Imagine walking into your game store of choice, strolling up the counter with sixty bucks in hand and promptly being informed that they are sold out of God of War III.

Dejectedly, you look around to see if anything else is available to wet your thirst for mythological slaughter. Out of the corner of your eye, you catch the cover are for Dante’s Inferno.

Excited by the concept of kicking the hell out of demons, you purchase it. If this story accurately describes you, then first let me apologize for not getting to you sooner.

Please, just wait for God of War III to become available.

Dante’s Inferno is a third person action beat ‘em up from Visceral Studios and was published by E.A. It stars a pumped up version of Dante Aligheri as he travels through the circles of hell in pursuit of his lover, Beatrice.

But the star of this game is no dandy Italian poet. No sir, he is a crusader who wages war on hell with his scythe in one hand and his holy blast firing cross in the other.

The reason I bring up God of War is that this game isn’t just an homage to it or a spiritual successor.

This game blatantly and completely rips off God of War with a thoroughness that borders on the bizarre.

Not only is the fighting system the same, but so are the move sets, the magical spells, even working up a rage meter. Dante even scales walls and shimmies across ropes like Kratos.

The major difference between the two games is that God of War was good, while Dante’s Inferno is mediocre at best. The controls are just bad.

Over half of my deaths were due to mistakenly leaping to my death when I wanted to climb up from a ledge.

A breadstick would do more damage than Dante’s scythe does to his enemies. I swear some fights take about ten minutes of mindlessly slamming buttons down trying to kill one or two guys.

Oh, and get used to fighting the same one or two guys copied over the nine circles. Each circle introduces maybe one new type of bad guy to the mix. This leads to a serious feeling of repetition as you slaughter the same people over and over again.

The game does have some merit. The art direction for the first half of the game is fantastic. Lust, Gluttony, and Greed all look fantastic and disturbing.

The voice acting in the first half of the game is also pretty good. However, the last few circles of hell all take on this muddy brown and black look that doesn’t lend itself to separating the levels very well.

Dante’s Inferno is a lot like pancakes. In the beginning, it may be great, but by the end of the game, you really wish you would have gotten something else. If you want to experience the best of Dante’s Inferno, go play a God of War game and watch the animated Dante’s Inferno companion movie.

You’ll get the best game play, with the smattering of plot elements and art style, but without the repetition, frustrating controls, and series of stupid falling deaths.

I’m tired of hearing about how much we’re spending on defense and the military.

It’s a well known fact that the military budget of the United States is almost as large as the rest of the world’s combined defense spending.

Estimates run from $660 billion to over a trillion dollars in the defense budget for 2010, about 5 percent of our GDP.

The new budget from the White House will have the U.S. spending above $2 billion every day.

And with good reason; US troops are deployed in more than 150 countries around the world, we’re fighting two major wars, several ostentatiously-named peacekeeping missions, and the ubiquitous global war on terror.

It’s undoubtedly expensive to keep the tanks greased, planes fueled and soldiers paid.

Though that’s simplifying it; defense spending includes $4 billion spent on recruiting, which also figures in about $22,000 in entitlement bonuses and the $1,600 spent on advertising for each recruit that enlisted.

Remember America’s Army, the free video game the DoD released a few years back?

Somebody got paid to make it.

Recently we celebrated the memory of Martin Luther King Jr. – I was struck by a quote. Rev. King said, “When a nation becomes obsessed with the guns of war, social programs must inevitably suffer. We can talk about guns and butter all we want to, but when the guns are there with all of its emphasis you don’t even get good oleo. These are facts of life.”

The words rang even more truly when the New York Times reported the president was going to freeze spending, excluding important programs like Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and of course defense.

It’s a common talking point to cite the dangers of international terrorism as a justification for maintaining and increasing military spending.

Nobody wants to be seen as soft on the enemy. But when it comes to the state of our armed forces, as thinly stretched as they are, it is an obvious fact that there is no comparable conventional force on the planet.

