Obama needs a Foreign Policy 101

      Since my Associates and Bachelor degrees were in International Studies and Global Affairs, respectively, it's fair to say that I know a lot about the subject. No, I'm not an expert, but I have this thing that most politicians lack called "common sense." I look at Obama's foreign policy and weep. I mean this guy doesn't even try. It is a disaster for everyone in the world...except Obama and the 1%: the mainstream media, the military industrial complex, the rich Democrat CEOs, etc. So that's why he continues to do it, even though, by all standards, it sucks.  It sows destruction throughout the world while the rich overlords reap the benefits. It makes people around the world hate us, which, they have every reason to, given all of the death, oppression, torture, repression, and suffering we cause deliberately with our self-centered foreign policy.
      What would I do differently than Obama? Well, I'm glad you asked. Let me count the ways.
   
     1. Push for the legalization of marijuana. 
     Wait, but this a domestic issue, right? That's what you're thinking, right? Well, it is, but it has grave foreign policy implications for all of South America, especially Mexico. By keeping marijuana illegal in the states, we give the drug cartels in Mexico more money and power, because we create a vacuum of ways people can get marijuana legally. The cartel fills that vacuum. If marijuana was legal, American consumers wouldn't need to go to a drug dealer that gets his drugs from the cartels. They would go down the street to a legal American store, that employes legal workers and pays taxes, to buy some marijuana. That marijuana would be grown legally by U.S. farmers.
     The report and evidence is all right here for anyone to read http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/04/08/pot-legalization-opium-mexico_n_5112869.html. Legalization in just two states have taken a significant chunk out of the cartels' profit. They hate legalization. Imagine if we made it legal everywhere in the U.S.? Bam, the cartels couldn't stay in business. They'd fold, and thousands of Mexicans would live because the cartels wouldn't be around to kill them.
     This post will not go into the domestic issues surrounding marijuana legalization, as that is a post for another time. This is solely looking at the international implications of such a decision.
     Critics of my idea would say "Oh, well, the cartels will simply shift to another way to make money, such as selling and moving cocaine, heroin, etc." Fine, make all of that legal. Where in the Constitution does it say that Americans cannot use cocaine? You're violating peoples' right to use what they want to. You think using heroin is immoral? Perfectly fine, no one is forcing you to do it. But don't expect to shove your opinion down other peoples' throats, and make them believe that using it is immoral. You are entitled to your opinions and to act on them, as long as they don't violate other peoples' human rights. You are not entitled to make your opinion the law of the land just because you think it is a good idea. This isn't Saudi Arabia.
      So this leads to #2, which is:

     2. Stop financing and training the Mexican military, as well as every other South American military.
      When we train militaries to go and kidnap people, torture them, rape them, oppress them, deny them their basic human rights, and kill them, then we are just as responsible for those crimes as the ones that commit them. If we hadn't given them the training and weapons, then they would not be able to carry out those crimes. Yes, perhaps Mexico would go to Russia or China for training and/or funding, but at least the suffering and killing would not be on our hands, on our conscience. We could say we had nothing to do with it. We would not be responsible for the crimes.
     Look at all of the reports on the Mexican military, how much they oppress and make their own people suffer. You'll never hear about this in the mainstream media, for their overlords could never allow Mexico, our "ally," to look bad.
     http://www.hrw.org/americas/mexico
     http://www.hrw.org/world-report/2013/country-chapters/mexico
     http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2014/9/4/amnesty-internationaltortureinmexico.html
     Do you want your hard earned tax money to give these thugs weapons and training? Huh? What do you say, Obama supporters? Sure seems like you all just love killing and oppressing innocent people who are just minding their own fucking God damn business. Fucking fascists.
     Look at how much money we've given those fucking fascists down in Mexico City over the years:

 

     My opinion doesn't just apply to Mexico. We give weapons and training to many Latin American countries who abuse them the same way Mexico does. Honduras, Columbia, Guatemala, fuck them all, stop all military sales and training until they stop oppressing and killing their own people.You can find dozens of reports on any South American country that we give weapons and training to, just like the reports I linked above the picture. Just type "Honduran military human rights abuses" or "Columbia military human rights abuses" etc, and you will find all the information you need. 

     http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2014/07/15/mexico-drugs-us-military/12535271/

     Remember, if Obama did #1 of my suggestions, the cartels would cease to exist, or, at the very least, be a shell of their former selves in terms of power. With them weak and dying, we don't need to pump money and weapons to South American countries to fight the "War on Drugs" anymore.

     But, here's the thing that the Democrats never, EVER, want to talk about. Obama doesn't want the War on Drugs to end. In fact, no one in power in the United States government wants the War on Drugs to end. It's making them too much money. It's giving them too much power. Why would they want it to stop? 

 

     3. Get the fuck out of Somalia.

     We've been in this failed state for decades now. The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. That's exactly what we've been doing in Somalia. We're just killing terrorists and protecting the crony government there. And look at where's that has gotten them. Oh yeah, we sure a big help!

      Every time we kill a "terrorist" (some insurgents may be ordinary people who are fed up with the corrupt government that oppresses them, in that case, we're fighting people who have a legitimate reason to fight the Somalian government), we just create 10 more people willing to fight the Somalian government and us. Friends and family of the deceased will be angry and take up arms. Kill 1, create 10, oh yeah, great plan. 

     There is no group we can morally back in the decades long civil war. The Somalian government is just as bad as the terrorist group it fights. Just look at any of these human rights reports done on it:

     http://www.hrw.org/africa/somalia 

     http://www.refworld.org/publisher,HRW,,SOM,,,0.html 

     http://www.progressio.org.uk/sites/progressio.org.uk/files/human-rights-in-somaliland.pdf 

     4. End all foreign aid to every single country. 

     We need that money here at home. Even if it is not a lot of money compared to our national budget, it is still money that is being used to slaughter innocents. We cannot have that on our conscience, as I talked about in #2. The U.S., by law, is not allowed to finance terrorist organizations. It's time we actually enforced that law. Plus, morally, we cannot give weapons to terrorists and fascists so they can go and kill innocent civilians. Is that where you want your tax dollars to go to?: Torturing a teenager into giving a false confession? The rape of a woman? The murder of a father? No, didn't think so. 

