Dr. Tyler; Captain America

Read my paper!

9/11 =/= War on Terror. 9/11 = 9/11.

You.

And Kay Bailey Hutchinson is the most unbiased individual out there!

k, so, when?

Just signed up at PartyPoker. My nick is TSM_DrTyler. (I normally play at AbsolutePoker.com)

Beat you to it. But, props on bringin' the numbahs.

He indicts more Democrats than Republicans.

Yeah, I'm poor as of right now as well. See: http://forums.thesmartmarks.com/index.php?...0entry1995724

...what idiot would call a terrorist act a "war"? You're reeeeeeeeeeeeeeeaching for points here, and failing rather miserably.

A month later, I got my scanner working. Bad scan job, bad job of removing red-eye, and I look like I'm sunburnt. Oh well, whatever. And yes, she has braces Sass: No, our families are both religious so they wouldn't be contributing quite as much (read: anything) to the wedding if we'd been living together. Also, this was taken pre-engagement, but on that night; she doesn't have the ring on, obviously. The ring is here:

k, when?

Damn right.

Hey, I'll take this space to post a paper I wrote where I simultaneously take a right wing stance and say America's gonna be a fascist state pretty soon. I figure since this thread is bound to spark arguments and all, they might as well be smart ones! Keep in mind that I HAD to use half of those sources, so if you've never read them... well, you're probably not missing a whole lot. QUOTE("Militarism vs. Globalization: The Debate on the Direction of America in the 21st Century" ) America faces a crossroads as it enters into the 21st century. She faces an enemy that can hide itself within her borders and strike at any time; the enemy has no borders, but has a seemingly bottomless bankroll and an army of devoted supporters. The enemy thrives on the terror and insecurity of her citizens, and is fueled and enabled by the very freedoms that make America who she is. The enemy is radical Islam, and America has no idea how to even begin to combat its militant wing. In searching for the solution to this problem, there seems to be two dominant philosophies about how to address the problem. In the first, which is represented by the writings of Samuel Huntington, John Derbyshire, and modern conservative pundits, the only answer to the problem is to fight; the ominous showdown between the Islamic world and the charge of spreading democracy by the tip of the bayonet seems to loom just over the horizon, with the current war in Iraq being just the tip of the iceberg. On the other side of the debate are those who subscribe wholeheartedly to Globalization and the extension of free trade, free markets, and free countries; they argue that liberal democracy enriches populations and raises the standard of living, and those countries that suppress it will impoverish themselves off the face of the earth. They argue that inevitably, these dictatorships will give way to freedom and liberal democracy. At stake in this debate is nothing less than the future of the American way of life; without addressing this problem, we may be facing the end of our civilization. How we eventually approach the issue will have vast repercussions on how we, as Americans, will live our lives in the coming years. Will the American Dream survive the beat of the war drum and the deafening explosions ripping through our homeland? It is not uncommon to hear people argue that perhaps America is on the wrong end of this debate. Who are we, they ask, to try to reform a culture that may very well be correct in their totalitarian views? Why must we oppose these civilizations and yearn for their transformation into liberal democracy? Looking back at the history of fascism and totalitarianism, the answer is clear: liberal democracy and totalitarianism absolutely cannot coexist peacefully. The two doctrines are diametrically opposed, and their coexistence has always led to conflict. Take, for example, World War II; when Adolf Hitler was gaining power and whipping the German populace into a frenzy, the liberal democracies of Western Europe sat idly by and tried to maintain peace with the Nazi leader. As the Germans began to show aggression by invading neighboring states, the European leaders were strong in their words, but did nothing to stop their totalitarian neighbors from occupying Sudetenland and the Rhineland in blatant violation of the Treaty of Versailles. Neville Chamberlain thought liberal democracy could coexist with fascism, and Hitler’s aggression made it clear that it could not; as we know, appeasement in that case was woefully unsuccessful, and it has proven to be just as unsuccessful in modern times. Once again, liberal democracy has come into conflict with totalitarianism and once again, pacifism has proven to be a colossal failure. Some may argue that the modern Islamic states don’t qualify as fascist states, but Paul Berman effectively dispels that notion. He argues that all fascist states start with the same premise, which dates back to a passage from St. John’s book of Revelations: “[The] city dwellers have sunk into abominations. They have been polluted by the whore of Babylon…The pollution is spreading to the people of God. Such is the attack from within. There is also an attack from without – conducted afar by the forces of Satan, who is worshipped at the synagogue of Satan.” (Berman, 47) Taken literally, the passage is a recipe for the second coming of Christ and the end of days. However, each of the fascist states has used a similar formula for their totalitarianism; for the Germans, the people of God were the Aryans and the forces of Satan were represented by the Jews. The Italians and Spanish considered themselves to be the people of God and the Satanists were the communists and the freemasons. For the Soviets, the great force of evil was Capitalism. For the Islamists, the enemy is liberal democracy. Berman’s conclusion is clear: we cannot live side by side with the Islamic world. They have begun the same quest as the fascist