Yet we continue to fund the military and train troops to fight with the same mindset of the British during the American revolutionary war.

As the British wore bright uniforms, marched in a straight line, and were cut to ribbons by guerilla fighters across their empire, we pour money into high tech hardware while our enemies handle obsolete soviet weapons we bought for them decades ago.

We occupy Iraqi and Afghani cities and are (surprise!) seen as the invading occupiers.

We are fighting a cultural and ideological force with all the finesse of a wood 2×4.

Meanwhile, defense contractors enjoy the opportunity to “support our troops” by turning a huge profit and American businesses enjoy the new potential markets in so-called stabilized zones.

Taking a closer look at the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, civilian deaths are a subject of much dispute, but studies say anywhere between 100,000 and a million have died in Iraq, and in Afghanistan, numbers easily suggest tens of thousands have died unnecessarily.

While some collateral damage is a fact of war, the fact that the military does not release official body counts and estimates suggest only 20,000 or so casualties suggests we’ve successfully killed more people who did nothing to deserve it than we have the targets the military intended.

This policy of accepting excessive civilian deaths, combined with a colonialist mentality of “the only acceptable government is our government” and never-ending occupation, suggests the war is one of attrition, and that defense is the furthest thing from the DoD’s mind.

When “defense” takes the form of an overwhelming force which answers to no one and consumes money sorely missed in a shaky economy, the money spent becomes revenue for what I call an offense budget.

Ironic to think that we have a Department of Defense (renamed in the late 40’s from the more accurate “Department of War”), yet no Department of Peace (despite numerous propositions).

At the same time we have defense spending, which conveniently encompasses all offense spending. And all this time, more people are forced to get by on the oleo Rev. King mentioned.

Would we pay for an offense budget? Probably not. Will people keep signing up and heading off as long as we call it defense? Most definitely.

It is time to declare a ceasefire. The war on drugs is a classic case of the solution being a bigger problem than the problem itself.

Now, before you attack me, let me state that I have never tried nor ever intend to try any drugs. This is not the ranting of some pot or crackhead. I would heartily recommend all people stay away from drugs.

This issue must be examined logically, though. We had 7.3 million people in our correctional system in 2007. That is 1 in 31 adults. That is triple the number of people in the system back in 1982. During that time frame, our nation has redoubled its efforts in the war on drugs.

We’ve gotten tough on crime, as politicians like to say, and now dole out longer, mandatory sentences for drug crimes. Federal mandatory sentencing guidelines set out by Congress in 1986 and 1988 take away the discretion of judges to decide what punishment is best suited for a particular drug offender based on the facts of a case.

Instead, federal judges are given concrete rules that determine the length of an offenders sentence based on the amount of drug sold and whether or not a firearm was involved. Some might deserve longer sentences, but many non-violent offenders could better served by being sent into drug rehab. Our prisons are overflowing, yet instead of addressing the problem, we continue to send non-violent drug offenders into their ranks.

If the goal is to lock as many people up as possible, then the war on drugs has been a total success. We account for 25 percent of the world’s prison population, yet only have five percent of the total world population. If the goal is to rehabilitate offenders and successfully re-integrate them into society, then the war on drugs is an unmitigated failure. A 1994 study shows that 67 percent of drug offenders are arrested again within three years of release from prison, up from 50 percent in 1983. We’ve got a revolving door of drug offenders coming in and out of prison.

The problem stretches beyond the United States. We serve as the goal line for a multi-billion dollar illegal drug trade that makes its way up from South and Central America and goes right to the heart of our cities, leaving behind it a wake of death and destruction at the hands of powerful drug lords.

Now, let’s imagine what would happen if we decided to legalize all drugs and treat them like we do cigarettes and alcohol (meaning regulating their manufacture, publicizing their dangerous side effects, restricting their use for certain activities like driving, and not allowing them to be sold to or used by those under 18).

