Guard Dog

Holy S***. I hope you are alright.

I did something this weekend I have not done since my wife and I split up. I put up a Christmas tree. I found some small cedar trees growing on the north section of my land and cut one and dressed it up. It was kind of an impulse thing. I went to Lowe's and bought lights and ornaments and everything. I don't know why but this year it just feels like Christmas.

Thanks everyone. I found out on Monday, most of those cut will find out over the next year. I believe the initial body count will be about 2700 or so. I heard rumors my job (which is a regional engineering position) may be merged into a single national position back in October. I figured I'd be shown the door if that happened. Well, it's happening. There actually is a position I could take in Atlanta but I just bought the land and just finished building the house. I could never sell it for even break even money. So I'm taking the package. If I can land another job quick enough this may work out to be a big win for me. Oh and you were correct Enoch, but I thought you knew that already.

In all seriousness folks. If there is going to be another expansion, my only request is more monsters. Forget classes, races, spells and textures. I'd spend the zots on tilesets and monsters because that is what is lacking even after two expansions and that is what will make the game endure and ensure a healthy modding community for some time to come. Heck, by my reckoning after HotU NWN1 had over 20 more creature types than NWN2 at ths point. The reason why this is an issue is that in NWN1 it was fairly easy to construct a monster using 3DSMax. NWSMax or some other program like that. For NWN2 is is most definitely not easy and honestly beyond the reach of the average (or even advanced) modder. So whatever we get from Obsidian is likely all we will ever have.

I was thinking the same thing!

I got my Christmas present from work a few days ago. It was a 60 day termination notice. Merry Christmas to me and 11999 other unlucky suckers. I just took this job in May too. Well, time to begin the job hunt again. At least the severance package is fairly decent as such things go.

Fortunately the three most likely vacancies between now and 2012 will be Stevens (who is 85 may drop dead at any minute) Ginsburg (who has been battling kidney disease) and Souter (who is apparently planning to retire to his home in NH and spend his time writing and teaching). If any or all three were to vacate anyone Obama picks would be no worse. If Obama wins a second term then all bets are off. Scalia, Kennedy, and Thomas are all over 70.

I uninstalled all games except NWN and NWN2 (and all XP's). Back to working on my NWN2 mod. Bloody hard work compared to NWN1. But I'm going to finish come hell or high water this time.

Do you presume the two to be mutually exclusive? Consider that subject dropped for my part.

Close enough. I got into politics when I was 24, ran for office when I was 27, and got out all together at 29. I'm 37 now and I can tell you for a fact I know a heck of a lot more about it now than I did at 20. And based on some of the nonsense I've seen posted by the younger board members here and elsewhere I feel very comfortable asserting that there is a strong coorelation between youth and inferior understanding of politics and the world in general. If you come back here and read your posts a few years from now I think you will agree. Oh, he has? Well, clearly you've read something I haven't, so feel free to share your sources. Well you just served up a nice softball to me right there. Obama says the "special role of the court is to protect the vulnerable, the minority, the outcast, the person with the unpopular idea." B.S. The role of the court is to apply the law AS IT IS WRITTEN! Equal protection under the law means the court is to protect the party with the strongest legal standing on any issue. If that party is a minority, an outcast, vulnerable, or unpopular then so much the better. But the court had best be prepared to rule against such with equal fervor is the majority, invulnerable or whatever have the stronger legal standing. The purpose of the court is to interperet and apply the law without passion or prejudice. It is not some social instument to take from the rich and give to the poor. Obama seems to think it is. Take a look at this little nugget: http://www.lvrj.com/opinion/33740129.html. Obama's statement in that article: The court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth and more basic issues of political and economic justice in the society. ... THAT statement should scare any American, even Awesomness (who needs to 1. READ the post before commenting on it, 2. Grow a thicker skin). Redistribution of wealth (a decidedly un-American concept itself) is the job of the Congress. But Obama can easily place justices who via judicial fiat can take that responsibility on themselves. What is the difference? Congress is elected by the PEOPLE! It is accountable to the PEOPLE! And if they harm the country in their attempts at social engineering we can vote them out of office. Federal judges are elected by NOBODY. Thay are appointed for life and are accountable to NOBODY. And their power is growing as juducial activisim and "progressive" judges are becoming the norm. Here is an excellent book that every American here should read: The Dirty Dozen: How Twelve Supreme Court Cases Radically Expanded Government and Eroded Freedom . Even the liberal statist lawyer of the board, Enoch, would voice concern of the current trend if he could just step back and look at the big picture. What should scare everyone is that as the power of the federal courts grow America is becoming more of an Oligarchy than a Republic. And Obama and his ilk are all for it because the first step in turning the country into something that would make the founding fathers recoil in horror is to eliminate the ability of those who oppose it to do anything about it. Especially if those who oppose you can easily make a voting majority. Obama seems to think Stephen Breyer and David Souter are ideal justices huh? Well, lets look at that. As we covered before the role of the judiciary is to enforce and apply the law AS IT IS WRITTEN. It is NOT their job to MAKE law. In case reading the seven paragraphs in Artice 1 and Article 2 of the US Constitution makes your head hurt here is is right from their own website in plain english: http://www.uscourts.gov/about.html. It seems Breyer holds that view in pretty high disdain :http://www.cfif.org/htdocs/freedomline/cur...l-Activism.html. Scared yet? No? Try this one then, Justice Breyer also believes is is meet and proper for the US Supreme Court to consider the precedents of foreign courts when ruling on matters of US law: http://www.supremecourtofindia.nic.in/new_...ity_lecture.pdf and http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4506232/. Remember, we are stuck with this guy until he dies or retires. Souter (yes he was a Republican appointment) is another liberal that should scare you. Kelo v New London he (along with the other "liberals") asserted that the government has the right to seize your home and sell it to someone else if they choose to do so. How about Washington v. Glucksberg? He seemed to think it was just fine for doctors to assist in the suicide of a metnally ill patients (not simple euthanasia in which case I would be in agreement) and he also has asserted the court is more competent to deal with emerging issues than the legislature (you know, those people we actually get to VOTE for). Souter is a quiet unassuming type but his decision process is invariably statist over individual liberty (with Planned Parenthood v Casey being the only exception I could find*). How about those liberal judges huh? In closing let me put out one more for you to consider. "The Consitution does not guarantee an absolute right to anything" . Justice John Paul Stevens, the biggest liberal of them all. How do you feel about freedom of speech, property, voting, whatever now? Obama will give us a double seving of that, he has straight out said so. Scared yet? You should be.** My sources for above info: http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/fe...ml?id=110006984 http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/o...sidents-choice/ http://www.answers.com/topic/judicial-activism http://www.answers.com/topic/david-hackett-souterhttp://www.answers.com/topic/washington-v-glucksberg-1 http://www.answers.com/topic/kelo-v-city-of-new-london * That one was for you Enoch. I figured you would point that one out. ** Krezack it's ok for you to not be afraid. You are safe in Austrailia from any bad laws these clowns make. We are not. Keep that in mind next time you feel like speculating on why I vote the way I do.