states of yore: to cleanse the world from their “Great Satan” and open a new chapter of history in which Islam is the one, true religion that will reign for millennia – until the end of time. The Islamic world will not settle for coexistence with liberal democracy; they have already taken our aid and used it to stab the Western world in the back. We have offered them aid against Serbian genocide, and they declared a jihad against the Western world. We helped them turn away the Soviet army in Afghanistan, and they responded by attacking our population. We helped to feed the starving masses in Somalia, and in turn, they bombed our ship off the Yemen coast. We saved the holy lands of Mecca and Medina from occupation by a lunatic dictator, and they offered their thanks by flying two jetliners into the heart of the capitalist world. The Islamic world has made it very clear that they have no interest in coexisting with the West, but the West has not quite figured out how to deal with the threat. How can you combat an enemy so seemingly full of zeal and so brazenly devoted to their cause? How can you strike fear into a people so unafraid of death? The West seems to be torn between two different philosophies as to how to deal with the Islamic world, and the winner of that debate may determine whether the 21st century is filled with peace or conflict. The philosophy which decides the nature of our foreign policy in the next few decades will shape the nature of the American Dream for the foreseeable future. If you were to ask an American conservative to solve the Islamic problem, the answers you would receive are fairly similar. In his aptly titled book, Peace Kills, conservative journalist PJ O’Rourke muses, “As of early 2004 there was one foremost, pressing ques¬tion in U.S. foreign policy, and America didn't seem to have the answers for postwar Iraq…[W]as the answer ‘UN-supervised national reconciliation’ or ‘Rapid return to self-rule?’ No. The answer was blow the place to bits. Critics say we didn’t do enough thinking about the prob¬lem of postwar Iraq. I say we blew the place to bits - what's the problem?” Ann Coulter, another prominent conservative commentator, remarked following 9/11/2001 that we should “invade all of [the Islamic world’s] countries, kill their leaders, and convert them to Christianity.” While it would be unfair to assume that the entire conservative world is as militant as Mr. O’Rourke and Ms. Coulter, a prominent view of our relationship with radical Islam is that we should play hardball with them. If their leaders do not acquiesce to our demands of disarmament and cease fire, we should have no burden on our consciences when we roll in the tanks and flatten their cities with persistent shelling and carpet bombings. This view – that the differences in culture will inevitably lead to conflict – is shared by Samuel Huntington and John Derbyshire. Huntington argues in The Clash of Civilizations that with the end of the Cold War, the fault lines of society are no longer along ideological lines; instead, conflicts will spark between fundamentally different societies and civilizations. He writes, “As people define their identity in ethnic and religious terms, they are likely to see an ‘us’ versus ‘them’ relation existing between themselves and people of different ethnicity or religion…Decreasingly able to mobilize support and form coalitions on the basis of ideology, governments and groups will increasingly attempt to mobilize support by appealing to common religion and civilization identity.” (Huntington, 5) While this is by no means a direct prediction of the conflict between the West and Islam, it defines a situation by which conflict will arise – and Huntington offers no solution or prediction for an endgame, save the complete destruction of one of those civilizations. Derbyshire puts the conflict in even simpler terms. “The enemy we face today is the same that Emperor Wen faced, and Aetius, and the monks of Lindisfame, and Otto the First. We are not fighting against Islam, or against Arabs, or against Iraqis. We are fighting barbarism, the ancient enemy, the most ancient enemy of all.” (Derbyshire, 5) In his unwavering support for the war on terrorism and the war in Iraq, Derbyshire makes it clear that we must not stop fighting the forces of “barbarism.” He offers the example that barbarism took down Emperor Wen, the Romans, and many other states in history; in putting this fight in such terms, Derbyshire makes it clear that this is an enemy that must be defeated for our own survival; nothing but victory in the upcoming bloodbath against Islam will be an acceptable result for the Western world. In one respect, the conservative commentators are right on the money: we cannot simply wish Islam to go away and hope the magic faerie of fate declares democracy the victor in this conflict. The Islamic world will not stop attacking the Western world, much to the chagrin of liberal Europe and the pacifist left. On the other hand, a John Wayne approach seems rather contrary to American values. If we use Berman’s definition of fascism, America is coming dangerously close to qualifying as a fascist state ourselves; in our case, we (and democracy abroad) are the people of God, and the Islamic world is the great Satan that must be wiped off the face of the Earth. This isn’t as much of a stretch as the rabid right might claim; after all, the religious rhetoric being spewed by the proponents of military action is well documented, and the base of the conflict has always been that the Judeo-Christian world is at odds with the Muslim world. This, in and of itself, doesn’t suggest that American fascism is imminent; however, the seeds are there and the evidence is mounting that if we continue trying to solve our problems exclusively with guns, we may be headed in that direction. After all, anyone that has been to an airport in the past five years knows that the ever-present face of security – for better or for worse – has