Suddenly, these dangerous drugs are widely available at your local supermarket. Cocaine, methamphetamine, and marijuana are now sitting at your local drugstore in a locked case next to the cigarettes and beer.

The cost of these products will inevitably be cheaper than those purchased on the street. Almost overnight, the drug trade will disappear. The pot of gold waiting in the United States for Colombian drug lords will be gone, as will much of their power. The neighborhood meth lab ready to explode at any minute and take half the neighborhood with it will be gone, too.

The supply will be safety tested, eliminating contaminants common in illegally manufactured drugs. Drug users can cheaply buy clean needles to use in their habit, slowing the spread of HIV and other illnesses. The drugs will be taxed, creating a new revenue stream for local and state governments. I don’t want people using drugs, but they will anyway. At least now they could do so more safely.

The prison population would drop significantly, freeing up taxpayer resources. Non-violent drug offenders could be sent home or to rehabilitation facilities. Violent crimes would go down, as affordable drugs would eliminate the need for users to commit many of their money-related crimes.

What would we be left with in the wake of legalizing drugs? One huge drug problem, just like we have now. The difference is that our method of dealing with it would not cost billions of dollars and would not overflow our prison system.

Look at alcohol. We tried making that illegal. We ended up with many of the problems we are facing now with drugs; illegal manufacture and use and increased burden on the correctional system.

Instead, we legalized it and brought it out into the open. Many people still have an alcohol problem in this country, yet I think our current solution is better than making its use illegal.

Today we have support groups and rehab clinics ready to help alcohol abusers. With all the money we will save on prisons, we can increase our rehabilitation efforts for drug users. Make these open and free for anyone who is ready to get help.

Some might argue that by making drugs readily available, we will encourage more people to use them. However, cigarettes are widely available, but their use has been on a downturn for years through civic education about its risks. Per capita alcohol consumption has been going down since the 1980s. Legalizing drugs will eliminate the appeal of them for some people drawn to things forbidden, while education about these drugs at the point of purchase will increase public awareness about the danger involved.

We spent over $13 billion combating drugs in 2008. Throwing more money at law enforcement is not going to solve this problem. We need to stand down and try a new strategy focused not on locking people up for using drugs, but rather treating people who have this problem.

A solution that causes more problems than it solves is no solution at all. End the war on drugs.

Welcome to the discussion! Whether you’ve been with us since the beginning or just picked up The Underground for the first time, thank you. You’re the reason we do what we do.

Since you’re reading an alternative newspaper, I don’t have to convince you of the sorry state of the news media.

If they aren’t framing every story as a left-right shouting match, they use the shield of so-called objectivity to quietly condone the status quo.

It’s no wonder viewers, listeners and readers are seeking alternative media more than ever.

Readers like you look for something more than just the standard fare when it comes to news. You’re naturally curious; you like to look into different sources of information.

You’re a discerning reader; you don’t take things at face value. You search for unique stories, moving stories and divergent opinions.

In other words, whether you know it or not, you were already an Underground reader before you picked up this newspaper.

As smart, savvy, independent thinkers, our readers possess all the necessary qualities to be great journalists.

Take the next step. Join us as an Underground writer!

Famed independent journalist I.F. Stone got his start with a newspaper he created in high school called Progress.

From such humble beginnings, he went on to found I.F. Stone’s Weekly in 1953, a pioneering newsletter that fought McCarthyism, racism and was the first American publication to question the official account of the Gulf of Tonkin. There are now half a dozen awards for independent journalism named after Stone, given by organizations from Harvard to Berkeley.

Missouri native Walter Cronkite dropped out of college at UT Austin to take a job reporting for the Houston Post. Of course, his later contributions to television news were lauded at length after his death last June. His work that struck me the most was his coverage of the moon landing. Cronkite’s palpable excitement belied his curiosity and thirst for knowledge.

