Chuck Norris Ain't Got S@#t on Him!!!

In what very well may be the most awesome news story in the history of man, Tsutomu Yamaguchi was formally recognized by Japan as the first documented survivor of both atomic blasts, Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

In both instances, he was located at "Ground Zero," a radius of roughly 3 kilometers from the initial blast site. Perhaps the most remarkable fact regarding this story is the fact that Yamaguchi is still alive, at 93.

The first blast occurred while Yamaguchi was finishing up a business trip when he noticed a plane fly over his head. Then, out of the blue, he was knocked over with a force he had never felt before; an atomic bomb had just been dropped on Hiroshima. When he woke up, he was severely burned, was partially deaf in one ear (blew out his ear drums), and temporarily blind. The radiation caused his hair to fall out. In spite of his injuries, he returned to his home in Nagasaki two days later... just in time to relive his experience.

While talking to his supervisor, who did not believe that a single bomb could do so much damage, another atomic bomb dropped on him. Again, he was inside "Ground Zero," within 3 kilometers of the blast.

------------------------------------------------

Side Note: that has to be one of the greatest "I told you so" moments in the history of man, right? I imagine the conversation went something like this:

Boom!!! (atomic bomb drops)
Yamaguchi -- "To answer your question, something like that."

-------------------------------------------------

Today, the former engineer is enjoying retirement. His son and wife, both survivors of the second blast, have since passed, with his son dying of cancer at the age of 59.

He is also (in the mother of all "No Shit Sherlock" moments) an anti-nuclear activist.

Retro games

Given the climate of the current economy there seems to be a trend to end are ways of spending to tighten the belt.Which is a good thing but also a double edged sword, we need to consume but also stay fiscally secure. This goes for gaming as well, the video game industry was once scene as "recession proof" but in the recent months that has not been true .

I don't have the remedy for Electronic Arts and several other companies that just laid off workers. I think Electronic Arts was doing the right thing looking at the long term and creating new franchises (Dead space,Mirror's Edge), rather then Activisions approach of flooding the market with sequels every year(Guitar hero I am looking at your direction). Don't get me wrong Electronic Arts does do sequels every year, look at all there ea sports franchises(Madden, FIFA,Tiger Woods), but at least they are trying to have a balance of old and new.

Now to people like you and me, we can't take as many risks now instead, we focus on games that we are comfortable with and have long shelf life(fallout 3, WOW, GTA4). But, I think we need to know that there is alternatives to those games either try something new or heck even go back to old games.I would say many people still have their old video game consoles.If you have an old SNES,Genesis or Playstation1 or N64 blow the dust off of it and play your old games or even find a copy of a game you always wanted to play.

Places like Play-n-Trade and Ebgames have sections dedicated to old used games, give those a try. Case in point one of the most enjoyable games I have played with someone else over the past three years was my old copy of Looney Tunes B-Ball.Heck since you have to be smart with your money you might as well play some games at home with friends and family (I know that whole human interaction thing).

Its times like this that we have to be smart and still take risks.Playing old games can be beneficial for you in the short term. Saving up money to buy newer games and help game companies in the long term as well.Electronic Arts and other companies short term problems will be solved in the long term.


Note- Might be a new series were we will talk about past games and how they hold up to new generation of games.

Washington DC: Part II

In Part II of our series, we'll continue our examination of the history of Washington D.C. Our first part can be found here. This is part two of a three part series.

------------------------------------------------

Washington DC: 1787 – 1864; A Look into the Founding of the Nation’s First Permanent Capitol and Its Near Collapse, Part II



Congress would approve the city’s commercial future, but first had to build a city to do so. On the 15th day of April, 1791, the cornerstones of the city were placed at Jones’ Point, near Alexandria. From that point onward, the city – then known as the Federal City, or the District of Columbia – would construct a massive series of public buildings. Developed by French architect Charles Peter L’Enfant, the city would create a series of grand governmental structures, as well as gorgeous park and recreational grounds. In an article written by L’Enfant to The American Apollo, he describes his vision of the future city. Included in the plans were the blueprints to build a great memorial in honor of the nation’s first president, George Washington. Also included were plans to build a national park, known as a mall. This mall, 1800 feet in width and three-fourths of a mile in length, would lead directly from the Washington Monument to the Capitol Building. Grand fountains would also be a fixture of the city plans, as L’Enfant was greatly influenced by other famous world cities . His concept was to takes the best parts of the world’s best cities and build upon them.