 

     Cut off every single one of these damn countries! They all oppress their own citizens or citizens of other nations. They kill civilians, they deny people their basic human rights. They have secret police that kidnap people in the dead of night. No fucking more!!! We could've used that $14.5 billion in 2013 for any of a hundred other better programs or causes.

     5. Send NATO into Ukraine to protect its sovereignty against Russia.
     I know, such a radical idea, right?? Since when is defending freedom and human rights against a foreign aggressor who wants to put in a puppet dictator that supports said foreign aggressor deemed "radical"? Ask yourself, how did we come to this point in our global society: Where doing such an action is considered "radical" or "extreme"? Isn't it sad that our liberal wussy society is so scared about getting into a fight with a country that could actually fight back that they label such a noble act "radical"?
     Listen, it's really quite simple. U.S. foreign policy should be based on the premise that we reward and support countries that act on our ideals and morals: democracy, human rights, etc. We should shun and oppose countries that act against our ideals and morals: dictatorships, terrorism, apartheid, wars of aggression, etc.
     We apply this logic to the Ukraine/Russia situation. The Ukrainians overthrew a leader that was oppressing them, corrupt, and a fascist. Our morals tell us that the Ukrainians had the right to do that, and that they followed in the example of our founding fathers by doing so. Russia was furious that their pro-Russian stooge was overthrown, so, rather than try and develop a close relationship with the new Ukrainian government, they would rather invade to try and put another pro-Russian stooge in power so that they can control him. Our morals tell us that Russia is in the wrong. We cannot have any interaction with a country who does that. We tried to solve this problem peacefully, but Russia has broken the cease-fire several times. They engage in "diplomacy" only to create another scenario where they can trick their opponents into getting more of what Russia wants. It has shown us that we cannot trust the Putin administration. This has nothing to do with race or religion, it has everything to do with the specific actions the Putin government has taken.
     But Ukraine isn't part of NATO, you say. Well, that is correct. They are not part of NATO. But they have applied to become part of NATO. So NATO should accept their membership and then defend them against aggressor like they do any other NATO member country.
     Critics will say that a NATO/Russia war will be devastating, and therefore, my idea is completely stupid. Well, it will be devastating, I am not denying that fact. But I will argue that it would be worth it. If this is what it takes to finally teach Russia a lesson that they can't just make up shit and invade countries based on blatant LIES, then so be it. It'll be on Russia's head, not NATO's, all of the death and destruction that would happen. Russia escalated this conflict, not Ukraine or NATO. Ukraine would've never overthrown "President" Yanukovych if he hadn't oppressed them, kidnapped them, tortured them, and killed them for simply asking for basic human rights.

    6. DO NOT BOMB ISIS!!!
    This war will be horrible for everyone except Obama, the military-industrial complex, and the oil industry robber barons, which is exactly why he declared war on ISIS, (well, not formally, like, asking Congress's permission to do so. Apparently that is SO 1940's, and "not needed" in the 21st century). I will explain how it will benefit or hurt every single group involved in this conflict.

• The Iraqi people: Obama said he entered this war for "the Iraqi people." Note: aggressors and imperialists always say they are fighting "for the good of the people" to make their bloodthirsty campaign sound legitimate. But the U.S. will only make the Iraqi people suffer more. How? 1. U.S. warplanes always miss their targets a number of times during a bombing campaign. It happens to everyone, not just the U.S. But eventually, the U.S. will hit civilians, either on accident or on purpose. They will cause civilians to die because it is impossible to hit your targets 100% in a chaotic battlefield. 2. By weakening ISIS, Obama will ensure the survival of the Iraqi government, which, remember, oppresses and kills its own civilians ALL THE FUCKING GOD DAMN TIME. See my past post on how horrible the Iraqi government is, and, based on our morals, we cannot support them any longer: http://noholdsonfreedom.blogspot.com/2014/06/what-should-us-do-about-isiss-advance.html. 3. Each ISIS death at the hands of the U.S. will enrage their family and friends, causing even more recruits for ISIS. They will want to fight even harder and slay even more innocent Iraqis to satisfy their bloodlust which was fueled by their friend or family member's death at the hands of U.S. bombs. 
• The U.S.: The world will see the U.S. bombing yet again more Muslims in an attempt to protect an oppressive, corrupt puppet government. This will enrage Muslims and non-Muslims alike. They will flock once again back to Iraq and Syria to fight "the good fight." As if we didn't need the Muslim world more pissed off at us. Just like the 2003 Iraq war drew in thousands of fighters from around the world to fight the imperialistic U.S. occupation, so will this conflict. We have 1,200 U.S. soldiers in Iraq right now, and more come every month or so. How long before ISIS attacks them? ISIS has anti-air weapons in its arsenal. How long before they shoot down one of our aircraft? Nothing gives a morale booster like shooting down a multi-million dollar aircraft, which seems invincible by the sight of men armed with assault rifles, with a missile that cost a couple of thousand dollars. The world will continue to isolate us as a result of our imperialistic, blood spilling actions. We haven't defeated the Taliban in 13 years. What makes you think we can defeat ISIS, who is a lot stronger than the Taliban, any faster? This will just accelerate attacks on Western civilians worldwide as well as U.S. soldiers. 
• The Syrian people. Yes, ISIS commits barbaric acts of terrorism and oppression against the Syrian people. No one in denying that. But by weakening ISIS, you are strengthening another entity it is fighting: the Assad government. And the Assad government is just as bad as ISIS, despite what the mainstream media says. In fact, the Assad government has caused infinite more times death and destruction because it has been around for decades. ISIS has only been around 2 or 3 years. Assad kidnaps people, ISIS kidnaps people. Assad tortures people, ISIS tortures people. Assad beheads people, ISIS beheads people. Assad kills people simply for their religion, ISIS kills people simply for their religion. They are one in the same, and our morals tell us that we cannot support either entity. 
• The military-industrial complex: Oh they're loving this. Killing and maiming is their business, and with this newest war, business is good! (Yes I quoted Dave Mustaine, deal with it bitches). This war means more ludicrous contracts for companies producing weapons, vehicles, and hardware for the U.S. military. This means more opportunities to test their weapons. This means the politicians will push for more defense spending, because anyone who is against more defense spending is obviously a liberal terrorist (heavy sarcasm). 
• The oil industry: Pushing ISIS off the oil fields of Iraq and letting the puppet Iraq government take back control of them is perfect for the oil industry. Now they can continue to steal Iraq's natural resources and sell them for ridiculous prices so they can lavish in their unbridled wealth!

