I really wanted to get a blog out sooner, but I’ve been keeping very busy all week.  While my writing on Suite101 has been nonexistent for the past two weeks, my writing on GamerSyndrome has soared to new heights.  No longer publishing just the two required articles per week, I’ve been submitting upwards of four articles a day, reporting on the latest news in the games industry as well as throwing in a few original pieces.  It’s been fun, but more than anything it’s been tiring, time-consuming, and it’s given me a real feel for the whole writing career thing.  Surely when I finally land a paying job it will be more stressful, but by submitting so much content within a week, I’m getting at least a small taste of what it’s like to write on a professional scale.

Due to my excessive writing, I haven’t had much time to play video games (or do anything else, for that matter).  My copy of SvR 2010 has just sat near my Wii collecting dust.  It’s rather saddening, especially since I really enjoy Story Designer mode.  I haven’t had time to finalize my original WWE story.  Oh, well.  Maybe next week.

The few spare moments I have had I’ve spent playing numerous indie games.  I’d played independently developed games before, but I’m just now getting into indie games on a large scale.  I first played Time Fcuk about a week ago (or possibly two weeks ago).  I really liked it.  Its blend of puzzle and platform mechanics is great, and the twisted story behind it is eerie in a satisfying kind of way.  The graphics are great too.  Very simple, but very effective; and even though the designer stated that it’s not an artistic game, it’s hard not to argue against that statement given the game’s unique look.  Time Fcuk was reason enough for me to set up a Newgrounds account.  That’s how much I loved it.  Plus, I’m trying to collect the game’s achievement medals.  The fact that the game supports user-created content makes it even greater.  I may never create my own levels, but I’ll likely return to the game multiple times later on to try some original stages.

Another game I played and completed is RunMan: Race Around the World.  But much like Aether (which I’m still in the process of completing), I’ll talk about that game in my next post.  I just downloaded Cave Story.  Due to the fact that I had to work a Deftones concert last night (which wasn’t anything special considering I don’t care at all for the Deftones), I wasn’t able to play the game all that much.  Nope, I was pretty much only able to configure the controls and play part of the first stage.  I plan on playing the hell out of that game during Thanksgiving break.

That’s about it for now.  This post was much longer than I had planned.  I could probably write more, but I have to work another concert at Avalon tonight, and I’d like to watch the rest of last night’s SamckDown before going to work later.  I’m also working the night club apparently, so I should make some decent money tonight.  Here’s hoping.

I’ve just got home after spending a most enjoyable day at Bridgnorth on the Severn Valley Railway.  Peppercorn loco ‘Tornado’ has spent the school half-term week on the SVR, and after checking the timetable, we found that it would be at Bridgnorth for about an hour and a half – too good a photo opportunity to miss, especially as it had been turned to face Kidderminster on Thursday night.It was certainly well worth the trip!There will be more photos and one or two cam-corder clips later.                    Sadly the noise of the steam and possibly pressure stopped my cam-corder recording.  My ears have just about recovered now!  It was great, though!

We didn’t have time to move further down the line to get more moving shots. Shame.

(Playstation 3, XBox 360, Nintendo Wii, Playstation 2, Playstation Portable and Nintendo DS)

by – “Tiger” Oliver

Pros
Impressively short load times, despite the renovations
Great – but not amazing – graphics on PS3 & XBox 360
More new modes than you can shake a pair of tights at
The best create-a-character mode just got even better
Ability to upload and download created stories, character AND finishers on PS3 & XBox 360.

Cons
Create a Diving Finisher mode, while well needed, is horribly disappointing
Wii, PS2, PSP and Nintendo DS graphics horribly lacking
Online play very choppy and has HORRIBLE lag, with none on PS2 & Wii consoles.
Create a Story mode allows only 10 scenes with Created Wrestlers
While controls are improved, flying moves seem more linear and unrealistic than last year’s installment

Time to lace up your boots, strap on that mask and squeeze into your spandex, Wrestlemania has finally returned – this year’s installment of the legendary WWE Smackdown! franchise could quite possibly be the WWF No Mercy of our time.

SvR ‘10 is more than an upgrade to last year’s game, it’s an overhaul like we’ve never seen. New graphics engines, a new appearance and a plethora of new features leaves this as one of the more impressive wrestling games for the current generation of consoles.

Now, it’s neigh impossible to review every single version of the game, which varies from system to system (besides the PS3 & XBox 360, which are nearly identical). In fact, to even do a worth-while review like I’ve done with the rest of the games I’ve scored, I’d have to play every single version, something in which I just can’t do. To even talk about the XBox 360 version would make this article too long for you to read. So, I’ll just condense everything down as much as I can and still make sense. Just note that I can’t touch everything in the game right here.

To put it in a nutshell, they took Smackdown! vs Raw 2009 and revamped it the way it should have been. First off, the horrible load times have been cut down to 10 seconds at the very most, most averaging five-to-seven seconds. This may not seem like much, but considering the upgrades and what they added to the game from last year, this is mind-boggling.

The graphics are stunning on the 360 and PS3, second only to the visual presentation. The usual status bars from the last 10 games have been replaced by a heads-up display around the feet of your wrestler, making it seem more realistic by opening up the field of vision. Along with the WWE logo at the corner of the screen and various other broadcast elements, the presentation of this game is lovely.

On the PS2, DS and PSP, the graphics look a little bit… blah. After viewing screenshots, SvR 2007 looks better than this game on PSP, the PS2 can’t compete with the next gen versions, and someone please tell me why they still bother porting this game to DS with these graphics? The Wii, however, is neither good nor bad. I mean this in a good way, considering the hardware limitations.

The controls don’t vary as much, it’s still the same system this go ’round for the XBox 360. This time, instead of a two-button reversal system, there’s only one button, which is a tad easier to remember. The Nintendo DS, however, has went from using the stylus to using the actual buttons, which critics have praised as a step in the right direction.

The sound is alright, it would’ve been better if they had included the full versions of the wrestlers entrances (partially because I seriously want Story of the Year’s cover of “Just Close Your Eyes” on my iPod), but the ability to import tracks as entrance music (on 360) makes up for it. The voice acting is great, except for the pre-match introductions, which sounds like crappy RPG dialogue at times due to awful tone.

The creation modes are back with a vengeance. You can still create your own finisher, plus the ability to create a diving move. This mode, however, is seriously lacking because, in the end, every move you make looks horribly unrealistic.

You can also create your own entrance video using Highlight Reel footage. I never figured this out, so you’re on your own here.

Create a Wrestler mode, just wow. That’s all I can say, this is the best it’s been since WWF No Mercy for the Nintendo 64. Plus, the load times for all of the parts is astonishingly fast compared to earlier titles in the SvR series. For the attributes, all you have to do is play and focus on the specifics for each attribute. For example, strike often to unlock more of the Strike attribute meter, do more submissions for the Submissions meter and so on. To upgrade, all you need to do is play in ANY mode. Depending on the match stipulations, title implications, the outcome and what you do in the match depends on how many attribute points you get. Easy as that.

There are several new match types, including the Championship Scramble, Gauntlet, Mixed Tag and a completely revamped Royal Rumble match. Due to the Mixed Tag addition, intergender tag matches from the regular tag match menu is no longer possible.

The Road to Wrestlemania mode returns with Triple H, John Cena, Mickie James, Shawn Michaels, Edge, Randy Orton & even your created wrestler as those walking the path this year. The season mode is much like last year, except the scores needed for each match ranking (one-to-five stars) has raised, dramatically.

Ultimately, at least for the XBox 360 & PS3, this has got to be the best wrestling game since WWF No Mercy. Yes, I’ve said it over 9000 times already, but that’s how good this game is.

Overall Score 4/5

Buy? – Hold off a while yet
If you’ve got the extra coin or you’re a WWE fanboy, I’d say go for it. Otherwise, hold off until it drops, which will probably be around the Christmas shopping season. Seriously, hold off until after Thanksgiving, you’ll thank me.

If it’s the DS or PSP version, I wouldn’t, period. The PS2 and the Nintendo Wii, however, buy it only if that’s the only console you own.

Rent? – I’ve got two words for ya… DO EET!!!
Seriously, that’s the beauty of wrestling games, they’re the perfect rental, regardless of console. Besides, if you’re looking to buy it, this will curve your jones until the price drops after Thanksgiving thanks to Christmas.

This will be the last review I’ll ever do like this, and possibly for this franchise. The best advice I can give you on these games – just rent it before you consider buying it. There’s a lot more I couldn’t go in to here, and I’ve played this game to the point of warping the disc.

The movement for Vermont’s political independence draws support from across the political spectrum.  There are those on the left for whom Cuba and Venezuela provide their ideal models for an independent Vermont, and there are also those whose ideal post-independence scenario would put New Hampshire’s Free State Project to shame.  Between those two poles fall the vast majority of independence-minded Vermonters, but secession is not, fundamentally, a beast made purely of the left or the right.

Rather, the concept of secession is a screen upon which disenchanted Vermonters can project their political desires.  One may want a variant of state socialism while another desires a return to tight-knit communitarianism, but they share the belief that their hopes for a better future cannot be realized as citizens of the United States.  The reality is that our current political system precludes either individual from meaningful engagement within the political system.  It’s not merely that their visions might be rejected after a fair hearing; rather, in the modern American political system, they simply don’t exist.

