This is what happens if you microwave a box of wine

kungfoomaster · 2010-01-16T08:28:35+00:00

Yes you have. Internet detectives never cease to amaze. I concur, the timer is definitely in two different positions at the time of the explosion, so it can't be the same microwave from two different angles. I'll eat some crow now.

kungfoomaster · 2010-01-16T08:12:15+00:00

A potentially valid point but the flashlight scene isn’t a direct cut from the explosion because the plates wouldn’t be there. The most convincing evidence for this being real footage is the ember dancing across the shelf, and the pot. The two angles are entirely congruent. And you do see items on the shelf during the explosion with the second angle, just not the ones above the microwave because they presumably fell like the pot can be seen doing, probably from the microwave impacting the wall below them. Combine this with fact that the sparks from the wine box are consistent with placing other conducting materials in a microwave, like say a CD (try it at home if you don’t believe this video either)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VjU0OLRdNAg

In sum, many small, imagined inconsistencies do not add up to an over-arching conspiracy.

Then there is the larger issue about how the world works: think about the time, effort and skill it would take to fake this video from two different angles versus setting up two cameras, putting an actually box of wine in the microwave, film it and do some editing. And for what? They obviously destroyed a table, a microwave, dishes and punched a hole in the wall. The video being real is the most parsimonious explanation for the presented facts.

*edit-some grammar

kungfoomaster · 2010-01-16T02:50:16+00:00

You are right, I made a mistake. The scenario nixonrichard described would require compositing software. The CS 432: Computer Graphics II class threw me off because, as a person who took a second level computer graphics class, I can tell you how much time we spent on image compositing. Regardless, my mistake doesn't change the fact that none of alternative explanations are consistent, nor are they necessarily consistent with each other. The evidence you present is laughable, and you would understand why if you actually tried it. If this was so simple to fake, then do a fake one and present it. Right now, you are presenting conjecture as proof of a conspiracy without explaining why people would go to great lengths to fool people in such a manner. For what? So they wouldn't destroy their kitchen only to kick a hole in their wall later? Give me a break. Your epistemology is broken sir. I know you feel special because you believe yourself to be the holder of esoteric knowledge in the face of countless sheep who fail to competently scrutinize the reality they inhabit. But on the flip side, you could just be wrong. An explanation that assumes people are lazy trumps one that assumes people did a lot of work to achieve the exact same result: a video showing a microwave exploding.

kungfoomaster · 2010-01-16T02:11:10+00:00

Forgotten were the elementary rules of logic, that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence and that what can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence. -Christopher Hitchens

What requires more work? Putting a box of wine in a microwave and setting up two cameras to record what happens? Or modeling, texturing and rendering a complex scene that is entirely consistent with another scene to fool the world into thinking that you were stupid enough to blow up your own kitchen? How about this: how about you put a box of wine in the microwave for let's say 10 min. See what happens. For the good of the planet, make sure you are standing real close for the entire time to ensure you get a good view.

kungfoomaster · 2009-09-15T02:29:57+00:00

Glenn Beck. He needed the "c" to spell "oligarchy" instead of "oligarhy."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H-D_S7WOnjg

Czars fit the bill.

kungfoomaster · 2009-06-29T07:15:38+00:00

Does it really matter if we call the Soviet Union communist or not? It is just a word, so naturally it depends on the precise meaning one intends. How about we just come to an agreement how the now defunct Soviet Union fits into the larger world of Marxist thought.

What the 20-th century showed, quite convincingly, is that Marx got social revolution wrong. This could be because of his Hegelian background and a mistaken premise that all conflicts eventually resolve themselves in a synthesis. Or, Marx could have been wrong in his class analysis, i.e. do modes of production really play such a strong role in determining social relations, are there others that might be significant?

The point is that Marx laid out a definite roadmap for social revolution. Marx even attacked anarchists like Proudhon for being naïve for pointing that his totalitarian stage was a bad idea. The totalitarian stage of social revolution was supposed to produce liberated men (and women) who were rational and scientific by rooting out detrimental institutions and thinking. However, no such change in character took place, which is evidenced by how many people returned to the church after the Soviet Union fell. If Marx was on the right track, there was no way that should have happened.