     To end, this article sums up why Obama's ISIS speech was an utter and complete load of fucking horseshit:  http://america.aljazeera.com/opinions/2014/9/barack-obama-islamicstatestrategyspeech.html?utm_content=opinion&utm_campaign=ajam&utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=SocialFlow 

     7. Get the fuck out of Afghanistan. 

     We have been in Afghanistan for 13 YEARS. That's since I was in 6th grade for crying out loud. More than half of my life we have been in this stupid, ridiculous, unnecessary war. Al-Qaeda wanted us to get stuck in Afghanistan for years, and guess what, our stupid incompetent leaders fell for it. They did 9/11 so we'd get stuck fighting the Taliban in Afghanistan, (btw, the Taliban and Al-Qaeda are two completely different organizations. Contrary to the mainstream media, the Taliban had NOTHING to do with 9/11). In the meantime, Al-Qaeda spread to Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, etc. The Afghanistan War was one of the best things to happen to Al-Qaeda.

     We're wasting billions and billions of dollars every year by staying in Afghanistan, while all of our efforts are making Americans less safe, not more safe. The war has tarnished our international image, making us the laughing stock of the world because our military cannot defeat men hiding in caves with AK-47s and goats. The war has been a gathering point for jihadists all over the world to hone in their skills so they can create more mayhem and death in other parts of the world. The military-industrial complex is loving the war though. 13 years of solid business with the military and related government agencies. 13 years to test out all their various weapons. 13 years of happy senators passing big "defense" bills. 

     If we really wanted to defeat Al-Qaeda, we would have to do it a completely different way that neither Obama nor Bush has done. But instead, we sought out to put in a puppet government in Afghanistan, that is corrupt and oppressive, so we can control it, and, in the process, control it's vast mineral wealth for ourselves, as well as control a strategic point in Asia.

     So there you have it, Obama's foreign policy 101 that he will never do because that would actually help spread freedom and stop suffering throughout the world. No, he'd rather kill people and plunder countries so he can line his already fat pockets with even more money. No one is going to stop him. The Democrats cheer him on as he continues to slaughter thousands, and the Republicans would do the same thing if they were in charge, (they proved that with Reagen and Bush). America feeds off chaos and death around the world. Because, who would sell weapons to terrorists, put in puppet governments, and steal resources if we didn't do it?!       

         

    

   

     
      

Every person has the right to life and self-defense

     It's really sad that I have to write this post in the 21st century. You think that mankind would evolve and figure out that just because a person belongs to a certain ethnic group/ religious group, that doesn't mean that they, automatically and without question, deserve to die. But no, that would be asking WAY too much for humanity.
     The logic is really quite simple. If a person doesn't have the right to self-defense, then that invites anyone to just go up and kill them, and they can't fight back at all. They just have to sit there and take it, and die in the process. Even the Nazis had the right to self-defense. If the American soldiers are attacking them, I'm not going to cry and call the Nazis terrorists when they start fighting back, (they're terrorists for other reasons). Because fighting back is a natural and logical response, it is psychologically engraved in animals and in us as well. Just because a person is your enemy, does not mean they are not human, and therefore, should not enjoy human rights.  
     These are the reasons why every person, regardless of race or religion, (or any other group identity for that matter), have the right to life.
     1. A person is not responsible for the actions done by other people of his/her same religion or ethnicity. Every day, dozens of white people murder innocents in America and Europe, steal from people, kill people in car crashes, commit vandalism, rape people, etc, etc. Just pick up any local newspaper and you'll see examples. Now, imagine how absurd it would be if all the minorities in America and Europe demanded that all white people apologize every single time a white person did any of those things. That's right, you'd be thinking "Hey, I didn't do this crime xyz, why should I apologize for it?"
      You can substitute white people for any other ethnicity and the scenario would be the same. People dehumanize groups they hate, thinking they are all one monotonous group. But of course, they never apply the same logic to the groups they are apart of. A person is only responsible for the actions done by himself/herself, AND THAT'S FUCKING IT. In the Central African Republic, for example, when a group of radical Christians kill Muslim civilians on purpose, it is not "getting back at them" if Muslims go and kill random Christians in a retaliatory attack. Why? Because those aren't the Christians who killed the civilians. DUH!! All the Muslims have done is the exact same thing back to the Christians. They've both committed terrorism now.
     2. If a human being has committed no crime, then they shouldn't be put to death. Again, common sense, which is never common these days. Simply existing is not a crime.
     3. Thinking that because some members of xyz commit a crime, therefore, all members of xyz should die is a double standard, because people never think that about their own race. See this example to illustrate it:
      Racist Jew: A Muslim killed a Jewish civilian today, so all Muslims should die!
      Me (showing the fallacy): A Jew killed a Muslim civilian today, so all Jews should die!
      Racist Jew: What?! You can't take the crimes of one person and apply it to all Jews! I didn't do anything wrong! I shouldn't die!
      See what I mean? They never apply the same logic to the groups they hate and their own group. If they did, then they would think that literally everyone on the Earth should die, because all religions and races have had their share of people who have murdered innocent people throughout history.
      4. All religions and races are equal. Again, so sad that I have still have to write this. For every Asian terrorists I can find a South American terrorist to match, and vice versa. Substitute for any other religion or ethnic group and the statement is still the same. Besides, I'm sure there are more terrorists in one religion than another, for example, more Muslims than Jews, because there are 1.5 billion Muslims and only 15 million Jews. So even if percentage wise they're same, numerically, there will be more Muslim terrorists than Jewish terrorist. Does that mean Islam supports terrorism and Judaism doesn't? Of course not. Since when it is a rule than if your religion has more terrorists than my religion, then that means your religion supports terrorism and mine doesn't?
      Let's just say, for argument's sake, there are 40 million Islamic terrorists, and 34 million Christian terrorists in the world. What moral high ground can Christians have on Muslims? "Ha, you have 40 million terrorists and I only have 34 million! So that means you support terrorism and I don't!" Yeah, it makes no sense.
      5. Self-defense is logical. If you're a Palestinian, just walking through Gaza, minding your own business, and then, your house gets bombed by Israeli warplanes when there are no missiles or militants nearby, killing your family. What is your natural, logical reaction? You go join the group that is fighting Israel. Does that make you a terrorist? No, but unfortunately the only group fighting Israel is a terrorist organization, so technically, yes, you are now in a terrorist organization, and Israel has the right to kill you. But you haven't launched any rockets at civilians. You want to fight Israeli soldiers that killed your family.
     See how real life is more complicated than children stories of "good guys vs evil guys"?

