by on

12: 42 A.M: I’ll update this post as things develop, rather than have tons of posts about the subject.

9:08 A.M.: Most people are pretty sure the thing will pass. It’s assumed that the Democrats wouldn’t bother to vote on it if they thought it wouldn’t.

9:17 A.M.: Lots of sites are calling this vote “Historic” or “History Making”, which suggests to me they think it will pass. Bills that don’t pass usually don’t get much mention in the history books.

9:25 A.M: The chairman of the Democratic caucus says they have the votes. I’ve never heard of this guy; usually when they’re counting the votes, they ask the Whip, James Clyburn. It’s fun to blog about politics when you have no idea how it works.

11:52 A.M: Going by headlines, the Democrats either have the votes or “hope they have the votes”. There’s not much difference, except for all the difference in the world. But hey, hoping for change was what Obama promised and sure enough, it happened!

1:41 P.M: According to Huffington Post, it’s practically over.

1:44 P.M: Or maybe not. Their headline doesn’t seem to match their story.

4:41 P.M: It looks like it’s pretty close to a done deal that it’ll pass.

7:58 P.M: For what it’s worth, though, Republicans may have some other plan to stop stuff in the Senate. Or something. I can’t stand to learn any more obscure Parliamentary rules, though.

10:49 P.M: “Alea iacta est.”

by on

Generation Zero is a new documentary about the financial crisis. Apparently, it claims that the baby boomers caused the stock market crash in some way that I can’t figure out yet. I haven’t seen it, but it’s stocked with so many mainstream Republican/neo-con types that it makes me suspicious of just how much new information is in it. Based on the trailer, it looks a lot like Zeitgeist for Republicans.

by on

But, of course, that’s not the headline. You have to read almost the whole article to find out how many of the enemy were killed. 

This, in my opinion, is putting the most negative spin possible on the situation.

by on

So argues Joan Williams:

“Here’s my take on why(Palin made notes on her hand): she knew that they would be visible when she gave the speech. And she knew that she would be made fun of — as so stupid that she needs to write notes on her hand. And that’s one of her most effective tactics — to be made fun of. It’s an integral part of her strategy of standing in for hardworking, Middle Americans, derided by the condescending, know-it-all liberal elites.”

It’s possible, but I doubt it. I think she just wanted to remember the correct order for the Q&A session. And frankly, nobody needs to be convinced of Palin’s folksy charm anymore–it’s her policy credentials that are perceived as her weakness. This is a needless move if indeed it is a calculated strategy.

by on

On The Daily Show, Newt Gingrich falsely claimed Richard Reid was an American citizen.  

The “Shoe-bomber” and “Underwear-bomber” cases are very similar, yet Republicans are oddly reluctant to admit  it.

by on

The Wall Street Journal notes:

“The President’s changes in antiterror policy have never been as dramatic as he or his critics have advertised. His supporters on the left have repeatedly howled when the Justice Department quietly went to court and offered the same legal arguments the Bush Administration made, among them that the President has the power to detain enemy combatants indefinitely without charge. He has also ramped up drone strikes against al Qaeda and Taliban operatives in Pakistan.

However, the Administration has tried to break from its predecessors on several big antiterror issues…”

(Italics mine.)

Maybe I’m crazy, but the italicized portion seems to be implying that this is in keeping with Bush’s policies, when, in fact it is a break from them. “Ramping up” means changing the policy. It’s not as drastic, I admit, but nevertheless Obama and Bush are not the same when it comes to the drone policy. Obama is more aggressive. This probably part of the reason Obama’s track record vs. Jihadism compares favorably with G.W. Bush’s and Clinton’s over their first terms.

by on

Should they make a movie of the Mass Effect video games? 

No. As that pro-Mass Effect movie article says: “The relationships Shepard (and in turn, us) forms with his crew take on the audience-friendly tone that defines the best men-on-a-mission movies.”

The only thing I’d change with that assessment is that the tone is better  than the best such movies. We feel more involved in Mass Effect (especially ME 2) than in a movie because we’re doing things. We’re making the tough choices, and deciding which characters are friend or foe. And while you could boil a 20+ hour game down to a two-hour movie, the sidequests are part of what gives RPG’s their depth and richness.Mass Effect isn’t even the best video game when it comes to this, (Try Knights of the Old Republic I & especially II) but it’s better than the movies could be.