Additionally, streets would run vertically and horizontally, with oblique roads running throughout the city. These streets would begin with a fixed radial center, the Capitol Building. All streets would be given directional titles. For example, the first street east of the capitol would be known as First Street East, while the first street west of the capitol would be known as First Street West. Meanwhile, the oblique avenues – with titles of states given to them, were designed to give direct linkage to some of the more prominent governmental fixtures. For example, Pennsylvania Avenue was designed to connect the Capitol Building to the President’s House, moving in a northwestern direction. Maryland Avenue connects the Capitol to the Potomac Bridge. Indeed, roads make up a large part of the city. The design of the city featured roughly 3,604 acres of paved roads while the accumulated government lots totaled only 3,529 acres of land . The streets were intended to support a grand supply of transportation, and while the total number of government lots has increased over the years, the streets continue to dominate much of the city’s infrastructure.

The positions for many of the government’s buildings were a matter of suitability, as the executive offices were to be placed immediately south of the President’s House. Also, the structures for the War, Navy, State, and Treasury Departments were constructed to the east and west of the house as well. It is believed that the exact location was selected both due to the proximity and the cost of which it could be built (the ground surrounding the President’s House was on the slope of a hill and would be costly to build upon such grounds). Another placement of convenience was housing for foreign aids and ministers. At a mile and a half, the distance between the executive and legislative branch of the government has been continually problematic for lawmakers. The distance for these two buildings has never been truly answered. Other buildings, such as the Patent Office, were placed in a preexisting structure, once serving as a church. Once a hotel, the General Post Office was first rented by the government until it finally decided to purchase the structure and redesign the interior to better suit its purposes.

Yet despite its grand intentions, the city had no great roadway leading up to it. In her first travel to the city, First Lady Abagail Adams – wife of President John Adams – remarked in a letter to her daughter how difficult it was to procure the lodgings of her future home.

“I arrived here on Sunday last, and without meeting with any accident worth noticing, except losing ourselves when we left Baltimore, and going eight or nine miles on the Frederick road, by which means we were obliged to go the other eight through the woods, where we wandered two hours without finding a guide or the path. Fortunately, a straggling black came up with us, and we engaged him as a guide to extricate us out of our difficulty; but woods are all you see from Baltimore until you reach the city, which is only so in name.”

In fact, prior to the city’s completion, few if any buildings existed. On July 4, 1800, then-Secretary of the Treasury Oliver Wolcott wrote a letter to his wife. Wolcott, who had recently moved to Washington, remarked that the few houses that did exist were nothing more than simple huts and that the President’s House – if looked upon by visitors – would be met with ridicule or pity. But not all people met the city with such contempt. Despite her difficulty in finding the city, Mrs. Adams continued in her letter that she found the city delightful.

During that time, the city was fairly scarce, but did reside next to the cities of Alexandria and Georgetown; both housing a few thousand residents each. From the years 1800 to 1850, the population consisted of nearly 5,000 people, with an increase of nearly 550 people per year. Of that, blacks consisted of nearly one-fourth of the population. Throughout this time, the number of free vs. enslaved black people would differ greatly. In 1800, nearly 20 percent of the city’s population was slaves, with freed blacks consisting of nearly four percent. By 1860, slaves would only consist of roughly three percent, while freed blacks made up about 15 percent of the city’s total population. However, while the quantity of freed African-Americans continued to increase, the quality of their livelihood remained fairly consistent. The majority of work that black people could find was often laborious; cooking, cleaning, and farming were the most common forms of employment, one that did not allow them to fully grasp the idealisms that the national capitol was supposed to exemplify.