     6. People have the right to self-defense in the best way that they can. If America is attacked, they attack with jet fighters, artillery, marines, etc. If you are attacked in your home by criminals, you attack with a gun. Is your actions automatically terrorism because you aren't a official state military using big expensive equipment? Of course not. But some people act like that's how it is. For example, they think the Free Syrian Army is a terrorist organization because it uses guerrilla warfare, with AK-47's and car bombs, against the Assad dictatorship. But they don't think Assad is, even though he is using jet fighters and artillery against civilians. Why don't they think Assad is a terrorist? Because he is a government, using machines to fight, so therefore, he couldn't possibly be a terrorist. 
      You store your gun in your home, because, that's the legal and rational thing to do, because it is on your property. But if you were a Palestinian in Gaza, Israel would drone strike your house, saying that you're using human shields because you're hiding arms in a civilian building. See how easy it is to twist things to make a normal action look like a terrorist action?  If your best weapon are homemade rockets, then that's what you have to use. If Hamas had jet fighters and cruise ships and artillery, believe me, they'd much rather use those then homemade rockets than cannot be aimed very well. But saying that all methods of warfare except expensive state of the art warfare that only rich countries can afford is "terrorism" is taking away the poor men of the world's fight to self-defense. You'd be condemning millions of people to death just because they can't afford laser guided missiles that your government can conveniently afford.
      In conclusion, this is a quick summary of my post, using again, an example:

• Israel has the right to fight against Palestinian militants, because they are both combatants who are at war with one another. 
• Israel DOES NOT have the right to kill Palestinian civilians, just because they are living in Gaza, or are Arab, or are Muslim etc. There is no excuse. Terrorism is terrorism, no what who the perpetrator.
• Palestine has the right to fight against Israeli military forces, because they are both combatants who are war with one another.    
• Palestine DOES NOT have the right to kill Israeli civilians, just because they are living in Israel, or are Jewish, etc. There is no excuse. Terrorism is terrorism, no what who the perpetrator.

5 older video games that were better than their predecessors

     One thing that I really don't like about the vast majority of video gamers is that they are band-wagoners. They only play the most recent games, because they see that as the cool thing to do. They say they like games x, y, and z, only because they are recent games, even though, when compared to older games, these games are complete and utter shit. They never play older games, (pre-2005 or so), and utterly deny that they ever liked those games, even when, at the time these games came out, they said they loved them, because, at the time, they were the recent games.
     This annoys me because the video game industry has steeply dropped in the quality of video games it is producing the last decade or so compared to the decade before last. I mostly play old video games, and every two years or so I'll find a good new video game that I really like, (like Assassin's Creed 3 and Dead Island), but for 99% of the time, recent video games are not nearly as good as they used to. I have no problem looking up old video games that I didn't play back when they were new, and finding a couple that look interesting, and ordering them off the internet to play them now. I did this with Heroes of Might and Magic 3 and the Legacy of Kain series, and they were great games to play even though they were more than a decade or so old. That's a very rare thing to do, because most gamers have the mindset "If it's old, it automatically sucks."
      Another thing that I like to look for in video games is one that is better than the previous one in the series. This is rare not only in video games, but in other media like movies as well. It's hard to top the original because you have to walk a fine line. If you make it too much like the original, then people will say "Oh, this is too much like the first one, it adds nothing new to it, the developers couldn't think of anything else...etc." However, if you make it too different than the first, then people will complain "Oh you took out my favorite things about the game, you changed it too much, it's not even the same game....etc."
      So here is a countdown of the 5 best older games that were better than their predecessors:

5. Hexen>Heretic

    

     Heretic: 5/10

     Hexen: 6/10

Synopsis of Heretic: An powerful evil sorcerer and his army has taken over your lands and corrupted them. You must fight through damned cities and demonic strongholds to get to the sorcerer and defeat him to save your world. 

Synopsis of Hexen: Another evil being, the older brother of the sorcerer you defeat in Heretic, has invaded a totally different world with his army. You must choose one of three characters to play as to basically do the same as in Heretic: go through a lot of creepy places, fight monsters, solve puzzles, and defeat the head honcho. 

     What Hexen did better than Heretic:

• Changed the atmosphere. Heretic is a frantic, action paced first person shooter, with a lot of enemies and minimal puzzle solving. While this is cool, Hexen changes it up a bit by making it a creepy, gritty first person shooter with less enemies that are tougher to beat, and with very elaborate and complicated puzzles to solve. Heretic's music is standard MIDI old school music. Hexen's is still MIDI but it gives the game a sense of horror and scariness that is not present in Heretic. Hexen can legitimately be a scary game at times, especially for younger kids.  
• Changed the level progression. Heretic is a linear game: you beat one level to go to the next in order, and you never back-track. Hexen is a hub based game where you have a home base level, and from there, you branch out to other levels to solve the main hub level puzzle. You have to go back and forth many times to proceed to the next hub. This makes it a harder game to beat, and therefore, a more satisfying game to beat. It also adds a level of sophistication that is not present in Heretic.  
• Added a limited RPG element to it. In Heretic, you only play as one person, and therefore, only have one set of weapons. In Hexen, you can choose one of three players: a fighter, a cleric, or a mage. Each has their own playing style and set of weapons tailored to that fighting style. This allows a more customized play for the player.
• More varied locales. In Heretic you pretty much play in dungeons/necromancer/demon sort of plays. None of the places really stand out. In Hexen you fight in fortresses, badlands, swamps, etc. They are more varied and therefore are more memorable.   