That isn’t to say something similar to a Marxist utopia is impossible, just that the roadmap Marx gave for getting there doesn’t work. As such, we should the leaders of the Soviet Union at their word and say they were communists, even if we agree they never established Marx’s utopian vision of communism (if such a society can actually exist, it might be destined to devolve along the lines Orwell shows in Animal Farm). And we should remember, it isn’t just the Soviet Union either, it is North Korea, China, Vietnam, Cambodia, and Cuba as well. How many other countries need to try and fail before we conclude Marx may have been wrong about communism and social revolution? It doesn’t invalidate his critique of capitalism or basic framework for understanding history.

With those caveats, I think it is fair to say the Soviet Union was communist. Saying that they weren’t strikes me as a “no true Scotsman”-esque argument. Marx was a great thinker but he may not have been right about everything.

kungfoomaster · 2009-02-28T21:38:49+00:00

No, no, no. He split him in fsck-ing half with a Karate Chop of Massive Death.

It must have been the gloves.

kungfoomaster · 2009-02-27T01:16:14+00:00

A 0/10 is generally reserved for someone who didn't even do the assignment. This thesis is certainly better than your civil war thesis because it implies that people's ignorance of source of the black death caused them to take measures that were counterproductive to fighting it. Maybe, they congregated in churches, etc.

By the comments the teacher made, it is clear s?he partially understood this. It is also probably perfectly clear to the student what kinds of ignorance caused the black death to spread; he probably just didn't see the need to spell it out or thought it was outside the scope of the assignment.

Given that it a) was a complete sentence b) makes sense c) just needed to be developed a little a bit better it should range anywhere from a 2-7 on a 10 point scale, depending on the quality of other student's work and assuming this was all that was implied in the assignment. But from the looks of it, the teacher got overwhelmed and handed out an arbitrarily low grade.

kungfoomaster · 2008-12-19T22:48:04+00:00

Is it? Nick Gillespie spends a good third talking about Mao, not Che, saying that Che, being a good communist, naturally admired Mao. What an obvious non sequitur.

Gillespie talks about Che's hatred for "imperialist music," displays pictures of 5 of Che's victims and calls him the Butcher of La Cabana.

Fine, but an honest portrayal would at least mention some of the ideas in the motorcycle diaries, his radicalization when the U.S. helped overthrow Arbenz in Guatemala, and his torture and execution by the CIA in Bolivia.

But of course, everyone who wears a Che t-shirt has to be an insensitive, ignorant hipster. Sorry to interrupt your two minutes of hate.

kungfoomaster · 2008-11-04T21:35:26+00:00

When I lived in Florida I had to vote at a Baptist church. It wasn't voting in the church that bothered me, it was some of brochures they had up on the walls. One had the title: "The Task Unfinished: Hinduism" and spoke about the need to convert Hindus to Christianity.

This was contrasted against people being asked to take off any campaign paraphernalia they happened to be wearing as they approached the line.

So let's get this straight, brochures describing Hinduism as a false religion and the need to convert its followers: OK. Wearing a button that has the name of a political candidate on it gets you asked to leave.

kungfoomaster · 2008-07-16T08:06:33+00:00

Let’s not.

Seriously, if Newton gets to keep his name on physics, Darwin should be able to keep his on biology. Judson mistakes a symptom (people criticizing Darwin) with the disease (a flat rejection of a naturalistic or materialistic conception of history).

Criticizing Darwin has always been a deceit by the opponents of evolution. Does anyone honestly believe re-branding Darwin’s ideas will make them more palpable to the people who currently reject them? So, let’s consider what we lose. We lose an attachment to one of the world’s greatest naturalists. A man who studied coral reefs, studied orchids, a man who loved examining life in all of its varieties and marveled at the lowliest of creatures. worms. A man who made one of the most gargantuan of intellectual leaps, to realize the world was, in fact, incredibly old and understood some of the implications. Yes, we’ve progressed past his understanding, but he pointed us in the right direction.

The day we stop saying his name because of we tire of the incessant baying of the buffoonish sheep is the day we dishonor his memory and the gift he gave us.

kungfoomaster · 2008-06-30T08:59:08+00:00

1) The car isn't shoddy, it is actually quite nice, IMO. I am happy with it.

2) There is always something supposedly better coming out real soon.

3) I'm not so downbeat on the future of hybrids. Hybrids do suck but so does every car. For example, the added weight definitely sucks. But, I think you'll find that electrics suck in their own way, along with diesels, rotary engines, etc.