Now, if that were the case for only Vermonters with the most extreme political views, the prospects for secession would be dim.  However, the vast majority of Americans actually have no political agency.  They’re led to believe they do through symbolic initiatives and issues that capture the public’s imagination by being given the focus of the mass media, but the serious decisions (how much should the currency be worth, should a war be pursued) are decided first in private.  If the nominal consent of the public is necessary, it is generated through a sustained public relations campaign (e.g. Colin Powell giving a slide-show before the invasion of Iraq), but for the most part people remain “blissfully” unaware that decisions that will profoundly effect their lives have been made at all.

As long as they believe their interests are being fairly represented through the American political system, most Vermonters won’t give secession a second thought.  However, we’re currently going through a crisis of enormous magnitude, and fissures in the comfortably authoritarian American national narrative are beginning to show.  The progressives who believed that the election of Barack Obama would create a just economic system and end American imperialism are beginning to see that, between the escalating war in Central Asia and the continuation of the “bailout the rich” regime, even the most “liberal” President will not create the society they desire.  Similarly, many conservatives who watched in horror as “their” President destroyed the remainders of free-market competition in the banking sector are getting the feeling that their Federal representatives aren’t, in fact, representing them at all.

It is for this concern that Vermont independence provides an answer, regardless of one’s political affiliation.  We’re citizens: we deserve a say.  The simple fact is that one individual cannot realistically represent 650,000 people (as the average Congressional Representative does).  Some smaller issues are decided by State legislatures that are far closer to the people, but the life and death decisions of war and monetary policy are made by people who generally feel more at home in Washington, DC than in the state they supposedly represent.  I grew up in DC, and went to high-school with the children of politicians and bureaucrats; their sense of home and community was among the Washington elites, not the places of origin of their parents.  This insularity of our national political elites does not bode well for the health of a representative republic.

In an independent Vermont, all important decisions would be made by people who actually represent their communities.  The size of Vermont’s legislative districts are small enough that legislators can be personally known by the people in their own communities, and can take their opinions into account when making laws.  It also means that if a fellow community member objects to the conduct of a legislator, he or she can mount an electoral challenge without having to prostitute himself for the hundreds of thousands (or millions) of dollars that are necessary to wage a state-wide political campaign.  In this way, all citizens, no matter their beliefs, can have a true say in the most vital national decisions.  Imagine if the Vermont legislature had to approve whether or not to send troops to Iraq in 2003; I’m sure the real consequences of that decision would have been more thoroughly debated.

This is the ultimate vision that can bind together the diverse supporters of Vermont independence.  It’s easy to fall into squabbling over what a post-independence Vermont would look like (ecotopia, libertarian republic, traditional agrarian community, socialist paradise), but we must remember that none of us can have any real influence in the current system.  Only by asserting our sovereignty and creating a human-scale republic can we begin the serious discussions and debates about the sort of world we want to live in, and by doing so finally don the mantle of Citizen.  Until then, ideological squabble amongst independence advocates amount to spitting in the wind as our futures are mapped out by nihilistic elites (from across the political spectrum) who don’t give a damn about us.  Free Vermont!

By Kevin Matras
October 20, 2009

This week I want to talk about Return on Equity.Return on Equity, or ROE, is a commonly used measure of management efficiency. It’s a favorite screening criterion of many money managers and investors, including myself, because it tells you how successful a company is at using its shareholders’ capital. Moreover, companies with steadily increasing ROEs are generally better managed with attention being paid to the details.

Criteria Defined
Return on Equity shows how much profit a company is making on its shareholder equity. The formula for ROE is calculated as:
Income / Average Shareholders Equity (past 12 months). The Income number for a company is listed on their Income Statement. Shareholders Equity is the difference between Total Assets and Total Liabilities, and is found on a company’s Balance Sheet. ROE is always expressed as a percentage. So a company with a ROE of 10%, for example, means it created 10 cents of assets for every one dollar of shareholder equity in a given year.

How to Use
I think ROE is a great item to use regardless of what kind of investor you are – whether it be Growth & Income, Value or even Aggressive Growth or Momentum. Seeing how a company makes use of its equity, and the return it makes on it, is an important measure to look at. It can also alert you to problems when it’s falling. Another great way to use the ROE is to compare it to its Industry.

Some industries require greater assets than others to run their business. Take the Steel Industry versus the Software Industry for an extreme example. (Steel has a median ROE of 13.5%, while the Computer Software-Services has a median ROE of 7.5%.). If you screened for only absolute numbers, you may miss some great stocks in some great groups.

So trying to find companies with the best ROEs relative to their group (Sector or Industry etc.) is one of the best ways of making an apples-to-apples comparison in an effort to find the top stocks.

Conclusion
ROE can be a powerful screening criterion for investors in measuring how effective management has become, and how profitable they are in using investors’ cash. A better understanding of the factors that affect ROE, and how to best use it, will help make this criteria even more valuable to you.

The screen I’m running this week has me looking for companies with:
* ROE >= 5 Year Avg. ROE
* ROE >= Avg. for their Industry
* Zacks Rank = 1 (Strong Buys)

Here are 5 stocks from this week’s screen (for 10/20/09):
BUCY – Bucyrus International, Inc.
ISBC – Investors Bancorp, Inc.
STE – Steris Corp.
SVR – Syniverse Holdings, Inc.
WWW – Wolverine World Wide, Inc.

Disclosure: Officers, directors and/or employees of Zacks Investment Research may own or have sold short securities and/or hold long and/or short positions in options that are mentioned in this material. An affiliated investment advisory firm may own or have sold short securities and/or hold long and/or short positions in options that are mentioned in this material.

Gold hit $1067.00 today, and the dollar has continued to weaken against other currencies, including the Yen and Euro.  In addition to the factors previously mentioned below, I just came across another article that adds a piece to the reserve currency puzzle.  According to an article from the Telegraph, last month the Chinese offered their first issuance of government debt that foreigners are allowed to acquire.

This is a rather important development, because any currency that aspires to fill the role of the World Reserve needs to be “backed” by internationally negotiable government debt.  If a country wants to sell its oil, right now (unless it is Iran, which is taking Euros) it accepts Dollars.  It then uses those Dollars to buy other goods and service that it requires on the world market.  However, what happens if that country has a trade surplus; that is, sells more goods than it buys?  It can put that surplus into commodities and private companies (as middle eastern “sovereign wealth funds” have done), but such strategies are risky and not very liquid should the country need a big wad of buying power in a pinch.  As they are backed by the power of the State to tax its citizens, Dollar denominated government bonds are the easiest place to park a surplus, and are as close to cash as a government can get in terms of liquidity.

Thus, this move by the Chinese government allows a country the option of selling its surplus for Yuan rather than Dollars, as it allows for a liquid, low risk place to park those Yuan.  This will begin to allow China to print more money than its own economy requires (just like the USA does now), meaning high value money enters the world economy in China and then loses value as it filters to the rest of the world.  American prosperity since the 1970s has been built on the rents collected from this system of inflation-exportation, and the Chinese are edging in on our hustle.  I wonder: at what point will the Federal Government be forced to openly acknowledge the economic warfare that they’re waging behind the backs of the American people?  An honest discussion of this inevitably leads to the problems inherent to a monopolized money supply*; this is why Dr. Paul’s Free Competition in Currency Act needs to be passed (but was assiduously ignored).

On the other hand, the Second Vermont Republic has just issued one ounce silver coins; I’m thinking a bit of silver might not be a bad call as a hedge given what the price of the yellow stuff is doing…

[UPDATE] – Looks like the American mainstream media (outside the financial press) is finally picking up on this story![/UPDATE]

* What follows is an excerpt from Kevin Carson’s “The Iron Fist Behind the Invisible Hand” discussing the money monopoly:

THE MONEY MONOPOLY. In every system of class exploitation, a ruling class controls access to the means of production in order to extract tribute from labor. Under capitalism, access to capital is restricted by the money monopoly, by which the state or banking system is given a monopoly on the medium of exchange, and alternative media of exchange are prohibited. The money monopoly also includes entry barriers against cooperative banks and prohibitions against private issuance of banknotes, by which access to finance capital is restricted and interest rates are kept artificially high.

Just in passing, we might mention the monumental hypocrisy of the regulation of credit unions in the United States, which require that their membership must share some common bond, like working for the same employer. Imagine the outrage if IGA and Safeway lobbied for a national law to prohibit grocery co-ops unless the members all worked for the same company! One of the most notable supporters of these laws is Phil Gramm, that renowned “free marketeer” and economics professor–and foremost among the banking industry’s whores in Congress.

Individualist and mutualist anarchists like William Greene [Mutual Banking], Benjamin Tucker [Instead of a Book], and J. B. Robertson [The Economics of Liberty] viewed the money monopoly as central to the capitalist system of privilege. In a genuinely free banking market, any group of individuals could form a mutual bank and issue monetized credit in the form of bank notes against any form of collateral they chose, with acceptance of these notes as tender being a condition of membership. Greene speculated that a mutual bank might choose to honor not only marketable property as collateral, but the “pledging … [of] future production.” [p. 73]. The result would be a reduction in interest rates, through competition, to the cost of administrative overhead–less than one percent.

