Blogs

This all started when I happened across a post on the site Infendo. The hot topic right now is Super Smash Bros.: Brawl. Greatly anticipated Wii title not just because it's an awesome game, but it's the expansion of an awesome franchise into an online world. We haven't had much in the way of fighting games that play online anyway, which is a genre that at it's core is catered to multiple players. Many fighting games include a single player aspect as an afterthought. You'd think fighters and online would go hand in hand, but it just hasn't been happening. Nintendo's foray into online gaming hasn't gone smoothly however, and Smash Bros. online reminds me of trying to play Quake 1 over mPlayer on a 14.4 baud modem. For you kids who have only known broadband, that's nerd talk for "criminally slow."

People are asking a lot of questions, they just want things to work. So enter Infendo, trying to bring some rationality or explination to the table from an outsider's perspective:

"This has been Nintendo’s plan all along. The ironic thing about it all? It’s going to work. ... As a company that exists to make money, Nintendo has sought to remake gaming in its image. Eventually, this will include online play."

And in this statement the article stops just short of calling Nintendo the reincarnation of the Lord Jesus Christ. I've been playing with power since 1986, and I'm as big a self professed Nintendo fan as anyone. But come the fuck on. It's broken on purpose? Now you're just being ignorant.

The population is starting to compare the Blindly Patriotic American to the Extremist Zealot Muslim. To the outside it seems as if the slightest insult against America will incur the wrath of a thousand men, a thousand bombs, and a hundred thousand lives. Even on the inside the slightest hint of dissent against the machine is met with rabid patriototic ferocity. A foaming mouth of red white a blue, gnashing star spangled teeth.

I don't understand why people have a hard time understanding it.

Or: How I Learned To Stop Worrying and Love Instant Runoff Voting

Much speculation and analysis has been made about the 2000 Presidential Election. The bitterly contested election is still the subject of much fervent debate, especially among Democrats. Given the wide dissatisfaction felt for the current administration, especially among those who supported Al Gore in 2000, it's no surprise that the subject of the would-be Gore presidency in 2000 still stirs such anger and controversy. Some good has come from this debate, as old ideas such as the necessity for the Electoral College in a modern age of universal suffrage and new ideas such as electronic voting have been called into question and analyzed. As voting is one of the few means we, as citizens, have for directly influencing the government, it is important that the aspects of voting be closely monitored, analyzed, and understood.

While I, too, would have much preferred a Gore presidency over the current administration, there is one aspect of the debate where my fellow Gore supporters have erred: the false belief that Ralph Nader "robbed" Al Gore of the election. A minority of Democrats feel that Mr. Nader's and the Green Party's platform of strong environmental protection too closely encroached on Mr. Gore's strong environmental policy, thus "splitting" the votes of environmentalists, a group that traditionally votes with the Democrats. Due to the extremely slim margin needed for Gore to win Florida, a shift in a small number of Green Party voters would have given Mr. Gore the presidency.

There was a time when the advocates of socialism argued that it would lead man to material abundance, whereas free-market capitalism would lead only to increasing misery and would ultimately collapse under its own internal stresses. You don't hear that too much these days, and for good reason. A century of empirical evidence has shown the contrary — that the free market leads to increasing wealth and material freedom, while socialism leads us only to poverty, state supremacy, and ultimately, mass murder.

While glancing over Digg this morning, I happened upon a post that linked to a blog entry entitled, "Got a problem? Ask the public schools to solve it!" The blog post refers to an article that appeared in the September 2007 edition of Harper's Magazine entitled, "Schoolhouse Crock: Fifty Years of Blaming America's Educational System for Our Stupidity", written by Peter Schrag. The blog post asserts that one of the four major points of the article is that the "[p]ublic education system is trying to do something unprecedented" by "educat[ing] every child — regardless of race, creed, socio-economic level, family background or mental and physical challenges." I found it absurd that a nationwide magazine would publish a story stating that America's free public education was "unprecedented" in a world where other countries offer free college education. As such, I immediately went out and bought a copy of Harper's to see if this was the case.

After reading the actual article, I must say that the blog entry misses the point of the article entirely. Mr. Schrag's piece goes far beyond the four simple 'important points' the post identifies. Furthermore, the first 'important point' presented by the post, the one that motivated me to purchase the magazine to begin with, is completely inaccurate. Mr. Schrag never expresses an idea that what the American educational system is doing is anything extraordinary. Nearly every industrialized country in the world offers its citizens free education, with many offering them a free college education as well. To state that the US public school system is doing something unique and "unprecedented" by educating all of its citizens, is, at best, ignorant, and at worse, is a gross misinterpretation of the article and represents a dangerous America-centric world view that ignores the achievements of other countries. After reading Mr. Schrag's article, I can say this 'important point' is never made in the article.

In light of last Friday's discount rate cut made by the Federal Reserve to sooth the nerves of traders and mortgage brokers, a question returned to my mind. This question has puzzled me for quite some time, disturbing my slumber since I was old enough to grasp the seemingly subtle, yet ultimately obvious interaction between business, the government, and people:

Why has America developed an inverted social democracy: a democracy which values the welfare of corporations and other juristic persons¹ far more than that of real persons?

On the morning of March 17th 2007, I sat at work doing what has become part of my after lunch routine. I surfed Digg, to learn the news, events, and concerns of the public. The democracy of Digg creates an interesting environment to show you what is important in the eyes of the people; the treasure hunt aspect of Digg creates this wild world full of things you didn't even know were on the Internet. A giant scavenger hunt of ideas, stories, blogs, and everything.

This morning was different. We didn't get any stories of Wii Sports: Bowling Robots, or essays on Why I love RPG Towns. No, today tucked away in the corner of the Upcoming Stories section, I spot this headline: American Girl Place store employee humiliates 6 year old girl. Intrigued, I ponder about what this click could contain. I mean, who humiliates a six year old girl? Just, who does that? What kind of empty depraved human takes time out of their day to bring down a six year old? Also, what the hell is an American Girl Place? We don't have these high society things in Iowa. Full of questions, I tunnel down the rabbit hole.

I’ve struggled with how to frame this article – and indeed, the purpose of this website. It’s gone through several rounds of iteration between Bitterman, Dirac, and I – and it will probably go through more. I’m going to attempt to answer the question, “Why is RoadToFailure here?”

We want to do our part to stop the self-destruction of America.

Perhaps it’s easiest to understand our purpose by hearing what this site was almost called: “Don’t Be a Fuck”. Tired of reading demagogues and hucksters such as David Broder or Robert Kiyosaki exploit a misinformed public, we were going to keep a running commentary on these scammers in an attempt to show the truth. Our goal would have been to help people become happier (and thus, not turn into “Fucks”) by steering them away from propagandists and “advice” given in bad faith. We’re still doing that, but we’ve adopted a larger scope...the threats to Freedom and Democracy.