      Both of these great games are on Steam for like super cheap like $5 or so, so download them and give them a go!

4. Heroes of Might and Magic 2>Heroes of Might and Magic 1

     Heroes of Might and Magic 1: 4/10

     Heroes of Might and Magic 2: 7/10

Synopsis of Heroes of Might and Magic 1, (HoMM): It's a medieval fantasy strategy game where you can pick one of four factions: a Knight, Sorceress, Barbarian, or Warlock. You get a castle and get soldiers/magical monsters and then proceed to conquer the map in turn based combat. 

Synopsis of Heroes of Might and Magic 2, (HoMM): Not much has changed. You're still in the same world as the first one, and the premise is still the same. Two new factions have arrived, the Wizard and the Necromancer, to make 6 in total. 

      What HoMM 2 did better than HoMM 1:

• Way better music. HoMM 1's soundtrack was bland/uninspiring MIDI music, except for a few good tracks. HoMM 2's soundtrack is an utter masterpiece that is better than 99% of movie's scores and other New Age music. 17 years after it came out and I still enjoy listening to the music as much as I did when I first got the game. Hands down one of the best video game soundtracks I have ever listened to. The music definitely draws the player into a fantasy world. It's hard to pick my favorite track but here's just one of my favorites: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xRHor2L_NQE 
• Better artwork. HoMM is very cartoony/kiddy when it comes to the animation of the background and monsters. It's okay, but HoMM 2 makes it awesome. Visually it is still a very aesthetically pleasing game to look at even given the limited graphics the producers were working with in 1997. 
• The addition of some features such as a marketplace makes game play much  more easier and realistic. The two additional factions make it a funner game to play, as it gives the player more options to suit their fighting style. The addition of new terrains such as the beach and the badlands make for more varied maps. More spells is good. Basically more everything is good. 

      Both of these games are available on gog.com, again, for very cheap. Definitely worth the small pocket change, as these games can immerse you for hours on end.      

3. Jak 2>Jak and Daxter: The Precursor Legacy 

      Jak and Daxter: 4/10

      Jak 2: 8/10

Synopsis of Jak and Daxter: 2 evil sorcerers, Gol and Maia, are planning to destroy the world etc the usual bad guy stuff. Also, your best childhood friend, Daxter, gets turned into an Ottsel, (a orange rodent), and you have to figure out how to change him back, as Gol is the only person in the world who knows how to do so. The game is a platforming/hub based collection game that is similar to the Spyro series. You run around locales, gathering precursor orbs, (money), fighting monsters, and solving puzzles. 

Synopsis of Jak 2: Gol and Maia are defeated, Daxter remains an Ottsel. Jak and the gang get teleported into the future, where their tropical home is now the center of a huge, sprawling distopian city called Haven City. A tyrant called the Baron rules with an iron fist from within, and monsters called Metal Heads are beating down the city walls from the wastelands. Jak has to figure out how to survive in this new, much more dangerous world and try to find a way back home. This game is more like Grand Theft Auto, with an almost open world environment that you navigate freely while completing quests from many different locales.  

     What Jak 2 did better than Jak and Daxter:

• Combat is much more fun. In Jak and Daxter, you fight with just your hands and feet, and the occasional Eco boost. It's very limited, as the game focuses on puzzles and exploration more. In Jak 2, combat is a much more bigger presence in the levels. Not only can you have hand to hand combat, but Jak gets guns, he can fly vehicles, man gun turrets, etc, all the cool action stuff. It adds of this combat action while still having puzzles and exploration being important too. Oh, and you can turn into a killer mutant and proceed to fuck up monsters and soldiers with your claws and blowing the shit up with your...mutant powers, I guess. Whatever, it's cool!  
• Story-line is much more cooler. Jak and Daxter has a limited story-line with very few video clips. It really isn't central to the game. The story-line, while present, is kinda lame compared to its sequel. Who hasn't seen the "bad guy going to destroy the world" story-line before? Jak 2 has a ton of movie clips, one for each mission basically. It does a lot to bring the player into the world. Characters actually have character development. There are many plots going on at the same time. Jak, who is a mute in the first game, is a genuine bad-ass in Jak 2. You like Jak, you want Jak to win, you want to be Jak. Jak joins a group of underground insurgents and then proceeds to fuck up the entire Krimzon Guard, (the Baron's army) practically single handedly. 
• Environment is cooler. Jak and Daxter takes place mostly in rural zones with minimal population and no authority whatsoever. Interactions are limited because the environment is limited. In Jak 2, you have the Krimzon Guard constantly on patrol. If you attack one, the whole city will come down on you until you hide for a while or you die. It gives you the sense that you are being hunted. And the Krimzon Guard are tough; you cannot last against them for long. It is actually realistic, as insurgents can rarely hold their own for long against occupying forces.  

Both games are for the PS2 and are abundant online. Obviously they work with backwards compatible PS3s as well.

2. Oblivion>Morrowind 

 

      Morrowind: 2/10

      Oblivion: 8/10 

Synopsis of Morrowind: Imperial forces rule the Dark Elf, (Dunmer) province of Morrowind. The central plot revolves around the reincarnation of the Dunmer hero, Indoril Nerevar. The incarnate of Nerevar, referred to as "The Nerevarine", has been prophesied to oppose and defeat the rise of the malevolent deity Dagoth Ur and the remnants of his followers. These followers are encompassed in a forbidden faction named "The Sixth House", and are mainly located within the volcanic region of Red Mountain in the center of Vvardenfell, the island on which the game takes place.