Abundant cheap credit would drastically alter the balance of power between capital and labor, and returns on labor would replace returns on capital as the dominant form of economic activity. According to Robinson,

Upon the monopoly rate of interest for money that is… forced upon us by law, is based the whole system of interest upon capital, that permeates all modern business.

With free banking, interest upon bonds of all kinds and dividends upon stock would fall to the minimum bank interest charge. The so-called rent of houses… would fall to the cost of maintenance and replacement.

All that part of the product which is now taken by interest would belong to the producer. Capital, however… defined, would practically cease to exist as an income producing fund, for the simple reason that if money, wherewith to buy capital, could be obtained for one-half of one per cent, capital itself could command no higher price [pp. 80-81].

And the result would be a drastically improved bargaining position for tenants and workers against the owners of land and capital. According to Gary Elkin, Tucker’s free market anarchism carried certain inherent libertarian socialist implications:

It’s important to note that because of Tucker’s proposal to increase the bargaining power of workers through access to mutual credit, his so-called Individualist anarchism is not only compatible with workers’ control but would in fact promote it. For if access to mutual credit were to increase the bargaining power of workers to the extent that Tucker claimed it would, they would then be able to (1) demand and get workplace democracy, and (2) pool their credit buy and own companies collectively.

The banking monopoly was not only the “lynchpin of capitalism,” but also the seed from which the landlord’s monopoly grew. Without a money monopoly, the price of land would be much lower, and promote “the process of reducing rents toward zero.” [Gary Elkin, "Benjamin Tucker--Anarchist or Capitalist"].

Given the worker’s improved bargaining position, “capitalists’ ability to extract surplus value from the labor of employees would be eliminated or at least greatly reduced.” [Gary Elkin, Mutual Banking]. As compensation for labor approached value-added, returns on capital were driven down by market competition, and the value of corporate stock consequently plummeted, the worker would become a de facto co-owner of his workplace, even if the company remained nominally stockholder-owned.

Near-zero interest rates would increase the independence of labor in all sorts of interesting ways. For one thing, anyone with a twenty-year mortgage at 8% now could, in the absence of usury, pay it off in ten years. Most people in their 30s would have their houses paid off. Between this and the nonexistence of high-interest credit card debt, two of the greatest sources of anxiety to keep one’s job at any cost would disappear. In addition, many workers would have large savings (“go to hell money”). Significant numbers would retire in their forties or fifties, cut back to part-time, or start businesses; with jobs competing for workers, the effect on bargaining power would be revolutionary.

Our hypothetical world of free credit in many ways resembles the situation in colonial societies. E. G. Wakefield, in View of the Art of Colonization, wrote of the unacceptably weak position of the employing class when self-employment with one’s own property was readily available. In colonies, there was a tight labor market and poor labor discipline because of the abundance of cheap land. “Not only does the degree of exploitation of the wage-labourer remain indecently low. The wage-labourer loses into the bar- gain, along with the relation of dependence, also the sentiment of dependence on the abstemious capitalist.”

Where land is cheap and all men are free, where every one who so pleases can obtain a piece of land for himself, not only is labour very dear, as respects the labourers’ share of the product, but the difficulty is to obtain combined labour at any price.

This environment also prevented the concentration of wealth, as Wakefield commented: “Few, even of those whose lives are unusually long, can accumulate great masses of wealth.” As a result, colonial elites petitioned the mother country for imported labor and for restrictions on land for settlement. According to Wakefield’s disciple Herman Merivale, there was an “urgent desire for cheaper and more subservient labourers–for a class to whom the capitalist might dictate terms, instead of being dictated to by them.” [Maurice Dobb, Studies in the Development of Capitalism; Marx, Chapter 33: "The New Theory of Colonialism," in Capital Vol. 1].

In addition to all this, central banking systems perform additional service to the interests of capital. First of all, the chief requirement of finance capitalists is to avoid inflation, in order to allow predictable returns on investment. This is ostensibly the primary purpose of the Federal Reserve and other central banks. But at least as important is the role of the central banks in promoting what they consider a “natural” level of unemployment–until the 1990s around six per cent. The reason is that when unemployment goes much below this figure, labor becomes increasingly uppity and presses for better pay and working conditions and more autonomy. Workers are willing to take a lot less crap off the boss when they know they can find a job at least as good the next day. On the other hand, nothing is so effective in “getting your mind right” as the knowledge that people are lined up to take your job.

The Clinton “prosperity” is a seeming exception to this principle. As unemployment threatened to drop below the four per cent mark, some members of the Federal Reserve agitated to raise interest rates and take off the “inflationary” pressure by throwing a few million workers on the street. But as Greenspan [Testimony of Chairman Alan Greenspan] testified before the Senate Banking Committee, the situation was unique. Given the degree of job insecurity in the high-tech economy, there was “[a]typical restraint on compensation increases.” In 1996, even with a tight labor market, 46% of workers at large firms were fearful of layoffs–compared to only 25% in 1991, when unemployment was much higher.

The reluctance of workers to leave their jobs to seek other employment as the labor market tightened has provided further evidence of such concern, as has the tendency toward longer labor union contracts. For many decades, contracts rarely exceeded three years. Today, one can point to five- and six-year contracts–contracts that are commonly characterized by an emphasis on job security and that involve only modest wage increases. The low level of work stoppages of recent years also attests to concern about job security.

Thus the willingness of workers in recent years to trade off smaller increases in wages for greater job security seems to be reasonably well documented. For the bosses, the high-tech economy is the next best thing to high unemployment for keeping our minds right. “Fighting inflation” translates operationally to increasing job insecurity and making workers less likely to strike or to look for new jobs.

Double-headed 41241 and 46443

This Saturday, 26th September 2009, I had a change and visited the Severn Valley Railway for their Autumn Gala.  Beautiful Autumn sunshine and 13 locos steaming, some resident and some visitors – a brilliant day. 

Bradley Manor

The event ran from Friday morning until Sunday evening non-stop! It was certainly well attended on Saturday with a number of trains full to capacity.5764 leaving Bridgnorth

Great Northern Railway Class N2 0-6-2T No.1744

The stations were shown at their best too.

The Bridgnorth to Hampton Loade shuttle with 5764 in charge waiting in sidings for the big boys to come through!The favourite on the day – 43106

The roping-off of the area in front of the shed at Bridgnorth was well done.  It showed visitors where they could go rather than where they couldn’t!  Nice to get up close and personal to the locos!!

Don’t forget the first visit by ‘Tornado’ to the Severn Valley Railway,

24th October to 1st November.

]]> http://intelligencenews.wordpress.com/2009/09/14/01-242/ Mon, 14 Sep 2009 10:12:09 +0000 intelNews http://intelligencenews.wordpress.com/2009/09/14/01-242/ http://putinania.wordpress.com/2009/09/01/happy-birthday/ Tue, 01 Sep 2009 16:27:46 +0000 putinania http://putinania.wordpress.com/2009/09/01/happy-birthday/ http://alexaionescu.wordpress.com/2009/08/28/sorin-rosca-stanescu-platit-de-rusi/ Fri, 28 Aug 2009 12:33:22 +0000 alexa http://alexaionescu.wordpress.com/2009/08/28/sorin-rosca-stanescu-platit-de-rusi/

Articol preluat prin bunavointa lui Dan Badea, de pe blogul sau:

http://badeadan.blogspot.com/2009/08/rosca-stanescu-fost-platit-de-rusi-cu.html

Sorin Roşca Stănescu a lansat zilele trecute, pe blogul personal, acuzaţii de o gravitate maximă la adresa lui Traian Băsescu. El l-a acuzat pe Preşedintele României, fără a produce măcar o dovadă în acest sens, de implicarea în operaţiuni teroriste care ar fi fost derulate prin intermediul fratelui său, Mircea Băsescu.

Acuzaţiile sunt, evident, false.

Conform diversionistului Sorin Roşca Stănescu, “cinci vapoare” încărcate cu “substanţe explozive şi muniţie” sosite din “Tailanda”, au ajuns în portul Constanţa la sfârşitul lui 2008 sau începutul lui 2009, , au fost descarcate şi transportate la UM Băbeni cu scopul oficial de a fi distruse. Numai că, odată ajunsă la Băbeni, încărcătura ar fi fost reambalată şi transportată înapoi la Constanţa de unde, tot pe cale maritimă ar fi fost trimisă în Angola, via Congo.

Afacerea, încheiată între Romarm şi Romagro Cereal SRL, ar fi fost, de fapt, supervizată şi controlată de către Mircea Băsescu (foto stânga), fratele Preşedintelui. “Mircea Băsescu a fost asociat în afacere, inclusiv la beneficii, cu Bakri Imad Abdul Reda, prin intermediul locotenent colonel în rezervă Cornel Purcărea” –zice Roşca Stănescu (foto dreapta).

Banii rezultaţi în urma reexportării explozibililor şi a muniţiei de către Mircea Băsescu ar fi ajuns, via Bakri Imad, la organizaţiile teroriste UNITA şi Hezbollah. Operaţiunea ar fi fost însă depistată de Serviciul de Combatere a Crimei Organizate Vâlcea care s-a pus pe treabă şi a interceptat convorbirile telefonice ale traficanţilor. Dosarul a fost preluat de DGIPI (fosta doi şi un sfert) şi apoi de DIICOT. Imediat ar fi fost informat SRI, care l-ar fi informat apoi pe Preşedinte.

