Hannis Media Group |
ZAM TV - La Quotidienne - HebdoMag - Balancing Point Publishers |
Connect Yourself™ |
The Weekly Magazine |
I've made the decision to edit only when I have something to say. The name will be kept, as an estimation of the intervals between essays, but I will not promise to keep this weekly journal weekly per se. I'm not going to say something if I have not had the time to see something worth mentioning, had the time to contemplate on it, and then write it out. I hope, dear readers, that you understand. Quite recently a series of fraudulent cases involving Marcus Villanova and Pierlot McCrooke, both of the Walden party at the time of the event, have led me to be quite ashamed of my membership in these parties. Soon after these events, I contemplated my options, and hence got to thinking of alternative options. I am not in power to change Walden; McCandless, during the time of my absence, decided to make Martha van Ghent the person of power, a decision that is currently proving to be a very, very bad one. Here I'll describe the results of my albeit short contemplation on the subject. The main idea to the perfect party in my eyes, which I will refer to as a party in general, is that it is not a true party. Seymon briefly mentioned recently how parties lead to division in the nation. However, because of the independence of parties and defined government, it is impossible to remove them unless they serve more as a conspiracy against the nation (as did the IGP). My alternative theoretically fixes this problem. Though we might call division and labeling by parties just a separation, the UN has a different term for it: the first stage of genocide. It's when we divide the nation into “us” and “them” that we basically become a nation divided. This is where I hope to fix things. The party I describe is, unlike others, an organization that specifically targets disagreements between people and finds a solution. Though we may all have different approaches, we do everything we do to reach the ultimate goal: happiness. This leads me to one of the ideals of the perfect party: utilitarianism. An action should create as much happiness to the most people as possible. If an action does not do this, it must be repealed and if necessary replaced. Our fundamental goal is happiness, and every step of the way we should generate it. Division leads to being discontent (hence unhappy) with others (just as they do the same to you), and slows things down; a generic lose-lose situation. The solution is to create a party that could accept everyone. It is possible, believe me. To name just one example, the French UMP, or Union for a Popular Movement; this party has parties ranging from national conservatives to socialist social liberals, classical progressives to Christian democrats, even the French radicals are associated with this party. If they can do it, why not us? My proposition is a party that accepts anyone that supports our fundamental ideal for happiness, and accepting of others. Let me be clear that if a person is corrupt or intolerant of others (the IGP may come to mind), then they are not agreeing with our ideal, and hence not acceptable. The idea of the party is that it accepts anyone who is capable of accepting its ideals, and that this party could negotiate quietly within itself in a different environment than the one we see in Congress today: people clashing ideas against each other. The main problem with Congress is that things are rarely really discussed when there's a real disagreement! The point of the party would be that we would understand each other, and not be afraid of announcing opinions, but also be willing to change our points of view. The party would not be pointless bickering. Everything would be considered honestly. Each side has its positive and negative elements, and together they would discuss, note that this is not arguing, the best solution. We can all be happy, we can all thrive. There's no doubt about that. The only problem is that in this world, there's rarely a “we.” It's all about “us” and “them”; the only way progress will be made is if the boundaries of political parties are removed, and we think in basic terms, and reach a logical consensus. Edward Hannis, 11/29/10 I'd like to first off apologize for over two weeks with nothing published. I'm afraid that internet difficulties, as well as prior engagements to activities has led me to be largely inactive. However, I do believe that for the time being I will be able to devote a stronger amount of time to Lovia. A concept that many societies recognize widely is the concept of separation of church and state. I believe that Lovia, in being a wiki-nation, should have a similar differentiation. As DimiTalen once vaguely mentioned, he is criticized whenever taking action without the consent of the users of the site. It is important that people recognize a very important difference between the King and the Administrator. As I have aforementioned in what is now the most infamous article of HebdoMag (one I must now confess I didn't think to be all too revolutionary), I do not support the king at all. However, I do support the creator of the wiki, and his natural power. The differences in power between the king and administrator (administrator here meaning creator of the site) may be slightly vague and not clear-cut, but I do believe that they are clear enough to make an obvious distinction. Though the king does not have a right to power, DimiTalen does. Keep in mind that this a wiki, not an actual nation! If the administrator cannot take action on his own, he is not administrator. DimiTalen has taken many actions to prove that he is not ready to be making decisions quickly and without discussion (for example in his decision to make a Site Council), but yet the current situation