taken a higher profile in our nation since 9/11. Our civil rights have taken a hit in the name of increased safety. Through the USA PATRIOT ACT and several other instances of legislation, Congress and the Presidency have increased the purview of federal, state, and local law enforcement and has expanded their ability to monitor citizens and hold so-called “enemy combatants” indefinitely without charging them with a crime. Clearly, in a time where thousands of people have been killed by radical terrorists and the threat of further attacks is omnipresent, we must take some precautions in order to maintain our own security. To argue otherwise is a dangerous underestimation of the danger with which we are faced. However, historians and social scientists are right in showing caution and worry over the direction of domestic policy in the wake of terrorism; the danger of sacrificing liberty and autonomy – which hasn’t happened yet, but may be on the horizon – in the sake of security is a gloomy prospect and taking even a step down that path is a cause for concern. Coupled with the looming specter of possible conflicts with Iran, Libya, and Syria, it doesn’t take a jaded anti-Bush liberal to see the parallels between our present situation and the onset of fascism. Even setting aside that fact, there is reason to believe that militarism might not even be an effective means for dealing with the Islamic problem. Save obliterating the entire region with nuclear weapons, war has thus far proven to be rather ineffective at stemming the spread of radical Islam. Much to the contrary, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have proven to be effective recruiting tools for terrorist groups such as al-Qaeda and Hezbollah. While we have given democracy to the Iraqi and Afghan people, there still remains a significant resistance to the tenets of liberal democracy in the Middle East. This suggests an incomplete job – the resistance is largely Ba’athist and Taliban led – but it also suggests that democracy may not be something that can be forced upon a population with much success. What, then, is the solution to the problem? If we cannot successfully convince them with our bombs, are we doomed to a 21st century filled with rivers of blood and gnashing of teeth? Thomas Friedman and the proponents of Globalization don’t think so. Paraphrasing Thomas Friedman, there’s an old story that starts with a meeting in the middle of London. There is a Muslim, an Israeli Jew, an Episcopalian, and a Catholic sitting at a bar. They’re engaged in deep, involved conversation, and in the end, they all end up shaking hands, laughing, and slapping each other on their backs. How in the world can this be? The Muslim thinks the Jew is responsible for the degradation of his society, the Episcopalian and the Catholic both think the other has perverted their belief systems, and the Jew probably thinks the rest of them are insane. How in the world could they possibly get along? The answer is simpler than you might think: they’re all doing business. In globalist theory, business is everything. Every country on the face of the Earth is entwined in free trade and specialized industry; the free trade enables every country involved to raise their own standard of living by exporting their specialized good and importing the specialized goods of other countries. In effect, the entire world relies on the rest of the world and everyone lives happily ever after. So, why would the Middle East shun this seemingly perfect system and cling to their antiquated systems of economics? Their religion obviously plays a big role in that decision, but Friedman argues that their protest against the system cannot and will not last forever. He uses the test case of China as an example. In the 70’s and 80’s, communist China seemed to be going the way of Russia in terms of economics; their closed markets and isolated society led to fierce poverty and empty coffers for their leadership. Quite obviously, if the citizens of your country have no money, there’s not going to be much in the way of tax revenues! The Chinese President had to do something to save his country, and fast: the nationalized industries were failing to produce enough income for the society to even function. So, they took a stand and introduced capitalism to their country. At first, it wasn’t really a huge success; capitalism requires certain things, including business ethics and an open press to provide unbiased, accurate business news. The latter situation came to a head in the mid-90’s, when a lack of business news led to a lunatic bubble in the Chinese markets and the Chinese government’s warnings about the over-inflation of the markets – which were based on nothing, just like the bubble itself – sent the market into a tailspin and sent the Chinese economy into the gutter. Gradually, the Chinese government realized the error of their ways and opened the path for limited free press – for business news only, naturally. However, Friedman argues that this slippery slope will eventually lead to an unrestricted press – and when the press is eventually allowed to be free, democracy will not be far behind. This can be applied directly to the neo-fascist states of the Middle East, as a corollary. The states are already close to bankruptcy; without a steady source of income, a dictator cannot hope to be able to control his people; the argument, therefore, is that these countries will eventually be forced to cooperate with capitalism and its governing bodies – the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund. When the ball starts rolling, the momentum will be uncontainable and eventually, even the most oppressive rogue nations will be forced to become open, democratic societies. There are several major problems with this point of view, however. While it does not deny the problem of Islamic fascism like the cultural relativist left, it fails to provide a solution for the transition period between fascism and liberal