Indignat, Preşedintele Traian Băsescu ar fi ordonat să fie decapitate conducerea DGIPI şi a unităţii militare de la Ciorogârla. Deoarece creierul lui Roşca Stănescu s-a blocat când a ajuns la Ciorogârla, nu ne-a mai explicat care a fost logica schimbărilor de la vârful cunoscutului depozit de muniţie din apropierea Capitalei.

Totuşi, înainte să piardă firul naraţiunii, Roşca reuşeşte să scrie: “cazul Ciorogârla a reprezentat o operaţiune de muşamalizare a operaţiunii în care a fost implicat Mircea Băsescu şi, în acelaşi timp, a devenit, prin schimbările la vârf din Armată, o premiză pentru operaţiuni ilegale în folosul unor persoane, săvârşite cu ocazia acţiunii de înzestrare a Forţelor Armate”. Cum aveam să înţelegem de la televizor, Ciorogârla era dintr-un alt film, dar nu mai contează. Povestea e înţesată cu descrierea teroristului Bakri şi a unor documente fără nici o legătură cu esenţa acuzaţiilor.

De câteva zile, cu toată logistica pusă la cale de Sorin Vântu, Dan Voiculescu, Crin Antonescu, Mircea Geoană şi haitele de politicieni şi jurnalişti tolomaci, Roşca Stănescu nu a reuşit să probeze acuzaţia de bază: că Mircea Băsescu a organizat operaţiunea de aducere, descărcare, transport, reambalare şi reexport în Angola a încărcăturii celor cinci vase sosite din Tailanda, şi că fondurile rezultate ar fi alimentat conturile teroriştilor UNITA şi Hezbollah.

El spune tot felul de poveşti ajutătoare, chipurile, dar nu produce dovada coordonării de către Băsescu a acestei operaţiuni. În plus, deşi toţi cei implicaţi s-au pronunţat, nimeni nu confirmă aberaţiile debitate de impostorul Roşca Stănescu.

Doar bâlbâială şi mugete pe televizor. Tonomate şi tolomaci dezbat subiectul, se fac calcule politice, se aşteaptă reacţii, se plătesc traduceri, se trimit la redacţii din străinătate, că poate o pune botul vreun fraier, ca să aiba apoi curva de presă de pe Dâmboviţa noi motive de avânt împotriva “traficantului” de la Cotroceni.

Chiar dacă se dă şi peste cap, Roşca Stănescu nu are nici o dovadă pentru afirmaţiile grave făcute la adresa Preşedintelui.

Pentru un analist obiectiv, acuzaţiile par a fi opera unui om bolnav psihic. Cunoscându-l însă pe autorul aşa-ziselor dezvăluiri, care s-a specializat în lansarea pe piaţa media a minciunilor de tot felul, putem conchide că individul nu e nebun, ci un manipulator pursânge care şi-a făcut din asta o sursă de profit extrem de bănoasă. Dar, cum vom vedea mai încolo, şi altceva.

Cine este Sorin Roşca Stănescu?

Urechist cu ştate vechi în Securitatea lui Ceauşescu, specializat în a-şi turna cunoscuţii cu preocupări, chipurile, teroriste, informatorul (apoi sursa) cu numele conspirativ DELEANU, câştiga în anii 70-80 cam câte 500 de lei/turnătorie (vezi chitanţele originale în foto sânga-dreapta).

Conform unui raport al subordonaţilor lui Măgureanu din 1990, în cei 10 ani cât a colaborat cu organele Securităţii ceauşiste, “DELEANU a furnizat peste 200 de materiale informative de interes operativ care au fost exploatate, după verificare, pe diferite linii de muncă”. Acelaşi Raport consemna şi ataşamentul sincer al impostorului de mai târziu, pentru Securitate.”Pentru rezultatele obţinute în activitatea de culegere de informaţii, sinceritate şi ataşamentul faţă de instituţia noastră, DELEANU a fost recompensat material în repetate rânduri”.

Impostorul mai şi declara apoi, bombastic, că a turnat din patriotism. Păi ce patriotism e ăla, de 500 lei/bucata?

Activitatea aceea secretă, care-l făcea să se simtă superior colegilor, puţini, e drept, care n-aveau prieteni la Secu, avea să-l marcheze pentru totdeauna.

După 1990, turnătorul din anii 80 s-a alăturat găştii lui Băcanu la România Liberă, o grupare de şmecheri care s-au îmbogăţit pe seama privatizării frauduloase a fostului organ de partid şi de stat.

Prin 1992, dosarul lui Roşca a ajuns în presă iar impostorul, care ascunsese opiniei publice relaţia cu fosta securitate în timp ce îi acuza pe securişti de toate relele, a fost obligat să toarne la altă masă. Cel care i-a dat o pâine atunci turnătorului deconspirat a fost Ion Cristoiu, care l-a angajat ca redactor şef adjunct la Evenimentul Zilei.

Ulterior, SRS a intrat în slujba unui alt paravan cu relaţii în mafia autohtonă, Cristian Burci, înfiinţând cotidianul Ultimul Cuvânt, o publicaţie la care am lucrat şi eu de la primul număr până la ultimul.

Fostul turnător al Securităţii a înfiinţat apoi cotidianul Ziua, o gazetă despre care s-a spus că a instaurat în România postdecembristă instituţia şantajului prin presă.

A făcut carieră cu Patriciu lângă el. În paralel, a început să se îmbogăţească masiv. A adunat firme, conturi grase, vile. Milioane de euro… Foto: Tonomate altădată incompatibile

Cum se ştie, Comandantul de la Ziua, supranumit Naşul, a declanşat şi întreţinut cele mai mizerabile campanii din presa românească, bazate pe fals şi minciună, de la Iliescu-KGB (făcătura prin care a fost inventat Igor Botnariciuc, un aşa-zis martor al racolării de către KGB a lui Ion Iliescu), la “subofiţerul Petre Olaru sub hipnoză” şi, acum, la Băsescu-Hezbollah.

Omul e artist în scenarii de ficţiune şi are relaţii în cele mai fetide zone ale societăţii româneşti. Cine ia colecţia ziarului Ziua şi-i întreabă pe toţi cei terfeliţi, la comandă, despre adevărul celor scrise acolo, va putea scrie tratate despre manipulare, diversiune şi minciună.

Atacurile interesate la adresa unor ţinte indicate probabil de sponsorii generoşi, că nimeni nu minte fără motiv, dovedesc faptul că SRS a părăsit de multă vreme profesiunea de jurnalist, devenind un fel de comandant al ziariştilor, un manipulator-şef, un diversionist prin excelenţă.

Îmi amintesc că, în urmă cu puţini ani, în timp ce lucram la un cotidian central coordonat telefonic de Roşca Stănescu, directorul publicaţiei respective lua poziţia de drepţi când vorbea la telefon cu “comandantul”. Subordonaţii lui SRS acţionau cam ca silovikii lui Putin. Directorul ăla de ziar care se ridica în picioare şi tremura de frică la apelul telefonic al lui SRS (care sunase să ordone cum trebuia să apară a doua zi un atac asupra lui Monica Macovei vis a vis de cazul Ion Ion Ţiriac) avea să ajungă apoi, via-Tăriceanu, consul într-o importantă ţară occidentală.

Aşadar, fostul turnător al Securităţii, supranumit Deleanu şi H15, căpătase forţa şi aura unui mafiot adevărat.

Relaţiile cu Patriciu şi, apoi, cu Sorin Vântu, aveau să-i dea puterea de care avea nevoie să influenţeze opinia publică şi politicul în România. Puterea de a lansa azi nişte elucubraţii pe care nişte pseudojurnalişti cu minte puţină şi cu salarii de mii de euro le tot diseacă mărunt pe sticlele televizoarelor.

Care sunt însă interesele aflate în spatele acuzaţiilor de pe blogul fostului turnător cu plată al Securităţii?

Maica Rusia

Dincolo de interesele pecuniare, bătrânul turnător Roşca Stănescu are şi alte motive de “nebunie”.

Foto: Putin salutând veteranii din FSB/KGB

Unul ţine de instinctul de conservare: dacă Băsescu va fi reales, există riscul ca învinuitul din dosarul Rompetrol să înfunde puşcăria, deoarece îi va fi greu să-i mai ameninţe cu succes pe oamenii legii; prin urmare dă din gură, mâini şi picioare, ca epilepticul, că poate îl crede cineva şi nu mai pune ştampila de vot pe acest candidat .

Al doilea interes e cel evident, electoral, uşor de înţeles dacă socotim grupările mafiote şi forţele politice interne aflate în conflict.

Există însă şi o a treia explicaţie a resorturilor ascunse care au dus la lansarea acestei diversiuni şi ea porneşte de la atacarea şi încercarea de compromitere a instituţiei fundamentale în stat, Preşedinţia.

Nu e deloc greu de priceput că a spune despre Preşedintele României că e implicat în operaţiuni teroriste, într-un context precum cel actual, e o chestiune de o gravitate extremă şi ţine de atacul la securitatea naţională.

Să asociezi numele preşedintelui unui stat membru NATO cu al unui terorist căutat de Interpol, e un deziderat perfect pentru politica externă a Rusiei.