is that he cannot make decisions freely. Take into example if there was a vandal on this site (not really hypothetical, unfortunately enough). On most wiki, this vandal would be taken care of in at most 12 hours. Yet, on this site it would take multiple days for action to take place. Take into account Horton11. This user, who now has effectively stopped (and is now a very helpful member of this nation), was performing mass-editing on the site, racking up a thousand edits impossibly fast without responding to our warnings. And yet, as DimiTalen has made blocks, many members (who I do not feel need to be mentioned) had criticized him. The creator of this site should otherwise be free to take any action desired without having to discuss it, but in this wiki it is not the case. Though I do not want to sound imposing, the correct expression to display the current problem is that the people is looking a gift horse in the mouth. Your right to be able to argue in your favor, to have a site council, to have an extremely strong separation of powers is an extraordinary gift. Do not challenge it. DimiTalen is entitled to power by creating the site, to spend more time working on it than anyone else, fixing up all the things we have done wrong. The logical counter-argument is that DimiTalen, like a king, has no right. The truth is that this is not the case. DimiTalen has the most edits on this site, created the majority of the site from scratch, got the the ball rolling for us. If DimiTalen were never here, this site would not be here, or at least in the quality that is in. Fictitious nations have been attempted, and most have failed. Lovia has not, and you can thank your administrator for that. Edward Hannis, 11/15/10 “We rounded you up and put your backs against the wall so that the firing squad could deal with you. Or we would hang you from the highest tree we could find. That is what traitors deserve.” These words, from Drabo Doorian, radical member of the Iron Guard Party, are horrendous words. However, with criminal activities become larger, there is a question that must be asked: what do we do when all else goes wrong? In the United States, a country known to be a role-model for the application of the ideas of those of the Enlightenment, a system Lovia is based upon (examples of this include the concept of branches of government, power of the people, and adapted enlightened despotism), has a solution to this, one that Lovia has not yet found an answer to: martial law. Martial law is the last straw for a nation, and one that is very dangerous to apply. In cases of internal instability, the military is used to control to people. The usage of martial law has never been popular when used, and is typical of radical government leaders when they want to make their power stronger. The problem can be summarized the common proverb: “Power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely.” What are the options? For Lovia, there are only three: to introduce martial law into Lovia, to rely on external forces to help in time of need, or to not do anything on the basis that there is no real threat. All three decisions are arguably correct, but, of course, there is a best option. The final argument, that there is no problem, and hence no solution necessary, is one that must answered first, and to most people, should be the first question to ask. In this case, there is a problem. Let's not forget the bad memories Lovia has, the revolutions it has had to shut down. The independence of Oceana, the Anti-Cabal movement, and more recently, the conflict between self-important Juan Xavi and the controversial Baron of Donia. The belief that the government is weak is made clear in Xavi's statement, posted in The Messenger: “In this far away region, no government dares to intervene.” Remember that Xavi here refers to the Emerald Highlands. There are revolutions, and ultimately, when it becomes necessary, they will have to be shut down. The revolution by pen is the only acceptable revolution; the revolution by sword must be shut down. This leaves the first two options: to do it ourselves, or get others to help. The second option seems to be the more obvious one, but there is a problem to it. Should Lovia count on others (almost certainly the US, due to proximity and sympathy), it will be forced to enter the world and break free of its isolationism, which has kept Lovia neutral. If the nation enters the world for help, others will ask for help themselves. Should the US be in a war and need economic help, it will turn to Lovia, simply stating that they helped us, so we have to help them. Let's not forget what happened the last time nations were caught in the middle of alliances: World War I. So, this leaves one last option, which has problems in itself, of course, but which can all be solved more or less. If necessary, the country would be allowed to declare martial law, and hence temporarily remove certain rights designated in Article II of the Constitution. This would mean that the government could start a draft, and force the enlistment of people should it be necessary to stop internal or external threats. The problem, of course, is abuse. This can be solved easily: congress. If congress votes on its approval, and it passes through this, then the system is basically fool-proof: Congress starts martial law, Congress or the King gets out of it. Of course, you could argue that even congress could be corrupted. If this was the case, then the nation would have already been destroyed. So, I leave you with this question: what you do if everything was in the balance? Edward Hannis, 10/29/10 My apologies for a late update. Complications with Internet led to a late uploading of this week's edition. In the past few years, one of the more unstable and independent (if I may say this