democracy. In the meantime, many people will still die from terrorist strikes; globalization is generally opposed to government oversight, and would definitely oppose the curtailment of rights in the name of security. Additionally, this viewpoint is wanting in its understanding of the voracity of the Islamic world’s commitment to their religion. For many years now, the general population of the Islamic world has been impoverished and living without any real concept of civil rights. The only notable revolutions have been in the direction of fundamentalism, not towards liberal democracy; the only real example of a revolt against a despot is the failed attempts of the Kurdish and Shi’ite people in Iraq to depose Saddam Hussein in the wake of the first Gulf War. The Islamic world has shown itself to be remarkably content with its plight. The final problem is that the despots of the Islamic world have a major trump card in their hands: oil. They aren’t hurt too badly by their inability to tax their citizens to gain a steady source of income; quite the contrary, they rarely have to tax their poverty-ridden populace at all, given the steady source of income that they receive by virtue of being a member of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC). Their oil exports more than foot the bill for the exotic weapons programs and armies to keep any resistance in check. Globalization completely fails to account for these factors, and thus, it cannot be counted on to solve the Islamic problem by itself. It should be clear by now that there is no easy solution to the impending showdown between the West and Islam. However, there are some real options available to us that are, as of yet, unexplored. First of all, the notion that the citizens of these oppressive dictatorships are completely content with being beaten, tortured, and executed at will is a complete misconception. While there is much to say for their ability to withstand hard times and maintain their stoic, pious way of living, it is rather ridiculous to assume that they would not enjoy an alternative to oppression. The root of the problem lies in the seemingly never-ending supply of black gold on which these republics rest. They have a glut of it, and we have an insatiable thirst for it; as long as that remains the case, these despots will remain in power and use our money to build weapons intended to kill us. So, what is the solution? Some will argue that we can simply impose economic sanctions on these countries and achieve the desired results, but we have already proven that is not the case; who, after all, would be willing to pay $5 per gallon of gasoline so that we can prove a point? Russia and France clearly wouldn’t; they pushed to remove sanctions on Iraqi oil far before we deposed Saddam Hussein. The root of the problem is our dependence, not our lack of gumption when it comes to enforcing sanctions. However, it’s not as easy as flicking a switch and wishing away our dependence on oil; as of right now, there exists no feasible alternative to oil as a means to fuel our economy. However, the United States’ financial support for alternative fuels research is token at best, and we have fallen behind Europe and Asia in the race to acquire nuclear fusion technology. Until an alternative presents itself, we will continue to fund these dictators and cut off our noses to spite our faces. Additionally, if another country discovers the answer before we do, we can count on paying out the nose for the indefinite future – which would effectively make the solution economically unfeasible, anyways. The first step we must take to free ourselves from the chains of oil dependency is to lead the way in researching alternative energy; if we are able to achieve that end, our money will stop filling the despots’ coffers and revolution will be more likely in those corners of the world where radical Islam has taken refuge. This is not to say that Friedman is essentially right, however; sometimes, it will be necessary to depose a tyrant by military action. One could make a good argument that Saddam Hussein’s army and weapons program were far too dangerous to be left alone; in cases like these, military action would be appropriate. We must not allow countries that pose a significant threat to us to grow in power while we wait for a revolution that may never come. However, we must also be extremely careful when making that decision to depose a dictator. As Bernard Lewis warns, “The pressure for premature democratization can fatally weaken [moderate] regimes and lead to their overthrow, not by democratic opposition but by other forces that then proceed to establish a more ferocious and determined dictatorship.” (Lewis, 10) He is making reference to the temptation of the left to pressure oppressive states into conceding to human rights and other liberal worries, but the point remains valid when extended to such factors as military power and weapons programs, not to mention creating a state in the wake of an invasion. For proof that this is the case, we must look no farther than our current situation in Iraq. We must defend ourselves, but we must not give into the temptation towards imperialism and fascism domestically; the American Dream is certainly something that should be spread abroad, but it cannot survive in our own nation if we are in the grips of nascent fascism and totalitarianism at home. The temptation in the wake of terrorism is to become xenophobic and isolationist, which are two mortal sins in the globalized world. We must maintain open and free markets and societies for the American Dream of upward mobility, fairness, and decency to prosper. As xenophobia and isolationism are brought about by fierce nationalism – and as they are an enemy of free and open societies – we must fight the urge to give in to these temptations. The American Dream will face a great challenge in the 21st Century, but it is one that we can, and must, overcome. Fear the massive text block!