Întrebarea este: a bătut însă, Roşca Stănescu, palma cu ruşii? Probabil, dar nu direct, deoarece dacă ar fi făcut-o personal primea şi el măcar un document probator, care să-i confirme implicarea lui Mircea Băsescu în primirea şi trimiterea peste mări şi ţări a celor cinci vapoare cu muniţie, document plastografiat cu atenţie în laboratoarele serviciului rus de spionaj, SVR (Sluzhba Vneshnez Razvedki).

Interesele comune SRS-SVR sunt evidente şi ele sunt mai mult decât o simplă coincidenţă.

Primul care a sărit în apărarea şi susţinerea elucubraţiilor debitate de SRS a fost “rusnacul” Cozmin Guşă, un alt individ cu relaţii şi simpatii recunoscute printre silovikii lui Putin.

Pe de altă parte, cum se ştie deja, SRS s-a implicat direct, ca acţionar şi “comandant” în agenţia de “ştiri” “Rusia la zi”, alături de rusofilul Mircea Popa, cel care, prin 1989, a cerut azil politic la şefii lui de la Moscova, iar prin 2006 era “sfătuitorul de taină” al aceluiaşi Cozmin Guşă.

Înainte de a pune bomboana pe coliva intereselor care l-au obligat pe turnătorul H15 să comită literatură SF pe blogul lui, să ne reamintim că în 2007, când s-a declanşat scandalul care a dus la suspendarea preşedintelui Traian Băsescu, Sorin Roşca Stănescu a fost aproape la fel de activ ca şi azi. La fel a fost şi rusofilul Cozmin Guşă, electrizat de vizita la Palatul Victoria a celebrului mason rus Alexander Kondiakov.

Suspendarea preşedintelui Băsescu a fost orchestrată atunci, cu sprijinul structurii de tip mafiot din parlament, de către aceleaşi forţe ruseşti.

Conform lui Ioan Talpeş, fost şef al SIE dar şi al administraţiei prezidenţiale a lui Ion Iliescu, rusul Kondyakov (foto dreapta) ar fi reprezentat o grupare interpusă între România şi Rusia şi ale cărei interese erau/sunt altele decât ale celor două state. “Există o filieră pe linia Bucureşti-Moscova care s-a interpus la Chişinău şi în împrejurimile Kremlinului. (…) Au încercat să se impună ca un fel de manşon de control şi de relaţie între Moscova şi Bucureşti. Aici trebuie vazută inclusiv dezvoltarea spre România a unor influenţe economice, care trec toate prin Moldova. Aceste grupări promoscovite din Moldova au blocat o relaţie normală dintre Rusia şi România, clar in defavoarea României” – a declarat Talpeş.

Despre emisarul Kondyakov, Mare secretar al Marii Loje Masonice Ruse, dar şi consultant pe probleme de informaţii al lui Putin, a făcut atunci şi Traian Băsescu o declaraţie de presă: „priviţi cu multă atenţie afirmaţiile făcute de fostul şef al SIE, Ioan Talpeş. Este interesant, de asemenea, dacă a fost vreo vizită a unui domn foarte important, Kondyakov, cu vreo doua-trei zile înainte de votul de suspendare dat de parlament. Poate politicienii cu care s-a întalnit pot spune mai multe”.

Politicienii n-au spus mai multe, dar vizita masonului rus a influenţat doar votul frăţiorilor masoni din parlament dar nu şi pe cel al votanţilor de la referendum.

Revenind, nu degeaba a lansat atunci Băsescu expresia “tonomatele pe ruble”. Asta pentru că manipularea declanşată, atunci, prin mass media, a dus la sacrificarea rapidă a unor jurnalişti.

Iată, spre exemplu ce apărea pe site-ul Civic Media. “Simptomatic, atacurile la adresa libertăţii de expresie a unor jurnalişti independenţi din presa română, majoritatea avute în timpul şi după Referendumul anti-prezidenţial de anul trecut, au de a face cu Rusia. Victor Roncea a reuşit să reziste şi să câştige în confruntarea cu directorului ziarului ZIUA, Sorin Roşca Stănescu, dupa ce acesta a încercat să-l demită ca urmare a susţinerii preşedintelui Traian Băsescu şi a demascării relaţiilor directe cu Moscova ale autorilor loviturii de stat mascate în Referendum. În aceeaşi perioadă a fost îndepărtat de la COTIDIANUL de către Doru Buşcu şi analistul politic Cătălin Avramescu, tot in urma unor editoriale în care demonstra intervenţia subterană a Moscovei în afacerile de la Bucureşti. Apoi, jurnaliştii George Roncea si Mihai Isac de la cotidianul ATAC au fost puşi brutal pe liber de la acest ziar după ce au dezvăluit legăturile pe care le are Rompetrol cu Gazprom şi forţele din jurul Kremlinului în favoarea unor politicieni, afacerişti şi ziarişti aflaţi pe la vârful puterii în România”

Roşca Stănescu a fost plătit de ruşi cu peste 800.000 de dolari

Nu în ultimul rând, turnătorul de ieri şi de azi a primit bani frumoşi de la ruşi, ceea ce vine să confirme ipoteza privind implicarea stăpânilor lui de la Moscova în atacul disperat asupra preşedintelui României.

Dovada acestei afirmaţii vine chiar de la turnător. Dacă pentru un act “patriotic” prin care îşi turna un “prieten” la fosta securitate, Roşca Stănescu, alias H15, primea 500 de lei (deh, fondul de premiere al informatorilor era redus, că nu toţi turnau contra cost), iată că pentru promovarea intereselor ruseşti în România, acelaşi turnător avea să primească un sac de bani. Asta nu pentru că ruşii l-ar preţui mai mult, ci din motive strategice, ca investiţie pentru viitor. Şi confirmarea faptului că ruşii nu s-au înşelat investind pe vremuri în posibilităţile “publicitare” ale turnătorului Roşca Stănescu o avem chiar zilele acestea, prin pleaşca făcută cadou propagandei ruseşti.

Astfel, încercând să-şi justifice milioanele de euro de care dispune, Roşca Stănescu a făcut, anul trecut, următoarea declaraţie publică: “Chiar înainte de căderea lui Iliescu, Lukoil a venit în România. Noi (ZIUA) aveam pe atunci numai contracte mici de publicitate. Dar, probabil că au intuit care este potenţialul ziarului. Aşa încât patronul rus al LUKOIL a ocupat un întreg etaj la Intercontinental şi m-a invitat la discuţii. Am băut vodcă cu el la 11 dimineaţa. Şi mi-a propus un contract. Am negociat 830.000 de dolari. A fost uluitor! Nu câştigasem atâţia bani niciodată!”.

Declaraţia, care are valoarea unui autodenunţ, este, într-adevăr uluitoare.

Să recunoşti că Vagit Alekperov (vezi foto, în dreapta lui Putin), un oligarh suspectat a fi fost agent acoperit al KGB sau GRU şi care a fost ministru al Uniunii Sovietice şi apoi al Rusiei, a băut vodcă împreună cu tine, un fost turnător recunoscut al Securităţii, şi ţi-a dat peste 800.000 de dolari doar ca să-i faci publicitate în gazeta pe care o conduci împreună cu Patriciu, e un act de mare curaj.

De ce un reprezentant de bază al serviciilor ruse de spionaj, precum preşedintele Lukoil, l-o fi invitat la o vodcă tocmai pe Roşca Stănescu, un duşman declarat, chipurile, al KGB-ului, e o întrebare al cărei răspuns nu poate fi găsit decât în rapoartele SVR-ului.

Cum să-ţi vină ideea să promovezi firma KGB-ului într-un ziar anti-KGB? – e o altă întrebare cu răspuns la arhive.

Mai remarcăm doar că declaraţia a fost făcută anul trecut, la un an după ce şi naşul “Naşului” Roşca Stănescu, adică Dinu Patriciu, a transferat, tot sub pălăria rusească, pachetul majoritar al companiei Rompetrol.

În urma acestei afaceri, naşul Naşului a încasat, conform presei, peste 1,5 miliarde de euro.

Sumă frumuşică, dacă ne gândim că Patriciu era un neica nimeni în 1990, iar Petromidia o fi moştenit-o, probabil, de la neamurile lui cu cefe roşii.

Turnătorul urmăreşte anularea vizitei lui Traian Băsescu în SUA

Ar mai fi însă un motiv demn de luat în calcul pentru care atacul lui Sorin Roşca Stănescu la adresa preşedintelui României este atât de dur şi e făcut, atipic!, înainte de declanşarea campaniei electorale. După cum se ştie, în urmă cu două luni, ministrul de externe Cristian Diaconescu a vizitat Statele Unite şi, la întoarcere, a declarat că făcut toate demersurile pentru a pregăti, pentru această toamnă, vizita oficială în SUA a lui Traian Băsescu. “Speranţa noastră este că va avea loc” – a spus Diaconescu. Faptul că Diaconescu este încă ministru de externe e o dovadă că vizita va avea loc. Cum o astfel de vizită i-ar aduce un câştig de imagine destul de consistent lui Traian Băsescu, forţele politice anti-Băsescu de la Bucureşti şi Moscova fac tot posibilul să o anuleze. Operaţiunea declanşată prin intermediul lui Sorin Roşca Stănescu, care a lansat, din burta lui de turnător lihnit, acuzaţiile de terorism la adresa Preşedintelui, poate avea aşadar un scop imediat şi extrem de important: împiedicarea vizitei programate a Preşedintelui Traian Băsescu în SUA.