with a neutral connotation) politicians in Lovia is undoubtedly Oos Wes Ilava. Founder of LOWIA, a namesake political party (now inactive), and a past member of other parties, Ilava is now the leader of a new party, the CCPL, which stands to do harm to this nation. The Conservative Christian Party of Lovia (redundant?) seems to be a party of indecisiveness and contradiction, as well as one that could seriously harm the nation. The main problem with the party is exactly what its name suggests: it is a Christian party. Parties of religion are bound to harm the nation, but this will be regarded later. First of all, one can remark that the CCPL is, at best, contradictive. The Ideology section of the CCPL's page says that it “opposes all kinds of discrimination based on religion, ancestry, appearance, gender and possession.” However, it would also later state that “they [women] are entitled to vote at elections, but may not participate in elections, as that is contradictive to the vocation of women.” Its ideology also includes that “the CCPL opposes legalization of euthanasia, abortion, prostitution, drugs, gay marriages and adoption of children by gay couples.” What does this mean? It means that the CCPL stands for a society in which women are inferior. According to their ideology, women cannot have a position in office, and do not have the right to control their own bodies. After, all let's not forget what the Bible says. “For the man is not of the woman; but the woman of the man” (1 Corinthians 11:9). The same goes for gays; they are not allowed to marry nor to adopt, as if they were a form of disease, put upon the same level as criminals. Christianity is intolerant, and so is the CCPL. The next problem with the CCPL has to do with the very fact that it is Christian. Christianity teaches things that are far worse than what CCPL has directly encouraged, but give it time and should CCPL have the power it needs to take actual stances, undoubtedly this will be the tip of the iceberg. Let's not forget what happens when you get a nation where Christians take over political realms.
There are tons of quotes from the American Taliban, an unofficial “group” (more of a “recognized dunces” of the USA) of Americans across years who have spoken out against anything but Christianity. Why? Because religion leads to hate. (See http://adultthought.ucsd.edu/Culture_War/The_American_Taliban.html) Religion, in order to survive in this world, is like a disease. Only the aggressive religions, the ones that fight and fight to stay alive, killing thousands in the process, are the ones who stay afloat. For more on this, read The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins. I previously mentioned about how religion will inevitably lead to hatred. This is because of a concept of religion, the fact that religion serves as a moral template for people. If it is used, then pure hatred is what you're worshiping. Here are a few quotes from the Bible that show to what extent it is a book of moral horrors.
The list goes on. There is too much to say, but simply reading the Bible shows the horrors itself. On a comedic note, the Bible also could not pass an elementary geometry class. According to the bible, pi equals 3.
Even the New Testament has clear errors in it. For instance, Jesus contradicts himself in an even more drastic case than what CCPL offers.
There is no rebuttal to this. Christianity believes a book of lies, contradictions, and CCPL is standing behind it. An obvious counter-argument (more of an evasion, really) is to say that CCPL does not represent itself with the Bible. Yet, it would still go on to
Among other things. If the CCPL wasn't a Christian-based religio-political group, then these things would not be enacted. It is necessary, if this CCPL wishes to be regarded with respect, and not lowered to the levels of the IGP, that it branches away from religion. Separation of church and state is necessary in an advanced society. My recommendation for the CCPL is the following:
The party is still young, and it can change, but if the CCPL wants to assure a longer survival rate in politics (an already dire one, taken its loss in the 2010 State Elections, effectively shutting it out of influence until the next congressional elections) and make it to the next elections, it must take a more reasonable stance, one that may appeal to the atheist majority. Edward Hannis, 10/23/10 Over the past week-and-a-half, the 2010 State Elections took place, and though the positions themselves have little importance, the elections did serve as a way of showing the influence of certain parties over others, and shows what to expect in future elections, especially Federal ones. The most alarming thing about these elections was the enormous influence Walden had in the entire nation, being an important candidate in all states for the entire nation, surpassing the communist party, and even the king himself. This demonstration of the power of a party over that of the monarch brings up a controversial aspect of Lovia: its monarchy. The fact of the matter is that the king must go. There is no way of hiding it. What makes the king have a right to rule? A divine right? The fact that most of Lovia is atheist begs to differ. The only reason Dimitri I is in power is because his father was, and so on and so forth. The fact that the king is in power suggests two things; a royal family, and an unequal nation. Both of these things are a poison to this nation, and eventually could cause a downfall of the monarchy, be it a peaceful one or a revolutionary one. The foremost problem, that of a royal family, can be seen in major nations nowadays. North Korea, though it does not have a monarchy, has what I'd call a blood-oligarchy. The members of a family dominate the highest roles in the nation. Lovia, similarly, has