Synopsis of Oblivion: Some years after Morrowind, we're not sure exactly how much, fanatical zealots of an obscure demon worshiping cult murder the emperor of Tamriel, plunging the empire into chaos. To make matters worse, this somehow broke the planar barriers separating Tamriel and the demonic plane of Oblivion, where the demons, (daedra), are. So now we have a demonic invasion led by a demi-god on our hands. 

     What Oblivion did better than Morrowind:

• Fixed fundamental flaws that made Morrowind unplayable. I have no idea how Morrowind sold so many copies, got so many good reviews, etc, because that game is a train-wreck from start to finish. I can't play it. First off, you can't block. At all. What kind of first person RPG game that focuses on melee combat doesn't let you block?! And since no character is fast enough to dodge anything, combat becomes a taking turns style of trading blows. Boring, and that means even the weakest of enemies will hit you once, maybe twice. That wouldn't be so bad if you had healing potions. But there aren't any in the game. At all. I searched for hours, I found no potions in loot. I stopped by shops, no one had any. What the fuck was wrong with Bethesda Studios when they made this game?! I had to sleep after every other battle to recover my health. Then, after playing the game for 9 hours, I had still not leveled up at all. Not once. I used many skills but I never got a level up. What's the point of making an RPG game if you can't level up after 9 hours of gameplay?! Lastly, there is no organization of your quests, making following them impossible. 
• Oblivion fixed all of this. You can block, thank God. Health potions are abundant in loot and in stores. You level up regularly, and the game clearly explains to you how to level up. And your quests are organized in a book and they have markers showing you where to go and things like that. What a relief.     
• Music is better. Morrowind's soundtrack is one of the only good features about this game. But Oblivion even tops that soundtrack. Like HoMM2, it is a classical/New Age music masterpiece. Again, I don't have a favorite, but here's a really good one:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=24Q-7dJU0ys. Not only that, but it's dungeon tracks are downright scary and really set a good atmosphere: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hS1gjFh36GI  
• Combat is more fluid, you can actually learn spells!!! (Learning spells in Morrowind is near impossible, as they never tell you how to). Animation is better. 
• Environment is better. Not just the graphics, but just how they made the world. The forests are beautiful, Oblivion is really what I picture Hell to look like. The Shivering Isles are awesome!

 

 

 

Both games are for the PC. Oblivion works for Windows 7, and is also on the X-box 360, but I recommend the PC version because you can mod the shit outta it. 

1.Serious Sam The Second Encounter>Serious Sam The Second Encounter

 

 

Serious Sam The First Encounter (TFE): 6/10

Serious Sam The Second Encounter (TSE): 10/10

Synopsis of TFE: In the 22nd century, humans have spread out to numerous planets, creating a sort of empire. Suddenly, an evil alien named Mental, (pun intended apparently), and his insanely big army of a conglomerate of aliens invade, and push us back to Earth. In a desperate bid to save mankind, humans can only send 1 person back in time, in the hopes that he will defeat Mental in the past to avoid humanity's destruction in the 22nd century. Kind of like a Terminator sort of plot. The man they send back is a one man army/unstoppable killing machine that makes Chuck Norris and Rambo look like pussies. His name is Serious Sam. 

Synopsis of TSE: Serious Sam continues his rampage across the ancient world, after slaughtering every alien in Ancient Egypt. His journey takes him to South America, Babylon, and Europe, in which he slaughters even more aliens, as if that even seemed possible. 

      What TSE did better than TFE:

• Bigger battles. This is the number #1 reason why TSE is better than TFE. The sheer insanity of the battles you fight in this game dwarf any other first person shooter. It is an adrenaline rush that just never stops. Here's just a short video which illustrates the action this game has: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8HdT-Ci1GbA. As you can see, a 4 minute ride of non-stop carnage. 
• More varied locations. TFE is only set in Egypt. While the locales are cool and graphics are awesome even for a 13 year old game, TSE takes it up a notch. You go through the jungles of the Aztec Empire to Babylon under the Persian Empire to villages and castles in medieval Europe. It's more visually pleasing than just seeing deserts and Egyptian temples for an entire game. 
• More weapons and enemies. Need I say more?
• Better music. As you can tell, music is a huge factor in how I judge games. TFE had some great music, no doubt, but TSE manages to even top it. It has great ambient music: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FUJD1Ho2wj8 and great heavy metal fighting music: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=swotKhlIlZA&noredirect=1 

     Both these games are on Steam for really cheap!!
     In conclusion, it's a shame that many American gamers do not know about the Serious Sam series. They only pay attention to American games or mainstream games, and that's it. Serious Sam was made by Croteam, which is from Croatia. If only bandwagoning gamers knew what they were missing, as Serious Sam TSE is my favorite first person shooter game of all time. It makes Call of Duty looks like child's play.
     All I'm saying is to expand your restrictions. So what if a game is old or foreign? So what if its not popular? That doesn't mean it isn't good. Look at its gameplay on Youtube and see if it interests you. You might wanna rent it. Who knows, you might like it. And won't you be glad you tried something off the beaten path this time?   

How Over-Zealous and Overly Aggressive Homeland Security Policies Can Backfire

(The following was my research paper for my final project for my grad class).

How Over-Zealous and Overly Aggressive Homeland Security Policies Can Backfire

          In response to the 9/11 terrorist attacks, the U.S. federal government created new departments, gave more power to and expanded existing ones, and wrote into law new acts. These include creating the Department of Homeland Security, (DHS), passing the Patriot Act, (and later, passing the National Defense Authorization Act, NDAA), and augmenting the size, force, and power of local police forces. The government claimed to take these measures to combat terrorism. However reports from news agencies, human rights organizations, think-tanks, and scholarly research have shown that terrorism has never been and is not a major threat to Americans, certainly, there are at least a dozen other causes of death that have caused more American deaths than terrorism. The first part of this paper will analyze the threat and death rate of terrorism against Americans, compared to the threat and death rate of the government against the American people. It will also go into how Homeland Security policy makers dealt with these issues. The second part of this paper will analyze the rights of the American people taken away or being taken away from terrorism, compared to the rights taken away or being taken away by the government, from a Homeland Security perspective. Lastly, this research paper will explore a case study of Homeland Security in action.