Dan Badea

I was recently at the Outer Space Cafe off of Flynn Avenue in Burlington to hear some music and take in some art, when who did I encounter but Dennis Steele.  Mr. Steele was a Ron Paul supporter during the 2008 campaign, and was the organizer of the pro-secession Green Mountain Brigade, the inaugural speech of which was described as the show-stopping performance of the 2008 Vermont Independence Convention by the New Yorker.  His most recent project, it turns out, is Free Vermont Radio, an internet radio station that plays all Vermont artists and covers many live local gigs.  Since running into Dennis, I’ve been thoroughly enjoying its eclectic playlist; check it out!

I’ve Been Waiting for an New Version of WWE SVR!, Now I got the details.

This Game Features CREATE-A-SUPERSTAR REDESIGN, Which brings customization interface that delivers a new look and Improves the graphical quality. It also comes with new parts that will allow you to create Superstars who look as good as their WWE Counterparts. You now can take one step further with a new Paint Tool to detail your created Superstars with Original tattoos, Logos and other Unique Designs. Exclusively only on PLAYSTATION®3 computer entertainment system and Xbox 360®.

It also features WWE Story Designer, Embrace a directorial role to create and customize unique storylines. Choose from Superstars, cutscenes, locations and more! YEAH NICE TO SEE THAT IN THE GAME.

and SHARE THE CREATIVITY too.
Details about share your created content we’re get there in a min. Now they came back with it, which apparently they took it out of the last two games.
It finally came back in the 2010 version, Now with the details. OK now you know, You can share your created content with the WWE Universe by uploading your created Superstars, entrances and more! You can also use the Keyword Search engine to view other peoples created content around the world and download it too for Offline and Online. Exclusively only on PLAYSTATION®3 computer entertainment system and Xbox 360®.

RTW, What is that? Road To WrestleMania The Popular story-based mode returns with New Storylines, Including are favorite thing 1st Ever in RTW is Divas Storyline. and a Create-a-Superstar storyline as Well.

SUPERSTAR THREADS
What is that? For The 1st time in the franchise history, you can create alternative ring gear for Superstars by customizing the colors of the shirts, down to the boots and much more is include. Save the alternative looks for use throughout the game and Online. Exclusively only on PLAYSTATION®3 computer entertainment system and Xbox 360®.

Part 2 is coming up and Check back often for more news on WWE Smackdown! vs Raw 2010

I took an screenshot of what is expecting in the WWE SVR 2010 NDS Version (BELOW)

All World Wrestling Entertainment programming, talent names, images, likenesses, slogans, wrestling moves, trademarks, logos and copyrights are the exclusive property of World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc. and its subsidiaries. All other trademarks, logos and copyrights are the property of their respective owners. © 2009 World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

It occurred to me a few days ago that I am currently working two jobs and making hardly any money.  (I feel like I already blogged about this.  Hmmm…?)  The Global jobs just don’t cut it.  For starters, I don’t get enough hours.  Then there’s those 27 hours they still owe me.  I think I’ll be claiming those soon so I can have enough for that PS3.  Anyways, I’m perfectly fine with not getting paid for the writing thing.  I mean, I am just getting started with my freelance career, so I have to start from the bottom and work my way up.

Last blog, I said I wouldn’t hold my breath in regards to Daniel showing up and lending me that graphics card, and just like I thought, he didn’t show.  Once again, I had to put off on my Mini Ninjas article.  The good thing is I had a backup article planned.  I wrote about the upcoming SmackDown vs. Raw 2010.  It ended up being my longest article to date, and I was very pleased with my work.  I added some great images and the game’s debut trailer, and I really feel that it looked very polished and professional.  I’m really proud of myself.

I’ve been thinking of writing for a second and maybe even third website.  It would take some dedication, and when I get a steady job, it would definitely be a challenge, but I’m up for it.  I’ve dealt with a busy schedule in the past.  My main concern is picking the right site to write for.  I’ll probably send out a couple emails on Monday.  I have my eye on a few sites, and I’d really like to get in contact with some admins.

I started playing Kingdom Hearts today.  It’s the typical RPG fare, so even after spending two hours with the game, things are still developing and everything is still going pretty slow.  I have no problem with this because I’ve played my fair share of RPGs, so I’m used to this sort of thing.  I’ll devote some more time to the game tomorrow.

Today, I watched way more TV than I normally care for.  Four episodes of Survivor.  It was fun, but I would have sufficed with three.  I’m just not the type of person who can watch TV for countless hours in a single day.  That’s not me; it will never be me.  I seriously do not know how some people do it.

So, it turns out I won’t be working Friday and Saturday at Barcelona.  Instead, I’ll just be working at Avalon on Saturday for about three hours.  It’s so funny:  Just last night I could almost see the PS3 in my living room alongside my Wii.  Now, that vision is slowly getting further and further away from me.  If I worked at least four days in the next two weeks, I would have had enough for the console, but now I don’t even know how long it will take for me to gather all the cash necessary to obtain the very console I’ve wanted since 2006.  Ugh…  I feel so annoyed by that fact.  Damn it all to hell!

I didn’t write any new articles today.  I thought Daniel was going to come by with the graphics card, but he didn’t.  So, once again, I have to put my Mini Ninjas article on hold.  He might come over tomorrow, but I’m not holding my breath.  Since I’m not working tomorrow, I’ve pretty much got a free day.  I plan on writing an article for the new SmackDown Vs. Raw 2010 early in the day.

Since I didn’t do any writing, I did a whole lot of gaming.  I played HCTP for a good while.  Then I played some Super Smash Bros. Brawl online with Daniel and Danny.  I got owned, and I can’t stand that.  But these were triple threat matches in crappy stages.  I know I’d own both of these guys one on one in any one of the non-gimmick stages.  (I’ve done it before, and with authority.)  I’m the “World Champion” for a reason.

For my second assault on the SVR-1940’s weekend I drove to Arley Station, parked the car and make my way to Kidderminster, via the train. Although I’ve been to most of the stations along the route and photographed many of the volunteers’ I’d never actually travelled on the train.

The Station Master ©John Powell BPE3

I made the twenty minute journey to Kidderminster in the first class carriage, not that you would have guessed with all the creaking and squeaking going on! At least I arrived at my destination in one piece, just! Kidderminster station was awash with Germans, French Police, Land Girls and Winston Churchill himself!

Winston Churchill ©John Powell BPE3

Luckily for me, I was born a few years after the war had ended, but I can still remember, with affection, the old Anderson shelter, not to be confused with the Morrison Shelter, which was introduced in March 1941, for people without gardens.

Not only did Kidderminster put on a splendid display of war-time memorabilia, Duty Warden Peter Haskett, seen here with his wife, were dressed to perfection in their original uniforms of the day.

Duty Warden ©John Powell BPE3

It was just is if the entire station had been transported back to the forties, the only tell-tale sign of us being in 2009 was the price beer! £3-a-pint and the £5.50 train fare back to Arley!

Still, it was all worth while and very enjoyable.

Best picture over the two weekends has to be this one, Days of Despair, which is totally a candid shot, but conveys the anguish of a family at war.

Days of Despair ©John Powell BPE3

A really excellent discussion on the Green Mountain Daily reminded me that I’d written this essay a while ago when I was thinking a lot about the role of history (and listening to a lot of Utah Phillips) in peoples’ identities.

*NOTE: This essay reflects my thinking a few months ago, and my own present beliefs are likely slightly different than those expressed by the self who wrote this essay.  It’s mostly me, though *

*Fixed some typos and changed a bit of wording on 7/27/2009*

The Long Memory and the Philadelphia System

By Matthew Cropp

The late Wobbly folk musician U. Utah Phillips often commented that “the long memory is the most radical idea in America.” If, according to Phillips, we view history as one long stream rather than a series of independent crises, the way the world of the present appears profoundly shifts. The atrocities, movements, and swindles of the past cease to be isolated events to learn the “facts” of, and instead become integral pieces of our perception of the world we live in today. This view of our past fosters in people a sense of agency, as history becomes what is happening now rather than just what was happening then. History becomes something that people make happen, rather than something that happens to people.

However, this view of history is not embraced by modern American culture. Rather, as Phillips put it in a 2004 interview with Amy Goodman of Democracy Now!, “that long memory has been taken away from us…You haven’t got it in you schools. You’re not getting it on your television. You’re not getting it anywhere. You’re being leapfrogged from one crisis to the next…you can’t remember what happened last week, because you’re locked into this week’s crisis.”

One result of this process is that many people in our society have lost touch with the meaning of our political traditions. In today’s history classrooms, the objective lies in students’ ability to regurgitate predetermined rote facts, rather than in constructing ideas and forming insights. Thus, when our kids learn about the American government in school (a process that I experienced in the not too distant past), it becomes simply one more structure about which they must learn a list of facts. Just as this mindset applied universally alienates people from the historical process as a whole, applied specifically to our political traditions it alienates people from our government and civic institutions. It allows people to lose sight of the fact that they are structures which were created by real actors making profoundly historically impactful choices, whose intentions must be investigated and understood if we are to fully grasp the meaning of the world our ancestors built and we inhabit.