Neither of these men had formal training or journalism degrees when they started. What they had is what you have, a discerning eye for information, natural curiosity and a love of the truth.

And you don’t face nearly the obstacles those men did. You don’t have to start your own publication. Zach and Jenny Becker, our Editor-in-Chief and Publisher, respectively, have done that for you. You don’t need to quit school to write for this paper, either. In fact, we would specifically recommend that you not do that.

This is a newspaper in the old style; a community meeting place rather than a dry listing of the day-to-day machinery of the University. If you have a story to tell, if you have something to say, reach out to us. Shock us. Make us laugh or bring us to tears. Give voice to the voiceless. Satiate the burning desire to communicate. Being part of the discussion means being part of the solution.

Stone and Cronkite are gone now. They are passing the torch to you. Come tell your story.

Who would have thought that a screen adaptation of a television series over four decades old would feel this fresh, new and exciting?

Director J.J. Abram’s simply-titled Star Trek takes us back to the 23rd century, the days of Kirk, Spock, Bones and the rest of the crew of Gene Roddenberry’s famous U.S.S. Enterprise.

But here, we see how these famous characters come together as young cadets and form a lasting bond of friendship. The special effects and action are strong  in this new chapter in the Trek saga, but it is the character interaction that drives this film and gives it a necessary sense of light-hearted adventurous fun.

As an admitted die-hard Trekkie, I had my doubts about this film. How could new actors hope to fill the shoes of characters that were almost ubiquitous with the people who originally portrayed them? Thankfully, the cast took the roles in their own direction, while still capturing the essence of what made these characters so memorable. The film focuses on the origin of James T. Kirk (Chris Pine) and Mr. Spock (Zachary Quinto). Early scenes of animosity between young cadet Kirk and Spock are some of the highlights of the film, as are subsequent events as they slowly learn to trust one another.

Star Trek had started to grow stale and convoluted over the course of five television series and 10 feature films, bogging down good storytelling with the need to maintain the massive plot continuity of over 100 years of back story.

With a plot involving time-travel, Abrams effectively wipes out the original Trek time-line (without simply acting like it didn’t exist), opening up some interesting scenarios for future films with old characters and cultures from the Star Trek universe. (I’d like to see Kirk go toe to toe with Khan again, or maybe we could see an early appearance by the Borg? What if Khan was assimilated by the Borg? Oh, the possibilities!)

With virtually unknown young actors at the helm (much like in the original series), the new cast brings a sense of vigor and fun to a film that could have been a simple money-grubbing rehash of an aging, but still popular franchise.

But what would a Trek film be without a good villain? Nero (Eric Bana) is a conniving Romulan bent on avenging the destruction of his home world, which he blames on a (future) Ambassador Spock. While Nero doesn’t rank up there with the best villains of Trek, the character more than adequately plays foil to Kirk and the Enterprise.

But not everything is new here. The Enterprise (NCC 1701, with no bloody A, B, C, or D) is back and looks remarkably similar to how we last saw it, a classic design that the filmmakers were wise to leave intact. Called into action on its maiden voyage, the awe factor is back as Kirk is shuttled aboard the magnificent ship, an homage to a similar scene in the franchise’s first feature film, Star Trek: The Motion Picture.

While this film effectively re-invents the franchise (for a broader audience), it doesn’t do so at the expense of the rest of the previous four decades of Trek. Little homages (the death of a red shirt), choice dialogue (set phasers to stun), a simulated training voyage to save the ill-fated Kobayashi Maru, and a role for a time-traveling Ambassador Spock (Leonard Nimoy), along with some well-timed classic musical interludes, tie this film to the overall franchise and brought a smile to this long-time fan’s face.

While I wouldn’t say this film is the best feature in the franchise (The Wrath of Khan still holds that banner), it definitely ranks among the best and opens itself up for a promising series of sequels. I highly recommend it.

Grade: A+