          Before delving into the topics, first it is necessary to identify the actors in this issue. The principal actors are government agencies, as they are the ones that enforce the policies. These include DHS, the National Security Agency, (NSA), the Department of Justice, (DOJ), Customs and Border Protection, (CBP), FBI, and all local and state police and sheriffs offices. 

          The two main concerns that privacy advocates and human rights organizations have in relation to federal agencies and local police forces’ actions in Homeland Security is the militarization of police, and the taking away of peoples’ human rights.  The first one is important when talking about the threat and death rate of terrorism against Americans, compared to the threat and death rate of the government against the American people. Here are some statistics that will illustrate this concept:

·         Americans are 8 times more likely to get killed by police than by a terrorist. All emotions and political slants aside, strictly statistically speaking, the American police is more of a threat to the American people than terrorists are, (www.huffingtonpost.com). Not counting 9/11, that statistic jumps to Americans are 29 times more likely to get killed by police than by a terrorist.   

·         SWAT Teams invade more than 100 private homes every day, (www.abajournal.com).

·         The number of police raids has jumped from 30,000 in 1995 to 45,000 in 2001, (same source as the one above).

·         DHS will purchase 450 million bullets over the next 5 years, including 75 million in 2014 alone, (www.businessinsider.com).

·         DHS also purchased 2,500 mine resistant APCs.

          DHS coordinates with the FBI and state and local police forces to achieve its goals of stopping terrorist attacks and disaster response. Some of DHS’s mission statements that pertain to this topic are as followed: prevent terrorism and enhancing security; secure and manage our borders; enforce and administer our immigration laws; and ensure resilience to disasters. Behind the statistics are the policies that result in the statistics. The problem is that current homeland security efforts undermine preparedness every bit as much as they support it. Homeland Security officials and local and state police chiefs also involved top-down management systems and military-style command and control strategies in planning and implementation, often focusing on a doctrine of offense and preemption, (Bach). They are so focused on offense that they lose hindsight of the main goal of homeland security: to protect citizens’ lives and human rights.

          This leads to the first of two articles that form the backbone of looking at the actors’ approach to Homeland Security. Robert Bach and David Kaufman say in the very first sentence of their article that federal, state, and local authorities must work with citizens to achieve security. Constantly attacking citizens, taking away their guaranteed human rights, and ultimately creating a narrative or implying that they are the enemy is not working with them in any sense of the definition. That is why Bach and Kaufman say security has eluded us since the “War on Terror” started.

          So focused on offense that policies set by agencies such as the FBI and DOJ can break trust between the government and its citizens, the fundamental concept that Homeland Security relies on. Citizens cannot trust a government whose policies can be seen as making the citizens the enemy of the government. Such a policy would be the FBI’s and DOJ’s guidelines as what actions could be done by a “potential terrorist”:

Ø  Purchasing anything with cash most of the time instead of a credit or debit card.

Ø  Opposition to war.

Ø  Opposition to abortion.

Ø  Frustration with the two main political parties.

Ø  Buying a large amount of bullets, (doesn’t say what a “large amount” qualifies as).

Ø  Being concerned about your privacy from the government.

Ø  Complaining about the quality of tap water.

(www.publicintelligence.net)

       These actions are what ordinary, non-terrorists do every day. These are actions that many FBI and DOJ employees do. Is the FBI and DOJ calling their own employees potential terrorists? If government agencies want to protect Americans and their rights, a peaceful engagement of communities in collaboration would be much more effective in enhancing the resiliency and security of the nation, (Frazzano).

       This is what the second article talks about: government agencies redefining their cultural and operational identities to accurately combat new and emerging threats. It also introduces a concept called “The Whole Community,” in which “shared understanding of community risks, needs, and capabilities leads to an increase in resources through the empowerment of community members.” Nowhere in the article or in this concept does it suggest that the large majority of American citizens are potential terrorists due to doing ordinary tasks. DHS policies must incorporate the concept of The Whole Community, as this shows that DHS is working with the communities, not against them. 

       In comparing the amount and severity of the American people’s human rights taken away by terrorists and taken away by the government, the only right the terrorists took away have been the 3,000+ peoples’ right to life that they have killed since 9/11 to the present. The rights that the government has taken, is taking, and has the power to take away if it wants to, are:[1]

§  Freedom of speech. For example, protesting certain government policies is called “terrorism,” for which the government can kill U.S. citizens for. Talking against certain police actions or simply asking a police officer questions is called “assault,” or “resisting arrest.” There is no need for the government to convict a person of terrorism, they only label them a “suspected terrorist” and then kill them.

§  Freedom of the press. There have been 7 instances in which a government official has been criminally charged with leaking classified information to the news media, the most during any U.S. presidential administration in history. In comparison, it has only been used 3 times before Obama took office. It has stolen emails, phone records, and tracked the movements of journalists, (Fox News reporter James Rosen, for example), it secretly seized records for telephone lines and switchboards used by more than 100 Associated Press journalists, and prosecuted sources of journalists with felony charges, (Zongker).

§  Second Amendment. The Obama administration, and many past administrations, has repeatedly infringed on American citizens’ right to bear arms. While it is not DHS policy that affects this right, the police forces are the ones that enforce states’ laws relating to this amendment. Whether it has been trying to ban magazines that hold more than 10 bullets, or trying to reinstate the 1994 “assault weapons ban,” (www.whitehouse.gov), Obama has made it clear, through his actions and words, that he does not believe that the second amendment means that Americans can own guns.

§  Fourth Amendment. From allowing home invasions by police and SWAT teams without a warrant, to having the NSA steal personal information from customers of many U.S. companies, to stealing emails and phone calls from ordinary American citizens who haven’t committed terrorism, nor committed any other crime. Some statistics related to this would be, for example, that the NSA surveys 75% of all American Internet traffic, (www.reuters.com), and collected near 100% of American phone calls in 2006, down to 30% today, (www.digitaltrends.com).