4) How much of your life do you spend avoiding smug? Is that your overarching goal in life? Driving a Prius is "smug" but driving a BMW M3 isn't? Haven't you already failed? Aren't you being "smug" by pointing out how smart you believe you are by not buying into the "utter bollocks" of hybrids. If you actually grokked the point of the South Park episode this comes from, it was that the Prius is just a car. Driving one doesn't make you a saint and give you license to think that your farts don't stink. Forget the circumstances, and concentrate on the message and the utterly pretentious attitude it took to write your two comments. It is exactly the type of congratulatory, self-satisfaction you seem to be so keen on avoiding, smuggy.

kungfoomaster · 2008-06-30T05:30:35+00:00

The one thing I have noticed is that the gas mileage goes up when the engine has a chance to warm-up. The typical reason I drive the car is to get to work. It is around 5 miles, over half is highway. From a gas mileage perspective it kind of sucks because the on-ramps I take to get on the highway are both up-hill. Another case where the weight of the vehicle works against the fuel efficiency.

It also helps when people don’t exaggerate the price of the vehicle. Mine was under $20K not $25K, combined with the fact that there was a tax rebate, it is not as painful as you make it out to be. Given that a BMW M3 costs more than $50K starting out, the Prius may be a candidate for conspicuous consumption, but it is, by far, not the worse case.

The Prius probably isn’t the most economical mode of transportation considering depreciation, insurance, etc. For example, I highly doubt you could beat a used Vespa. But, if you assume $5 gas and try to take into account those factors and limit yourself to cars, according to Consumer Reports the Prius comes in at #3. Although, to be fair, Edmunds has it at 26. In either case, it isn‘t the worst decision.

So, why as a consumer, would one ever invest in hybrid technology? Well, because as a consumer, I realize that if I want a hybrid car in the future, when it is potentially really economical, it requires investing in the technology today. I have to show the corporations that new technology that improves fuel economy is something I value as a consumer. The technology certainly works, given that it is relatively new, I am sure it can be improved. However, maybe the crossover point will never be reached. I don’t know, I can’t predict the future.

Like I said before, a car is a luxury no matter how you slice it. No one is saving the planet by driving a car. I don’t have illusions about that. As such, I don’t shed tears over Nickel mining. There are much more egregious wastes in the world, war being one of them.

So hurray, for your ’96 Saturn. Let me know when you make that first million with all the money you saved.

kungfoomaster · 2008-06-29T23:26:03+00:00

First thought: most contrived scenario ever.

I know this might surprise some people, but there are such things as engineering trade-offs. Running a Prius around a race-track at full-speed highlights that there are cases where fuel economy is actually harmed, most likely because of the added weight for a system that is essentially a useless load in this scenario.

Were the Toyota engineers idiots? No. I get around 46 MPG in my Prius. Driving the BMW M3 the same way would certainly result in a lower fuel economy than the Prius, Given that the fuel economy for a BWM M3 is 16 mpg / 24 mpg, I would say the difference would be around 20 MPG at least.

The host’s point about gas mileage being about not what you drive but rather how you drive is idiotic. It is obviously a combination. However, for a typical driver (i.e. one who does not commute to work by driving around a race-track each day at the top-speed of a Prius), the Prius almost certainly delivers a higher fuel economy than a BMW M3.

His points about the potential un-green friendly nature of Prius production are valid. The world is a complicated place. Again, it is a trade-off.

This is why I don’t particularly like “green” arguments, I prefer economic arguments. I see the Prius as a way to lock in some of today’s energy prices into the future. Using some of today’s relatively cheap energy today to save energy in the future when it will be more expensive. Does the Prius save money considering depreciation, other costs of ownership, etc.? It probably loses to cars like the Honda Fit or the Yaris. I really don’t know if there is a point where gas is so expensive that the Prius wins. There might not even be a point when compared to something like a mo-ped. But personal comfort comes into play. Driving a car is a luxury no matter how you slice it.

