I decided to take this game out on a test drive to see what it's like. To start off the game brings nothing new to the table, it's another free version of Counter-Strike with only one new mode; Ghost Mode. Basically what it is, is that the mercenaries are ghosted so they can only be seen when they are moving. In addition they only have a knife and knives in this game are one shot kill. The game doesn't seem to have any huge issues with the exception of keeping servers balanced. You could be in a Team Deathmatch game and it would be a six on three match and the game won't balance out the teams. Other than that the game is pretty solid, a big improvement from other Counter-Strike-esque games like Solider Front, Combat Arms and WarRock.

I see alot of misconception among alot of user reviews I have seen on various game websites. People off the bat should realize that Uprising wasn't billed as a regular expansion. The game was advertised as a stand-alone with mini-campaigns and no multiplayer. Uprising was priced accordingly at $19.99 from the EA store if the game was $29.99 then I could understand the anger but that wasn't the case.

Personally I found it fun and entertaining, I didn't go into it expecting the expansion to wow me, I typically never do. Expansions are just that, expansions. They bring a few new features to the already existing game, close story loopholes (sometimes) and thats it. The one feature that really stood out was the Commander's Challenge which you have to do from start to finish in each challenge since you cannot save and finish at a later date. If your looking for a decent add-on to Red Alert 3 this would be it but if your looking for something to blow you away, wait for a full expansion if one will come out of course.

Maybe I was asleep during this part in my economics classes but when did increasing taxes on our most successful people help out the entire nation? One of the biggest reasons people start their own business is to make money and have a better life for themselves. If the rich have to pay more for being more productive then they will be less productive in order to avoid paying the high taxes. When those who create the jobs choose to be less productive because of high taxes it usually leads to lay offs and passing those costs back onto the consumer. Not only does it put more people out of work but consumer goods become hard to buy when the prices are jacked up.

Why must Obama and his cohorts punish success? He current excuse is
that he has to help those who are feeling great pain by the current
economic climate. Some people think he is just stupid and doesn't know the basics about economics. Personally I don't, the main basis of liberal economic policies is that the private sector can't be trusted or at the very least the private sector can't help the public enough. Their polices seek to hinder the private sector so much that eventually people realize that it's more of a pain to run a business than it's worth. When jobs in the private sector dry up then the government steps in whether it be local, state or federal. When the government creates jobs it creates more of a burden for the tax payer. Since it is the tax payer that pays the wages of civil servants regardless of position. People tend to take civil service jobs when the economy is tight because it's guaranteed work. While I have no problem with civil service, hey it's a job my main problem is that people become entrenched with these jobs and won't find a job in the private sector. Civil service jobs were designed for those who can't find work (disabled, elderly, etc) in the private sector not for those who won't find work elsewhere. When you depend on the government for work your less likely to criticize it's policies and it's actions. Becoming...

It has been reported that Christian Theocrat James Dobson has resigned as chairman of Focus on the Family. Focus on the Family's modus operandi since its founding thirty years ago has been to support religious and socially conservative politicians who will legislate morality to the public. From the articles I have read this really doesn't signal much other one fundamentalist steps down and another one will take his place.

With the current state of the economy most other issues have taken a back seat in the minds of most Americans. One issue that does tie into the economy would be the drug war. In the past many have proved that the Drug War has been nothing but a toilette for tax payer funds to be flushed down. While it doesn't seem that the national policy will be changing anytime soon with the Obama Administration there can be work done on the local level. I was contacted earlier today by a man who was in a Ron Paul meet up group I joined up with during the election season. He was interested in building a joint Libertarian-Conservative coalition in order to get cannabis in all it's forms decriminalized in the state of New York. We in New York still have that draconian Rockefeller Drug laws which can be explained here in the wiki article. Governor Patterson has said publicly that the Rockefeller Drug laws have been nothing but a failure but has yet to make any statements or actions beyond that. It seems that the good Governor will need a push in order to take action on these laws. I intend to join this organization in order to give my Governor the push that he needs. Although this is a group intended to reform laws in New York state, outside help is always welcome.

http://www.nycamp.org/cap.html

While that clusterfuck the Fairness Doctrine is still being whispered about in Washington another medium had gained a decent victory yesterday. Yesterday the Ninth District appeals court had ruled the video games are also protected by the First Amendment. The Gaming industry has been attack by big government liberals, social and religious conservatives for years. Sadly like clockwork they attack them after some horrible school shooting. It's always the same strawman arguments too; 1. Makes children violent, 2. De-sensitizes them to violence and so on. For people that actually think these arguments don't work and studies have proved many of these arguments false. In reality in all the evils that video games supposedly cause (along with the rest of the entertainment industry for that matter) all boils down to parenting. Parents are responsible for what their kids are exposed to day in and day out. Last time I checked it wasn't my job to keep an eye on my neighbor's kid. Of course these days it's easier to go after those who have deep pockets and squeeze cold hard cash out of them because of the supposed psychological damage that their product cause their child. Just like guns don't kill people, people kill people video games don't make kids go insane, kids go insane.