The American system (ultimately codified in the U.S. Constitution) was not crafted in a vacuum, but was profoundly influenced by the experiences and beliefs of its makers. These were worldly men who, looking to Europe, were profoundly aware of the many forms tyranny could take, and had put their lives on the line to gain independence in the Revolutionary War. It has become fashionable recently in “radical” historical circles to emphasize the conservative sides of the Revolution, including the retention of slavery, the restriction of the franchise, and the fortunes made by the founders. All these critiques are valid, but they do not negate the incredibly radical parts of the Revolution. In Emma Goldman’s early 20^th century magazine Mother Earth, Voltarine de Cleyre described this radical side: “the real Revolution was a change in political institutions which should make government not a thing apart…but a serviceable agent, responsible, economical, and trustworthy (but never so much trusted as not to be continuously watched), for the transaction of such business as was the common concern, and to set the limits of the common concern at the line where one man’s liberty would encroach upon another’s.”

The founders had seen tyranny and wanted to craft a system that would preserve liberty. Not grant liberty, which they believed was inherent to the very nature of the human being, but prevent the development of tyrannical systems that would restrict peoples’ natural state of freedom. The Constitution and the American system must be interpreted with that intention in mind, and when it is, the call for Vermont’s independence transforms from a seemingly radical departure from the “American Way” into a rare gesture of deep respect to the intentions of America’s founders that have been increasingly forgotten as our people have been “leapfrogged from one crisis to the next.”

My own understanding of the intentions of the founders of the United States has been profoundly deepened by my recent chance encounter with an article entitled, “The Philadelphian system: sovereignty, arms control, and balance of power in the American states-union, circa 1787-1861”, by Daniel H. Deudney, while visiting a friend in New Haven, Connecticut. The article is as dense as its title is wordy, but after wading through it I emerged clutching a vital new concept, “negarchy”. Deudney defines negarchy as “the arrangement of institutions necessary to prevent simultaneously the emergence of hierarchy and anarchy”, and if this sounds vaguely familiar, it should. That’s because we were taught about this concept in American Government all those years ago, albeit with an incredibly important omission and a different name. It was termed “checks and balances”, and we learned of it as a horizontal division of power between the three branches of the Federal Government. Because of this, we were told, no one branch could gain supremacy over the other two, and as a result America was safe from tyranny.

Alas, that’s only half the story, according to Deudney: the intended checks and balances were not only horizontal but vertical. In addition to the tension between the branches of the Federal government, a system of tension was implemented between the Federal Government, the sovereign States, and the armed people. This network of vertically and horizontally distributed power was intended to create a system that could draw upon the whole network to defend itself from external threats, but would become horribly snarled up should any piece of it try to become internally hegemonic and tyrannical.

Deudney’s study ends appropriately in 1861; the year the Civil War began. The Civil War spelled the beginning of the end of the American experiment in negarchy as the sovereignty of the States was nullified by the Federal government through force of arms. By expropriating the States’ right the leave the Union, the Federal Government transformed the status of the State from equal to subservient to the Federal Government, and power and responsibility have been continuously flowing from State capitals to Washington ever since.

Many Americans justify their pride in our country by claiming that we have the best, freest system in the world. However, when looking at that system through the lens of the “long memory”, we must acknowledge that it has been slowly degenerating and is now far from what its founders intended. While people quarrel over whether or not the checks and balances within the Federal Government are deteriorating, they are usually blind to the very existence of the vertical checks, which have degraded to the point where any assertion of State sovereignty to counter Federal tyranny is considered either treasonous or absurd.

The degeneration of the American system is both discouraging and tragic, but for those of us with long memories, I believe working to help others to “remember” its intended role is a vital task. To do so would revive peoples’ sense of themselves as actors in the stream of history, and would bring legitimacy to the cause of utilizing Vermont’s state sovereignty as a method with which to resist our government’s economic and foreign policy shortsightedness and irrationality. A population with long memories would transform the independence movement from a fringe of the disaffected into a political and social force to be reckoned with. To accomplish this, I see a few ways forward. These tactics are by no means exhaustive, and many more can be found in the pages of the Vermont Commons.

In journalism and politics, we should endeavor to frame State/Federal relations as oppositional. When questioning candidates for State office, we should ask them what important powers the State of Vermont has and what they will do in their prospective roles as elected officials to prevent the Federal Government from encroaching upon them. If independence minded Vermonters decide to run for office, they should make the preservation and reclamation of State power from the Federal Government a cornerstone of their campaigns. At the moment people have been trained to view the relationship between the Federal Government and the States as that of master to servant; the Federal Government gives block grants to the States and the States administer them, changing their laws to conform to the various strings attached. The result is that all most people hear about is the two entities working together, and thus perceive that relationship to be the natural order of things. If an oppositional rather than cooperative relationship is regularly introduced into public discourse, the question of State versus Federal power might be reopened in many minds.

Such strategies might bring somewhat greater legitimacy to the independence platform in the short term by helping people to identify an erstwhile forgotten dynamic of the American system, but it will not, in and of itself, lay the foundation for a long-term shift in attitudes. What is needed to effect that is a wholesale revival of the Long Memory in the people of Vermont. The immediate gratification of working towards this might not be apparent for independence activists, as it will not instantly create roving bands of hard-line secessionists. Instead, it will foster individuals who can engage meaningfully with our past and see themselves as actors rather than as passive objects within the stream of history. As the number of people seeing history as a forward- rather than backward-looking process grows into a critical mass, the number of people willing to engage with the idea of secession within both the contexts past and present will expand concurrently. The task of convincing them that independence is the right answer for the present circumstances would remain, but folks with long memories would be able to listen to and consider the arguments rather than simply regurgitating the “fact” that the Civil War answered the question of secession and calling anyone who disputes that crazy. Until we can overcome the (all too common) latter mindset, the secession movement can never grow beyond a fringe because only a fringe of people are willing to honestly engage with the subject.

It’s easy to abstractly call for a revival of historical consciousness in the whole population of a State, but how might we accomplish it? Most people don’t have the time or resources to become professional historians, and those who identify as historians seem to spend far more time uncovering esoteric historical minutiae and debating amongst themselves than they do spreading an appreciation of history to the larger society. As such, people who want to see a revival of the long memory shouldn’t look for much guidance from on high in the ivory tower, but should instead begin the process of reconstructing the pasts of the institutions of their daily lives.

A brief example of what I mean can be found in my workplace, which was unionized at some point in the 1980s. Our contract came up for negotiation this year, and we realized that, as a group, we couldn’t even remember the nature of our proposals to management from when the previous contract was negotiated a mere three years ago. We did a bit of digging and talked to the old representative, and gradually got a sense for what has transpired in previous negotiations. In the process, we as a group got a feel for where the organization has been, what how it has changed over time, and what sorts of struggles have emerged again and again. As a result of this process, our perception of our union deepened, and our negotiations were re-framed from a wrangle over the conditions of the moment to one more event in a long historical continuum that has many past parallels. The difference between this mindset and the mindset which can engage with the call for independence is merely one of scale; the processes are virtually identical.

I therefore call upon all independence minded Vermonters to begin the process of reclaiming the past in their own lives. Start remembering where your work, union, church, school, and family have come from, and share that process with those with whom you share those institutions. In the short term, the benefits are great, as knowing the origins of the things in your life can profoundly deepen your understanding of both those things themselves, as well as your relationship to them. In the long term, however, the benefits are even greater. In the process of providing the opportunity for those around you to understand their history, you’ll be helping to rebuild a responsible, thoughtful citizenry who can honestly and competently engage with the deep crises facing our crumbling Republic.

For two weekends (June 27-28 & July 4-5^th) the Severn Valley Railway (SVR) goes back in time when it hosts its annual 1940’s weekend. Ironically, it was during the 1940’s that passenger traffic on the SVR started to dwindle, largely as a result of the motor car. However, it was in 1963 that the line was finally closed, with the track north of Bridgnorth dismantled.

Seeing everyone in 1940’s dress really brings the line back to life.

Local Invasion Committee, Bewdley Station © John Powell BPE3

After an un-eventful visit (photographically) to Bewdley Station on the Saturday, I decided to pay a visit to Highley Station on the Sunday.  Not knowing the layout of the station or what to expect when I got there, my only plan of action was to be at the ready as soon as an opportunity presented itself, I didn’t won’t to go home empty handed again.

All American Sweetheart © John Powell BPE3

The good thing is all these people love dressing up and playing the part, if you ask them nicely none of them will decline your request for a picture or two.

Luftwaffe Aces, © John Powell BPE3

If the weather holds well, I’ll be off to Kidderminster Station next, for part two of this report.

Probably the biggest blow to the Vermont independence movement came in 2007 with the League of the South controversy. Sparked by a Southern Poverty Law Center report on Second Vermont Republic’s ties to the League of the South, and fanned by an anonymous blog and an assortment of Vermont bloggers, the controversy focused most of the Vermont political blogosphere discourse around whether or not SVR founder Thomas Naylor is a closet racist and whether SVR is a front for the a modern white supremacist/neo-confederate agenda.