a limited change in government; father-to-son relationships (and the fact that the father will educate the son) will mean that a monarch will be the same basic person as his forerunner. The king has no right to have power. The second problem, that of an unequal nation, is partially hand-in-hand to the previous problem. Because the king will always be in a single family, everyone else has absolutely no chance of having such power. This may seem obvious, but it is a fundamental concern. The other aspect of the problem is a more subversive one. Because the monarch of this nation is always a male unless there be an untimely death or another reason that the monarch may not rule, it has a deep implication; that of a male-dominated society. All women should be insulted by the monarchy. The most common rebuttal in favor of the monarchy is that the current king is good, that the system works if the king is a good one. There are two reasons why this argument is wrong. First off, the king's son, or whomever next-of-kin may be, may not be a good ruler. In fact, nothing guarantees us that the next king won't be an idiot who sends this country into mayhem. By staying with a monarchy, we run the risk. Second off, if we do suggest that the king is truly the good person that he is, then let him prove it; play it out in an election. If the king is the best option, then he would win. A democracy guarantees that the king most favored by this nation (hence, logically the best option), whereas a monarchy guarantees nothing about the quality of a ruler. It is clear that a king is not what this country needs. We run far too many risks by keeping a monarch-based governmental institution, and we should hence try to rid ourselves of it. It is blind and dumb to believe that keeping a king in place would maintain a good government; it wouldn't. Soon enough, inevitably, one heir will be an idiot, and drive this nation into the ground, and there won't be any way out. A democracy guarantees that this will not happen; an idiot will not be elected unless the people wants an idiot, and if the people want an idiot, then this country will have long been deserted by any one of us. My proposal is a peaceful one; let me be clear when I say that I do not want a revolution. I simply ask that the people of Lovia do what is proper in this case; to petition. I suggest that Lovia stands up for its fundamental right, that of choosing who it follows, and that they stand their ground against our monarch. If the king is as good as may be suggested, then he will be elected back to the highest position we should offer; that of a leader, not a ruler. If the people of Lovia unites, then the king will step down. Of course, should this nation not yet be ready to make such a change, let us live with our current king for awhile. I hold no grudge against the monarch; in my eyes, he has done nothing wrong. Inevitably, Lovia will reach a point where they no longer want a king, but if I may say so without making a threat: making arrangements with the people now, be it addressing the problem at the least, the solution, whatever it may be, will be smooth. But should the king decide to ignore the problem, it will unavoidably be a massive problem, one that could result in war.
Edward Hannis, 10/15/10 The New Zealand countryside is typically an uneventful one, where silence is so common that the least rustle of wind is an eventful sound. However, at Rotorua, on Northern Island, this silence is broken by the sound of what would seem to be a giant's roller skates. It's actually the sound of invention and innovation, an idea that could very possibly be life-changing to about half the population of Lovia. The name of the invention is far more bizarre than the sound it makes: Shweeb, meaning 'float' or 'suspend' in German. This invention, which won Google's 10^100 contest, is a revolutionary invention that would change the way Noble City moves. Shweeb works quite simply; it's a bullet-shaped container that dangles from a monorail above it. The user lays down inside one of the containers, and pedals using the pedals inside. Using it, a user can move at speeds over 20 miles per hour, and does so using only a fifth of the energy necessary to walk at 5 miles per hour. The design is sleek and elegent, the ride comfortable, fast, and downright fun. As it would seem, the Shweeb has no downsides. It's extremely fast and easy to use; the speed limit is placed at around 25 mph (which is much higher than the average speed of a car in the city, and is enormous compared to the average speed during rush hours), and any pod going below that speed may use the collective energy of their pod and the pod behind them to generate cooperative speeds that are higher than the speeds that each individually could do. Extreme uphills could use motors to help people rise (though this system is only used if automatically detected necessary), but other than this there is no real usage of energy to run the system. Even the economic outlook is good, especially for Noble City. Taken the fact that nearly half of all pollution in Lovia comes from its capital, this system would make this much smaller. In addition, Shweeb only costs a million dollars per mile, making it half as expensive as a street the same length. Not only this, but the money made from tickets (though in theory this project could be free) and from buses or other mass-transit systems being shut down or minimized would pay for the system itself. In other words, Shweeb would be a self-sufficient system that only costs half as much as a regular road, and would make up for that price. Shweeb has not yet made any plans with any city yet, but the idea, being pushed forward by most notably by yours truly, is that this system may be introduced to Noble City. Edward Hannis, 10/8/10 |