Here is the URL to the PDF File

http://www.videogamevoters.org/resources/CA_9th_Ruling.pdf

While it's always refreshing to see a Republican taking a stance against the religious/social conservative base this one is especially interesting. Governor Huntsman is a member of the Church of Latter Day Saints aka the modern day Mormon church. Those who remember the LDS church and it's members were overwhelmingly supporting Proposition 8 in California. Proposition 8 was designed to reinstate the ban on same sex marriages that the Californian Supreme Court overturned back in late summer time. As most people know Proposition 8 did pass in November although there are current challenges to it's legality of being on the ballot in the first place.

One can look at Huntsman change of heart in a few different ways. One can dismiss this as just hot air for the following reasons. In the very conservative state of Utah the chances of even a civil union bill being passed through the state legislator is very small. Rumors float the Huntsman might make a run for President in 2012 and is just pandering. The last reason would be that Huntsman can't legally run for a third term so taking a side on a issue that many religious and social conservatives oppose wouldn't matter to him politically. These are pretty good reasons to believe that Huntsman doesn't believe what he says. I don't blame them either, especially how this does smell of a Mit Romney redux move. Romney was Governor of Massachusetts when gay marriage became legal in that state. He took a lot of flak for it when he campaigned for President this past cycle. Low and behold as soon as he started to campaign for the Presidency his views on gay marriage changed in split seconds. If Romney didn't pull that flip flop along with a whole host of others I probably would've voted for him instead of Ron Paul but whatever. Personally I'm going to take a wait in see attitude to Huntsman. Huntsman does bring a lot to the table economically wise and does have presidential material written on him but only time will tell.

First of all, all New Yorkers should be proud that Governor Patterson did not buy into the nepotism that is the Clinton, Cuomo and Kennedy families. Patterson did something that is rare in New York state politics and in politics in general; he thought independently. This was a decent breath of fresh air, considering a few weeks ago he signed off on some new "fat taxes" in order to address the state's budge problems.

Kristen Gillibrand represented New York's 20th District in the House of the Representatives. She was currently on her second term as a member of the house. She has a 100% rating from the NRA, a 100% rating from the ACLU, believes in gay rights and was one of the few Democrats in New York to slam Former Governor Eliot Spitzer when he proposed to give driver's licenses to illegal aliens. According to her Wikipedia entry she is also a Blue Dog Democrat, which is a Democrat that believes in sane economic polices. Gillibrand is my kind of Democrat and I am proud to say that she is my senator. The question remains if she will run for a full senate term in 2012 but that would also depend on how good of a job she does. She has the potential to be a good senator especially after the fool that has been representing the state the past eight years. Only time will tell.

Well the Giants lost today to the Eagles so they won't be defending their Super Bowl title. I always hate this time of year in sports. I don't like Hockey, I don't like Basketball and Baseball doesn't start till March. They had a good season overall though.

I really haven't been paying much attention to the whole Israel/Hamas situation because I really don't care. I'm neither an Israeli, a Jew, an Arab or a Muslim so my concern for what goes on in that powder keg that is the Middle East is next to nothing. The reason I am even writing about it today is because there was a protest against Israel at the job today. I didn't even notice it at first, until I wondered why there were so many cars in the parking lot. Then my answer came in the form of all the people with "We stand with Gaza" signs on the side of the road.

My stance on this current episode of the Israel/Arab conflict is that Israel has it's full sovereign right to defend itself against any attack on it's land and people. Hamas had a truce with Israel and they broke it so they have to reap what they sowed, or as my boss puts it "you poke us with a stick, we hit you with a mallet". My view on the conflict as a whole is that we as a nation need to stay out of it. Let the Israeli's and the Palestinains kill each other and God can sort them out. In addition after seeing time and time again how Israel can take care of itself I believe there is no need to keep giving them foreign aid. This also falls into my general view of foreign policy is that the US tax payer shouldn't have to subsidize other countries.

The groups that believe that we should intervene on Israel's behalf would be;

1. The Fundamentalist Christian Right
2. Neoconservatives
3. AIPAC

Now if you want to support another country for whatever reason, I have no problem with that. My problem is those who want the rest of us to do it with them with our hard earned tax money. America needs to take care of it's own people within it's own borders and no longer be the nanny to the world we cannot afford it anymore.