Massacre (who started it?)

1774 A.D - Battle of Lexington and Concord (who fired the shot heard round the world?)

1945 A.D. - Try to follow General George S. Patton's idea of stopping Soviets while we alone have the bomb (yes, there will be objections, but blah)

[democracy and anti-democratic groups]

An individual, whether casting a vote or blowing up a building, has little power; a party has much more. To dispose of the party system is to deny human nature. I defy you to name one instance where people did not naturally form a party with like-minded individuals.

Neo-Fascism isn't scary because the individuals inside believe in violence as a means for religious change, it's scary because it's a large group of individuals withfunding and support who believe in violence as a means for religious change. If you were to break up the party and stop association between the members, then they would lose access to funding. More importantly, they would lose access to the recipricol "peer pressure" between them that drives them to greater and greater extremes of political views and violence.

[The Mother of all Threads]

Wild!

(It's required by law to do that.)

[Suggestions for 0 A.D.]

Not so much huge compared to modern examples of huge armies. However, I can assure you that if the pop limit can reasonably be increased without damaging much, then it will be done.

The abandonment idea does sound very fun, though. I sort of like it.

My only complaint with it is that, historically, towers and forts were simply almost never left abandoned. At the very least, a small garrison of low quality troops would always remain in there. Pretty much the only way that a fort would have no garrison inside would be A) to repel a siege or attack, if the garrison was summarily wiped out, and then the fort was burnt out and abandoned (Hun-style), or C) if their design and purpose was to be a stop-gap measure. I'm trying to think of other examples, but those seem to be the key.

Finally... wouldn't any player with any level of experience simply destroy fortresses and towers before they can be taken? This could be remedied with a RoN-style "raze timer", I suppose.

However, if a player could be caught off-guard (if they had just built a tower in an "offensive" matter, and hadn't quite garrisoned it, yet) or if they could be distracted (attack them from one flank to get all of their forces ungarrisoned to stop you, and then grab their towers and retreat your first attack), it could be an effective, clever tool, if only a little cheap.

[democracy and anti-democratic groups]

So imo, if you wish to stop the rise of extreme right do it the right way. Debate with them, treat them like a normal party, but if they do say things that go against democracy make sure that everyone has heared it, that everyone sees what such parties stand for, that people see that extreme right is not a better alternative.

Well...last time we tried just treating fascist groups as everybody else, 60 to 80 million people died. The entire extreme right movement does not exist on reason, and will not respond to debate.

Of course I think not, and fortunatly only the people who have been responsible for those things are punished (although frequently people are being protected or witnesses disappear or suddenly die in a car-crash).

But why is Vlaams Belang being held responsible for racist crimes in Flanders? Indeed some if their members say: "Muslims can't be democratic" or "Muslims who wear a khimar/chador don't belong here", should watch their steps, but it's a totally different thing than funding violent groups or telling people to attack Muslims.

My view is that if your agenda or political stance is clearly anti-Muslim, and has not been opposed to violence in the past, and several of your members commit crimes against them... That party is not performing a positive function in society, and whether or not everyone in the party participated, they all hold the same views. Unless they funded it or ordered it, then they shouldn't be imprisoned or punished, though the party should be disbanded with haste.

[democracy and anti-democratic groups]

Except for anarchists (who I personally don't really count as left or right, they're neither), radically left movements tend to shy away from random acts of violence based on hate. I think that the core of philosophies of the two different extremes is the key to acceptance. The far right tends to base their philosophies on such things as rabid nationalism, religious fanaticism, homophobia, racism, sexism, et cetera; the far left tends to base many of their ideals in love for one's fellow man, equality-based economics, and other ideas. that are very similiar to those of the Christian religion or modern democratic socialism. Their methods are different; but many can reason that at least their "hearts are in the right place".

And calling Stalinism and Maoism philosophies "communism" is exactly the same as claiming that the US is a capitalistic country ... which it no longer is ...

The United States retain(s?) (Is there a rule on what you do for the U.S. in this case?) many capitalist tendencies. It can be called "capitalistic", but no longer "capitalist; this is very much the same as the "Hellenic" cultures (Greeks) and "Hellenistic" cultures (Greek culture with many local influences, or vice versa).

I do not see any reason why the same logic (given similar evidences are found) has not to be applied in the field of political extremism.

I agree with this to an extent, but I believe that he was already using the logic. Giving material support, orders, or instruction for illegal activities actually makes you guilty for the crime you helped commit, in the United States, at least. I actually helped in a case a while back where a person was on trial for alledgedly commanding the murder of a rival gang member.

[democracy and anti-democratic groups]

Stalinism wasn't communist or even that much of socialist: it's a form of totalitarianism mixed with some flowery words. Just because he claimed to be communist doesn't necessarily mean he was. Nixon claimed "I'm not a crook".

Maoism is much the same. Most of Mao's work involves organization of the revolution. It's not all that much different from Stalinism, except that the word "industrial worker" was replaced with "farmer".

Besides, I've seen very few (by few I mean zero) people proclaiming themselves to be "Stalinists" or "Maoists" running around. If there were, I'd seriously question their sanity, both in holding such a view, and in actively speaking of it.

Finally...calling either philosophy "communism" is exactly (yes, exactly) the same as claiming that Iraq under Hussein was a democracy.

[democracy and anti-democratic groups]

and having parties forbidden (Neo-Nazis, Fascists, Communists, etc ..)

I agree with the forboding of fascism...but to mix Communists in with those two? It's like putting Satanism and Mormonism into the same grouping!

[New Pope]

It would be as if you didn't hire a Russian for a job because at one point he had lived in the Soviet Union. If the stories about him being jailed for standing up against the Nazi regime are true, then that gives him even more credence, in my book.

I personally think that the Catholic Church will remain with the same basic beliefs for many more Popes. I do not believe that anyone radical will come along any time soon: religion is rapidly becoming a more powerful force, which no longer bends to society. Whether or not that is a good thing is entirely debatable. I'm not sure where I stand, though I do believe that the Catholic church must retain a large degree of conservatism because of the large number of people who are still conservative Catholics.

[Crier Website vers. 1.0.0 Review]

Argalius doesn't practice Argalianism for his own reputation: he practices it for the sake of correcting things.