Despite this seemingly unjust practice, the city was considered wildly liberal for its time. Beginning with Jefferson, formal dinners became a staple of his presidency; for, James Madison, attending the President’s House meant attending a reception. Social balls were quite common during this time period and would often times feature a plethora of bachelorettes who were said to be quite beautiful. One author of the day remarked that the women were both of high statue and grace, remarking, “Between these young ladies, who are generally not only good looking but good tempered, and, if not well informed, capable of becoming so.”

Washington DC: Part I

Today here at the Luckie Street Tribune we'll be introducing a new feature to our selection of articles: "Lost and Found." In this section, we'll work to uncover a series of interesting topics that our readers may not know enough about. Today, the focus of our initial subject is the Federal City, better known by its nickname Washington D.C. The District of Columbia portion of the title is legitimate, but the Washington portion was added four months after the nation's first president, George Washington, selected the site. This is part 1 of a 3 part series.

--------------------------------------------------

Washington DC: 1787 – 1864; A Look into the Founding of the Nation’s First Permanent Capitol and Its Near Collapse, Part I



The District of Columbia, with the prefix “Washington” added at a later date, has housed the federal government since its inception. Created with the task of performing the daily tasks of government, elected representatives selected the grounds across the Potomac River with the intent to preserve and improve the ideals of the nation. But building a capitol city of this magnitude was not an easy task; there were many different factors that went into building such an establishment. From this, a city was created that has had its share of both prosperity and tragedy; like the nation, it has been a city that has changed with the times. Following a massive effort, the city has become the symbol of democracy.

Following the colony’s victory over the British, a formal federal government was established. Aimed at developing a democracy that would expand the ideals that they had fought to acquire, Congress proposed the permanent location of a national capitol. Many states had applied for the honor, including many of the largest cities. The federal government, having fled the city of Philadelphia following the mutiny of October 21, 1873 , realized that a permanent solution needed to be implemented quicker than originally anticipated. But, as the first Congress learned from its temporary home in Philadelphia, building upon a pre-existing city was not the most suitable environment to hold the federal government. For one, the buildings had to be close together, so in the event that an emergency occurred, members of all three branches – as well as the military – could convene in a timely manner. Also, as most cities relied upon easy aquatic transportation, national security was concerned. A city had to be constructed in a location that was both secure and easily accessible.

Indeed, Congress did intend to move away from their historical roots, as mentioned in the Constitution of the United States (Article I, Section VIII). The original proposed location for the capitol was along the Delaware River, but – for either economic or political reasons, was never put into motion. At other times, locations in Virginia and Pennsylvania were seriously considered for the capitol. Finally, on May 10, 1787, a location along the Potomac River was selected to house the nation’s capitol. George Washington, as the nation’s first president, would have final selection over the city’s location. He would eventually decide on an area known as Connogocheague, on the Potomac River. This area, located in between Georgetown and Alexandria, bordered the two states of Maryland and Virginia. Thomas Scott, a representative for the state of Pennsylvania, presented the location to Congress and the location was finalized, 31 “ayes” to 19 “nays.” The nation’s capitol had been selected.

Scott, on his proposal, declared the area by the Potomac to be, “the future tranquility and well-being of the United States,” stating that the fate of the country “depended as much on this as on any question that ever had or could come before Congress.” Not everyone felt this way. One New York representative claimed that it should be held in New York City, as it was superior in both behavior and in class.

The purpose for the site seems fairly simple, as Washington – who was raised in that area – was given the task of selecting the location of the capitol. He wanted to build the capitol in his former backyard. And while the battle for deciding the capitol’s location had been settled, a new set of questions would begin to emerge. Should the capitol become a city of commerce? Some members of Congress felt as though Washington decided upon that specific region in an effort to increase trade commerce. The river of the Potomac featured easy access to the Ohio, as well as the Great Lakes (through the Cuyahoga). Thomas Jefferson made the argument for commercialization in Notes on Virginia, claiming, “Spread the field of our commerce Westwardly and Southwardly beyond any thing ever yet done by man.”