That was random.

This may do nothing, but try disabling your local area connection. Otherwise, I'd suggest trying to move your computer around the room. If the drivers are installed properly (which, by all accounts, they seem to be) and you're not reading a connection, there is little you can do to really change that. There's a few little settings you can fiddle with (for example, Linksys cards often have third party software that asks you whether to search in "Infrastructure" mode or "Ad Hoc" mode -- infrastructure, non-encrypted is what I'd bet your dorm network is), but for the most part, you're boned if you can't read the connection.

DeLay'd

The Steeler/Patriot game seemed extremely preseason-ish to me. Neither side did much complicated stuff on either side of the ball. It was extremely vanilla, and I suspect neither side wanted to tip their hands for the eventual playoff meeting. Either way, the Steeler O-line sucked.

It's a simple question. Does anyone here play BF2 for the PC? If so, what servers do you play on and what's your handle? Mine's Joseph_Mason, and I typically play on EA's official servers (east coast) since I don't really know anyone in the game and I like not lagging on random clan servers. If you DON'T play, why the hell not? It's one of the best multiplayer games on the 'net. We should get some TSM games going somewhere.

E-Ring was solid.

http://www.torrentspy.com

This is what happens when you get piss drunk, puke all over my floor, and then pass out with your shoes on. (BAHAHAHAHA.)

He had his leg amputed, although I forget why.

Man, that was sad.