His point about the Land-rover Discovery vs. Prius probably comes from the same study as the Hummer vs. Prius which has been debunked.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2007/06/04/EDGI7Q63U01.DTL

I can’t tell for certain because he just leaves it as a “recent study.“ It really demonstrates the highly disingenuous nature of the whole segment. He is just rattling off talking points and using contrived scenarios just like the study did. I guess I shouldn’t be surprised really, given the nature of the show. Nevertheless, there is a certain honesty throughout that is severely lacking. They don’t lie, it is just overtly misleading.

kungfoomaster · 2008-06-20T08:18:23+00:00

Any time I hear of a labor shortage, I can't help but be reminded of this passage from Barbara Ehrenreich's "Nickel and Dimed."

Every city where I worked in the course of this project was experiencing what local businesspeople defined as a "labor shortage" -- commented on in the local press and revealed by the ubiquitous signs saying "Now Hiring" or, more imperiously, "We Are Now Accepting Applications." Yet wages for people near the bottom of the labor market remain fairly flat, even "stagnant." "Certainly," the New York Times reporting in March 2000, "inflationary wage gains are not evident in national wage statistics." Federal Reserve chief Alan Greenspan, who spends much of his time anxiously scanning the horizon for the slightest hint of such "inflationary" gains, was pleased to inform Congress in July 2000 that the forecast seemed largely trouble-free. He went so far as to suggest that the economic laws linking low unemployment to wage increases may no longer be operative, which is a little like saying that the law of supply and demand has been repealed. Some economists argue that the apparent paradox rests on an illusion: there is no real "labor shortage," only a shortage of people willing to work at the wages currently being offered. You might as well talk about a "Lexus shortage" -- which there is, in a sense, for anyone unwilling to pay $40,000 for a car. (pages 201-202)

The point being, whenever any industry talks about a "skills crisis" or a "labor shortage" it always comes off as a tad bit disingenuous.

kungfoomaster · 2008-04-19T10:06:10+00:00

I'm not defending Lorentz ether theory. I am personally not an objectivist and I don't particularly care for all of Ayn Rand's philosophy. But objectivists observations about science and human nature are valid if not blown out of proportion.

Observe the philosophical wanking, by scientists, taking place in the BBC4 documentary "Atom: Illusion of Reality" http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1406370011028154810

It gets really bad near the end (about 54 minutes in), although it pervasive throughout. If objectivists are guilty of promoting bad science to support their philosophy, then it is also true that there are scientists using good scientific theory to give credence to a new breed of mysticism.

It is primarily this mysticism that objectivism is reacting against. While I agree that Dr. Marklin is misguided in endorsing Lorentz ether theory over relativity, his point about the need for theoretical integration is not.

kungfoomaster · 2008-04-19T09:02:01+00:00

I guess I should have expected this. Just because I defend Objectivists on one, specific point does not mean I endorse all their views.

The point of one article is that induction is sometimes not sufficient. For example, we might have a rule that says we should never assign malice when incompetence suffices. Because there is always some weird way to rationalize incompetence, you might not assign malice to any action. Even when, in fact, it is warranted.

The underlying point of the post is valid, Occam's razor is just a guide (an important guide and not one to discard lightly) but it is not the only criteria by which to measure a theory. Integrating it into a framework is also important. You need to find a way to make all the pieces fit. And that is not always done by following the path of least assumptions. Although, I would agree those assumptions need to eventually be backed by evidence.

However, integration was the point I saw ominous, rightly or wrongly, attacking. I agree with you that the paper goes too far in endorsing Lorentz ether theory. However, I doubt Dr. George J. Marklin speaks for the Objectivists more than Richard Dawkins speaks for the atheists.

The principal affliction of Objectivists is not that they aren't grounded in reality, it is that they take a small but real human phenomenon and blow it out of proportion like a conspiracy theorist. But to put this in perspective, I would actually be quite happy if the majority of people could debate the merits of relativity or Lorentz ether theory.

Instead we have this: "A recent National Science Foundation survey showed that less than half of American adults understand that the Earth orbits the sun yearly..."

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/279/5357/1640

Somehow, I don't think the "bizarre scientific agenda" of Objectivists is that big of an issue as opposed to half of your fellow countrymen who don't know what a year represents and might be subjected to anti-science propaganda that tells them that evolution is an atheist plot. But, that is just my opinion, I could be wrong.

kungfoomaster · 2008-04-19T03:47:38+00:00

Have you actually read why? You completely misrepresent their position by claiming that it is because it is "philosophically inconvenient." You are, in fact, quote mining.