§  The Fifth Amendment: The Patriot Act, and later, the NDAA, gives the government to hold an American citizen in prison indefinitely, without charges, or access to an attorney. That effectively destroys the 5^th amendment.

§  Sixth Amendment: Those same two pieces of legislation also takes away an American’s right to a trial, nullifying the 6^th Amendment.

          Examples of some of these rights being taken away from American citizens can be seen in the case study of this paper, which is the case of Sarah Abdurrahman. Sarah, her family, and some friends were returning from Canada to the United States through the Niagara Falls border crossing on September 2^nd, 2013. Sarah, and everyone in her party, are American citizens. They had been attending a wedding of another family member in Toronto, Canada, and now were returning home on Labor Day.

Sarah Abdurrahman

           When they got to the border crossing, they were immediately detained by CBP agents, with no explanation. They were held in a freezing cold room without bathrooms for six hours. Sarah repeatedly asked an agent why they were being held, but he answered “It is not your right to know.” Then they took all of their cellphones after demanding they unlock them. They didn’t get their cellphones back. After about five and half hours in detainment, one of the detained men, Khaled Ahmed, was put into handcuffs, without warning, taken from his family and put into a jail cell. The officers did not inform either Ahmed or his family why he was being taken. The rest of the family was soon released but CBP refused to tell them where Ahmed was. Eventually, they told the family that another “agency” was coming to pick Ahmed up. The agency ended up being the Michigan State Police, picking up Ahmed for an unpaid ticket for a crooked license plate (i.e. not screwed on right) from 2006. After Sarah got home, she tried to contact CBP and DHS to demand an explanation, but they never picked up the phone. Since CBP never gave Sarah a reason for doing all of this, she can only assume it was because of her and her party’s religion, (Sarah wears a hijab), (Reuters). 

          It is illegal for law enforcement officers to perform searches or detentions based solely on your race, national origin, religion, sex or ethnicity. The CBP officers infringed on Sarah’s Fourth and Fifth Amendment rights. CBP and other Homeland Security officers are allowed to conduct stops and searches with no probable cause or arrest warrants at the border, under what is known as the "border search exception." The exception allows for routine searches. However, once you start holding citizens for prolonged detentions, it falls under non-routine searches. For that, the officer needs a particular and objective basis for suspecting that person of illegal activity, (Reuters).

          There are a number of conclusions and observations that can be made from this story. One is that the rapid expansion of and the lack of oversight over CBP contributed to Sarah being treated the way that she was. CBP has grown so fast in the decade that it has existed that government oversight has not kept pace. CBP had 10,817 in 2004. Today, it has 63,560. Therefore, there is no logical reason for CBP to not treat Muslims like they did Sarah. None of the CBP agents in the example even got a harsh comment from any supervisor. Nothing bad happened to them, so in their minds, they are thinking: why should we change our behavior?

          This is not the only time something like what Sarah experienced has happened. Human rights groups, such as the ACLU, have seen that these human rights abuses happen regularly, i.e. it is not an isolated incident that can be blamed on just a few bad CBP agents. No, they infringe on Americans’ human rights daily, meaning it is a DHS policy; the policy makers at DHS and CBP, along with training instructors, are teaching the CBP to act this way. That means certain DHS policies run contrary to the Constitution. There is no other reason why this problem is so widespread and across agencies, not just in CBP. This case study could not capture an agency breaking more Amendments than the Fourth and Fifth. But that doesn’t mean that at other times, in other situations, that DHS and local police forces are not breaking the other Amendments listed on the fifth and sixth and pages.      

          CBP’s actions run in line with the narrative and training that DHS’s approach has to Homeland Security. An overly aggressive Homeland Security doctrine saw Sarah and her party as potential terrorists, hence, their human rights being broken. Citizens are the first line in Homeland Security. Many terrorist attacks have been stopped because concerned citizens report what they heard/saw someone doing to police. That is the vital link between authorities and the communities that Bach and Kaufman talked about. If that link is broken by human rights abuses, and aggressive and rude behavior by the authorities, then the nation as a whole will not be as effective in stopping terrorist attacks and achieving security.  

Works Cited

          “American journalist and family detained and harassed at US border.” September 24^th, 2013. http://rt.com/usa/abdurrahman-npr-border-detain-291/

          Bach, Robert and David Kaufman. “A Social Infrastructure for Hometown Security: Advancing the Homeland Security Paradigm.” Homeland Security Affairs, Volume V, NO. 2 (May 2009). 

          Balko, Radley. “How did America’s police become a military force on the streets?” ABA Journal, 1/8/2013.

          Erman, Michael. “NSA surveillance covers 75 percent of U.S. Internet traffic: WSJ.” Reuters. 8/20/2013.   

          “FBI “Communities Against Terrorism” Suspicious Activity Reporting Flyers.” February 1^st, 2012. https://publicintelligence.net/fbi-suspicious-activity-reporting-flyers/

          Frazzano, Tracy, and Matthew Synder. “Hybrid Targeted Violence:

Challenging Conventional “Active Shooter” Response Strategies.” Homeland Security Affairs, Volume 10 Article 3 (February 2014).

          Johnson, Robert. “The Department Of Homeland Security Is Buying 450 Million New Bullets.” Business Insider, 4/5/2014.  

          Nield, David. “New reports say NSA phone tracking covers 20-30 percent of calls.” Digital Trends. 2/8/2014.

          Whitehead, John. “Vigilantes With a Badge: The War Against the American People.” Huffington Post, 2/26/2014.

          White House. “Now is the Time to Do Something About Gun Violence.” http://www.whitehouse.gov/issues/preventing-gun-violence

          Zongker, Brett. “Report: Obama brings chilling effect on journalism.” The Associated Press. 10/13/2013.  

---

[1] The following bullet points are merely quick summaries of the rights the government has taken away from us, as a whole paper can be written just one of these bullet points.