The Colts will win.
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.
Apparently, the Tea-Party convention has alienated many seemingly sympathetic folks by being a for-profit organization.
Frankly, they would be stupid not to be for-profit. You can’t go around quoting Ayn Rand approvingly and then not be motivated by money.
According to CNN, the Tea-Party-supported principles include:
- Fiscal Responsibility.
- Lower Taxes
- States’ rights
- National Security.
My opinion is that anyone who tries will find it very difficult to achieve principles #1 and #2 at the same time. The Laffer curve is not that powerful, if it even exists at all. And “National Security” is so far better under Obama than it was under either Clinton or George W. Bush after their first years. So I’m not sure what their movement would really do if given power. Even supposing that tax cut multipliers are much larger than economists think, they cannot balance the budget based solely on that.
As near as I can tell, the optimal strategy according to this movement would be “militaristic Keynesianism,” which would mean cutting taxes, and increasing government spending by vastly increasing expenditures on the military (to further National Security) while making cuts elsewhere. The resulting stimulus from these increased outlays would hopefully get the economy back to full employment, at which point the military spending would be curtailed as well, and the increased wealth produced by the hopefully-booming economy would allow for deficit reduction. (I can’t figure how states’ rights is involved. I suspect it’s a euphemism for overturning Roe v. Wade.)
That’s the ideal scenario for the Tea-Party. Frankly, however, I really doubt whether the deficit can ever be eliminated altogether by this method. I think that, at any time, they can have at most 3 of the 4 principles adhered to.
So it’s produced the worst campaign ad ever. But what else is going on in the California Republican Senate primary? Any exciting charismatic candidates we should know about?
Not much charisma here at all. Polls favor Campbell. You see, this is what most elections are like. Nobody stands out, and the one who behaves least absurdly wins. Charisma doesn’t get to play a role.
Surely this is some act of sabotage by the Campbell campaign.
First of all, why is this news? The Republicans always say that. Second, while his policies seem to be weaker, Obama’s track record against Jihadism compares favorably with George W. Bush’s and Bill Clinton’s after their respective first years in office.
I’ll agree his position on torture seems naive, and his foolish decision not to fire Napolitano immediately after the December 25th failed attack ought to be ridiculed. But these apparent flaws cannot negate his success in objective terms. The arguments against trying terrorists in civilian court are, in my opinion, fairly weak.
As of this moment, the case against Obama himself as weak on terror is basically a joke. Now, the case against the Democrats in Congress, particularly Harry Reid, is a much better one. Reid is a weak person by nature, and his infamous assertion that the Iraq war was “lost” is one that should haunt him.
The Democrats overall philosophy intuitively seems to be weaker, but that is not backed up by the data.
As you are all aware, Tim Tebow is in an anti-abortion ad that is set to air during the Super Bowl. This has sparked a vigorous debate over whether he has the right to be in this ad, or whether CBS should air ads with political messages at all, or if they should air other ones to be fair. Which debate you ought to have depends on who you talk to.
It’s funny how people argue over things like “principles” and “rights”. I suspect both sides don’t give a damn about such abstract concepts except as they relate to helping them win the debate. Conservatives wouldn’t defend a pro-choice commercial on the grounds of “Free Speech”, and liberals wouldn’t oppose it on the grounds of “Bias”.
I don’t think the strategists for either side have principles–they just want to win. Framing the debate based on “principles” and “rights” is fine and dandy. But the important thing, to the people running the show, is who wins.
That’s a huge exaggeration, I’ll admit, but a new poll shows that 52% still have a “positive impression of him.,” yet other polls indicate large majorities don’t believe some of his statements.
How to explain this?
First of all, these are different polls, so it’s some different people responding, obviously. Secondly, there’s an issue of bias on the part of pollsters, which undoubtedly plays a role. The story sums it up by saying “People like Obama, but they don’t believe him.”
And that is how charisma works.