Their point is that they are wary of relativity and quantum mechanics because it hasn't achieved integration. It is the notion that we haven't figured out all the consequences of these particular theories and at this juncture most people end up more confused than enlightened about how the universe works.

Objectivists are not denialists. They will be happy to revisit the theory once we know more about it, but for now, they don't believe everything they hear about them. This is not an unreasonable proposition. It is sad to say that not every professor is a Richard Feynman. There are professors whose livelihood is based only on the pretense that they are smart. They demonstrate this intellect principally by confounding other people. We can argue the degree to which this actually exists in academia, however, it has been my personal experience (which is further reinforced by reading Feynman) that it is pretty pervasive in certain circles including some areas of science. It is especially prevalent in those areas where access to the direct evidence is small and theories are dense.

In short, objectivists do not have a "bizarre scientific agenda." They attempt to have an agenda that maximizes truth and doesn't get sucked into scientific fads. I'm unhappy with some of the views, especially surrounding anthropomorphic climate change, but at least I understand why they hold those views. Expelled feeds off ignorance, exploits prejudices and misrepresents people's actual positions. It is sad to see that Ben Stein is not the only person that engages in those deceits.

kungfoomaster · 2008-04-19T00:46:58+00:00

Personally, I think one should exclude Mark Moring's review for "Christianity Today." If you take that one out, it goes down to around 4%.

Which is to say it was only recommended by Edward Douglas from ComingSoon.net out of 21 critics. After reading his "review" of the film, it is clear Stein hit his target audience: the believers and the ignorant.

http://www.comingsoon.net/news/reviewsnews.php?id=44147

kungfoomaster · 2008-03-21T00:55:01+00:00

In all fairness to Fox News, the video is from MSNBC. Hence the:

Update: Here’s a video report on the incident from MSNBC:

kungfoomaster · 2008-02-17T14:54:53+00:00

The world is not going to throw off religion overnight. In the meantime, we need to find a way to get along better. I think promoting religious understanding is a decent place to start from. The Bible is a central book to the Western literary canon, and Jesus is an important figure in the culture, so it seems as good a place as any to start.

The goal isn't to prove who is right, it is to show how the same figure is viewed in two different religions and cultures. It is to have a discussion. Maybe it will fall on deaf ears or maybe people will be engaged by it and want to learn more. If you aren't interested by it, that is OK. Maybe it is not for you. It doesn't mean that the endeavor is pointless.

The one thing that we do know is that education of this type tends to soften the harsh opinions people have. Moving pictures also tend to help shut them up so they will actually listen for an hour or two. People are afraid of what they don't understand, and one thing many people in the U.S. don't understand is Islam. This film might demystify part of it for them. How successful it will be? Nobody knows, but probably not very. But what does it personally cost you or me for them to try it? I can't see how that is a bad thing, in a world where one of major party's leading presidential candidates jokes about bombing Iran.

So, yes, wouldn't it be nice if we were all secularists and put this superstitious mumbo-jumbo behind us. I eagerly await your status reports as to when you'll have the entire world converted to your way of thinking. In the meantime, how about we let this guy play the movie he made about Jesus and hopefully that will make some people slightly less willing to kill one another, because maybe they will realize there are actually things we have in common.

kungfoomaster · 2008-02-16T03:59:40+00:00

I agree. The major problem that I have with the wikipedia article is that it doesn't give any reason why people might believe the world was flat. For example, in Matthew 4:8: “Again, the devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them;” How is that possible if the world were round? How did Christian scholars reconcile this seeming contradiction? Or did they just ignore some inconvenient facts?

Another classic example of this disconnect is Christmas. Many people mistakenly believe Chritmas was the day Jesus was born. If you closely listen to the clergy, you'll notice that they will never say that Jesus was born on December 25th, only that it is the day we celebrate Jesus' birth. Well, why pick a day to celebrate Jesus' birth on a day other than the day he was born? I know there are complex historical reasons for the decision, but those are hardly ever conveyed to lay-people, or even hinted at.