This controversy has had the unfortunate (or intended?) effect of closing off discussion of the many important issues that Naylor and others in the independence camp have brought up. The accusation of racism is one of the most effective ways to delegitimize an individual or idea in modern American society, and in this case it has been utilized to effectively narrow the range of acceptable discourse around sustainability and decentralism among Vermont’s intellectuals. It’s okay to discuss buying local, and maybe even peak-oil; but heaven forfend one brings up the unsustainability of the Federal Government (both in terms of its scale and its fiscal policies). Only racists like Thomas Naylor talk about that stuff.

The thing that strikes me as most disappointing about this whole state of affairs is that it seems that some those most eagerly attacking SVR are actually folks who value decentralism. Therefore, I’d be curious to know what people (particularly the GMD crew) think of the independence question divorced from personality-based attacks on Naylor. For anti-Naylor folks who support it in principle, it seems to me that the intellectually honest thing to do is to start a rival organization that takes the critiques of the last few years into account; for those who oppose secession in principle, I urge you to argue the real meat of the issues at hand rather than fixating on a thoroughly beaten straw-man.

What I personally understand SVR and the Middlebury institute to be doing is working to build a sort of meta-secessionist movement with the purpose of legitimizing the idea of secession in America, divorced from any particular set of political values. Because of the Civil War, we have the knee-jerk reaction of associating secession with slavery, but anyone with more than a cursory knowledge of world history know that there have been countless example of justifiable and progressive political dissolution (the breakup of the Soviet Union being but one instance). This total association of the Civil War with secession in the American political consciousness has become a source of Federal Legitimacy which reifies the narrative of American History as a story of continuous centralization. As a result, Americans seem to have forgotten that, in our own case as in the case of other countries, governments and nations are merely structures created by human beings. The knowledge of this means that, when they become abusive or decadent, we have the responsibility to deal with those issues head on rather than retreating into the comfortable myths of nationhood. It’s really easy to play the guilt by association and character assassination games; it’s much harder to take on the immense problems we now face and attempt to determine through discourse what needs to be done.

NOTA DE REDACCIÓN: Aquí en este espacio, no se justifican los actos de violencia, simplemente se explica qué es lo que realmente pasa. Me manifiesto en contra de las acciones que aquí se describen, pero creo que hasta ahora nadie ha contado las cosas “como son”.

No pertenezco a niguna “barra brava”, aunque siempre que mi Alianza viene a chiclayo voy al Comando Svr por que me gusta saltar todo el partido alentando a mi equipo, por que me gusta cantar y cantar hasta salir afónico, por que me gusta la sensación de hermandad que se vive al interior de esa tribuna… sensación que sólamente quienes somos hinchas de Alianza, Universitario o Sport Boys podemos describir.

Ser parte del Comando Svr o de la Trinchera Norte, no siempre es ser un delincuente, pues ahí convergen desde alumnos universitarios, profesores, ingenieros, empresarios, etc… y siempre ha sido así.

Lamentablemente, seamos sinceros en decir que la violencia cada vez más se apodera de la “Trinchera” y de “Comando”… pero no nace ahí… sino que los malos hinchas la llevan, y contra eso, nosotros los que somos los que vamos al estadio a alentar, no podemos hacer nada.

¿Qué significa una banderola para el Comando Svr o para la Trinchera Norte?

Una banderola… NO ES “cualquier trapo pintado” una banderola es la identificación y el compromiso que tu tienes con la barra, con tus “hermanos” de equipo… es un símbolo que representa la grandeza que tienes como organización.

Una banderola es tu carnet de identidad frente a la barra a la cual uno pertenece.

La gente que lleva la banderola no es cualquier persona, es una persona que está dispuesta a entregar su vida misma con tal que no se la quiten… es alguien que tiene que caer primero antes que los barristas del equipo contrario se la quiten…

El grupo, dentro de toda la barra, que lleve las banderolas es respetado, y tiene como obligación NUNCA dejar que se las quiten… sea como sea, las tiene que defender..

Por eso son los problemas que se han originado a la interna de la Trinchera Norte, por que les han quitado su bandera más importante…

Imagínense las que se arman por banderolas pequeñas, ahora, si es la banderola principal que identifica no a un grupito sino a toda la barra… pues el responsable de esa banderola “perdió”, como se dice comúnmente.

Las broncas de la Trinchera

Aquí se ha generado un problema enorme, el cual la Policía Nacional del Perú no ha sabido manejar. Obviamente al haber perdido su banderola principal, la Trinchera Norte iba a experimentar división pues otros grupos intentarían sacar a los responsables de pasar esa verguenza de haber perdido su símbolo.

Esto, no pudo controlar la policía… ¿cómo es posible que hayan sólo un grupo de 9 policías “cuidando” a mas de 500 barristas en el Partido U – GALVEZ al interior de la Tribuna Norte del Monumental?

Aún sabiendo que la Trinchera Norte responsabiliza a la Policía Nacional del Perú de haber vendido las banderolas a los del Comando Svr… eso fue una irresponsabilidad y un abuso contra los pobres policías que recibieron golpes y sufrieron heridas de gravedad.

La mentira de la Dirigencia y de la Ministra del Interior

Hoy Domingo 31 supuestamente la Policía Nacional del Perú entregaría las banderolas que el Comando Svr tenía en su poder… yo me quedé sorprendido con la noticia, pues nunca pensé que se recuperarían esas banderas, pues las mismas ya no deben encontrarse ni en lima, y es más es posible que hasta hayan salido del país.

El twitter de Perú21, lanzó una foto en la que supuestamente “dirigentes” de la Trinchera Norte quemaban la famosa banderola “por que ya estaba contaminada por haber caído en manos de los del Comando Svr”… juuuat??

Posteriormente, por el Twitter de Peru.com me entero de la novedad… y paso a ver el video que ellos subieron a internet… véanlo a continuación…

¿Vieron lo pequeño del “paquete” que supuestamente es la Gigantesca banderola de la Trinchera Norte cuando los policías se las entregan a los barristas presentes?

Por Favor, compárenla con esta foto donde se ve el real tamaño de esa banderola…

Es IMPOSIBLE que semejante tela haya sido reducida al poquito que se ve en el video y en la foto.

Entonces me puse a “chismear” qué decían los de la Trinchera Norte… y me doy con esta sorpresa… un Comunicado de la Trinchera Norte reconociendo que esa no era la tela original…!!! (Lee el Comunicado 003 – 2009 aquí)

Inclusive algunos medios periodísticos informaron que la Trinchera Norte quemó la banderola por considerarla “INDIGNA” después de haber estado en manos de la gente del Comando Svr… ¿juuuat?

Señores de los medios, primero sepan lo que es una bandera para una barra… Una banderola del equipo rival es un gran trofeo… es algo para tomarse fotos, para guardarla como un gran tesoro… Uno nunca sale a pasear con un “trofeo”

Una banderola perdida es un trofeo para el rival… pero una bandera recuperada es más trofeo para los dueños…!

Inclusive el portal Peru.com informa lo siguiente:

Según el jefe de la Dirección de Investigación Criminal, general Eusebio Félix Murga, la banderola fue encontrada este domingo en la madrugada (1:00 am.), cerca de la avenida Isabel La Católica y Abtao. Todo hace indicar que barristas de Alianza Lima estaban trasladando su preciado ‘trofeo de guerra’, pero al ver a los efectivos la dejaron abandonada.

Totalmente falso…!!! Ningún barrista hace eso…!!! Jamás verán a un grupo de la Trinchera Norte abandonar una banderola aliancista, y mucho menos al Comando Svr abandonando “esa banderola” crema…!!!

1. ¿¿Quieren hacer creer que la banderola estuvo en La Victoria?? Mentira…!!! trofeos tan importantes como éste está súper escondido, con guardianes y todo, gente que anda con armas y que tienen montado todo un servisio de inteligencia, gente que es capaz de guardar esa banderola en el lugar menos pensado del planeta…!!!
2. Esa banderola puede estar en alguna casa “pituca” en La Molina, en Miraflores… o en algún barrio de Cerro de Pasco o de Tumbes… inclusive podría estar en Brasil, en Chile, en Bolivia, en Ecuador… pero menos en La Victoria…!!
3. Inclusive es posible que el Comando Svr haya quemado o roto o trozado esa enorme banderola… La información que apareció en la mayoria de medios de comunicación masivo es totalmente falso.

Ahora, pregúntense…

1. Sra. Mercedes Cabanillas, por qué obligaron a la policía a hacer este ridículo de ofrecer una réplica de la banderola?
2. Será acaso para intentar cubrir la ineficacia suya al mando de ese Ministerio?
3. Quiere usted aparecer como la salvadora del país frente a la violencia?
4. O es que simplemente hizo lo mismo que hace el gobierno de su partido político, que es esconder y maquillas los problemas?
5. Qué harán ahora con el nuevo probema que se generará entre la Trinchera Norte y la Policía Nacional del Perú?

Lo peor de todo, es que Alianza viene en 2 semanas a Chiclayo… y la policía no puede cubrir las peleas entre los del Comando Svr y los barrios cremas…!!

¿¿¿O acaso creen que es un problema exclusivo de Lima???

]]> http://dprogram.net/2009/05/25/regime-change-georgias-rose-revolution-fades-to-black/ Mon, 25 May 2009 18:22:10 +0000 sakerfa http://dprogram.net/2009/05/25/regime-change-georgias-rose-revolution-fades-to-black/