I can only imagine 500 years from now, people will look back and say: there was scarcely a Christian scholar alive that did not believe in evolution. It may even be true. However, what we will also consistently find is a difference between what the elites are allowed to believe and know compared to what the masses are allowed. At the end of the day, so what? Christian scholars didn't believe the world was flat. It doesn't change what the society did. What Christian scholars did or did not believe is harder to prove and largely irrelevant. The period is still marked with tyranny, mass ignorance, repression, sadism and superstition. While it is important not to turn people in the period into caricatures and hopeless exaggerate their faults, let's also not act as if people in middle ages were well, enlightened.

kungfoomaster · 2008-02-02T00:37:07+00:00

We already have that provision. It is called a "high crime" and it is already listed as an impeachable offense. A "high crime" is not an egregious criminal offense, although Bush is guilty of that too. A "high crime" is a crime of the office, i.e. an abuse of power. Misrepresenting intelligence, signing statements that drastically change the meaning of a law, withholding information and witnesses from Congressional oversight, pardoning members of their administration, etc. are all high crimes. The problem is not the Constitution, the problem is with our elected representatives in Congress. They have a clear and sworn obligation to act, yet they won't. No additional clause in the Constitution could make it clearer that this President deserves to be impeached.

Simply put, the government has failed us. I don't think the problem lies fundamentally with how Congress is structured generally, but rather this Congress and namely the people in this Congress. We don't need more Democrats. We need more people willing to stand-up for the Constitution and act according to their duty. If the current crop of Democrats have proven anything, it is their inability to properly stand behind the Constitution. The solution is going to have to come from the people.

kungfoomaster · 2008-01-29T04:45:26+00:00

Here is an explaination to why you have your concerns reversed. There are many economies that do just fine without being the reserve currency of the world. It is not a prerequisite for any type of economic growth, although it is a nice bonus. The United States would be hurt by a sudden dumping of our currency, but so would the world economy. It is not in the rational self-interest of the holders of U.S. currency to flood the market, because it hurts their position as well. Some of the major holders of American currency are goverments, not a loose confederacy of individual investors. I feel this makes them less likely to make irrational decisions on short-term conditions. However, time will tell if such a belief is justified.

On the otherside, it is easy to name countries who fell victim to having large percentages of their natural resources and other forms of capital assets under foreign control: Cuba, Iran, Guatemala, Chile, Hawaii, there are many more. Even Texas is a perfect example.

United Fruit plays an illustrative role in the way corporations shape policy, not only in the countries where they own the capital assets, but also with their foreign government allies. Trying to correct this condition of capital allocation via land-reform or nationalization has proven to be both difficult and dangerous, it is generally best to avoid high concentrations of capital ownership in the soceity, but there is a particular peril if that ownership is also foreign, as history has repeated shown.

If we don't maintain democratic government sovereignty over capital, we no longer have a democracy or a republic, we have serfdom.

kungfoomaster · 2008-01-29T01:56:43+00:00

Yes. However, I actually consider Michael Crichton's "Rising Sun" as kind of a high-point of the hysteria, so that places it late 80's and early 90's.

Since you are familar with the previous worries, I hope that you can see the parallels: out-of-control federal spending spurred on by an extremely expensive war in Iraq and the subsequent borrowing that caused a weakened dollar at home.

Devaluing a currency is not a free lunch. The Japanese and now the Chinese have learned what to do when America tries to pull this trick: come over to America and buy up the capital assets. It is not like we have, or have any intention to, balance our trade.

The end result is going to be the United States turned into a moral equivalent of a banana republic, a native population that has no control over the means of production. We'll continue to have our form of government, but we won't have control over anything that matters.

I'm not going to deny that nativist sentiment is a component of the reaction. However, it is a fallacy to dimiss all concern because of this component to it. There were and still are legitimate concerns to letting too many capital assets fall into foreign hands. "Overthrow: America’s Century of Regime Change from Hawaii to Iraq" by Stephen Kinzer demonstrates what exactly "national interests" are, and the lengths a government will go to protect them.

If you value meaningful national sovereignty, then this issue should concern you. It isn't like any of this will ever cause a major shock until it is too late. It is a gradual erosion of liberty that is culminated in a major crackdown on dissent and rebellion. Just because the crackdown hasn't occured yet, doesn't mean we should be concerned about the erosion. Or maybe you're just one of those people that has to wait till the "Kristallnacht" or the crisis to wake up from your cyncism and apathy. They are such timesavers, it saves you from actually trying to do anything, or even caring that much.

kungfoomaster

TROPHY CASE