Actually for NX3 how about a 2E ruleset game done with the infinity engine set in the Dalelands during the Time of Troubles. Heck, I'd buy it. But I still like my original idea best.

Yeah, lets bring back THAC0. I like my Paladins human, my rangers good, my druids weak and my armor class in the negative numbers!

Said the teenager from Australia. God how I love it when kids from other countries tell me what America and it's political process is like. As it happens Obama has made some assertions on the role of the judiciary in his speeches and books that should scare the living hell out of any semi-intelligent freedom loving American.

AMEN! Still a long way to go though, but so far he is not as scary as I was afraid he would be.

I was just about to suggest that. I got that very idea from a show on HGN called License to Grill. I use ziplocs for all marinating jobs now. Check out their website, they have tons of good and easy to make marinade recipes: http://www.foodtv.ca/ontv/titledetails.aspx?titleid=68771. Anyhow, I'm leaving for Alabama in a little bit. I'm working in Montgomery tomorrow and Birmingham on Wednesday. I'm driving this time so no hassle and coming home Wednesday night. To all my American Friends out there Happy Thanksgiving. To everyone else, see you later.

I did "Suicide as a response to terminal illness, or extreme physical pain and suffering is a whole different matter." Fair enough. I replaced "consider" with "commit" because you are correct, there is a huge gap between thinking it and seriously contemplating doing it or actually going through with it.

I have a venison backstrap I got from a guy at work who is an avid hunter. I'm going to slow smoke it using this recipe:

For all those who view suicide as a hurtful, selfish, or spiteful act I'd point out one thing. Ninety five percent of those who make that decision do so with a brain that is not functioning properly. Most of them do not consider the feelings of others at all becase they cannot, or worse, think they are doing others a favor by removing themselves. For my part I'd find it hard to cast aspersions on the motivations of someone whose reasoning is impaired or whose brain is not firing on all cylinders as it were.. In that situation I'm not sure suicide is even an affirmative act. Plus, there are a number of drugs I've heard advertised that actually induce suicidal thoughts as a side effect. Simbalta is one I believe. Now those that consider suicide after a sharp emotional pain like boyfriend/girlfriend breaking up, financial loss, divorve, etc. That is just foolish. There is no pain that copiuous amounts of alchohol cannot wash away. Suicide as a response to terminal illness, or exterme physical pain and suffering is a whole different matter. I must admit, if I were in a situation like that, it is an option I'd consider if there were literally no hope of recovery. Better a short quick end than a long agonizing one.

Excerpt: Rest of story here:http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/MindMoodN...6126&page=1 More: http://apnews.myway.com/article/20081122/D94JV9P80.html As sad as this is, the people you blog with are pretty much strangers to you. Most of the stuff you read on forums is BS of one kind or another. If one of you guys started talking about suicide I'd have a hard time taking it seriously especially if that person was given to that kind of melodrama on a regular basis. Speaking for myself I think I'd be mildly supportive of such a person while ignoring them for the most part. Most of that shtick is a ploy for attention after all. Why reward it? But actually egging them on is a whole horse of another color. One other aspect comes to mind. A few months back we were all opining on a case where a particularly cruel myspace prank led to a teen girl committing suicide. Most of you saw some criminal culpability in the perpetrators of the hoax. How about in this case?

I said earlier Obama can pick who he pleases. I really have no issue with any pick he might make for his cabinet. And I absolutely believe Holder will and should be confirmed and he is as qualified to be AG as anyone. I was just trying to get Enoch to smell the coffee.

Interesting reading linked below. Apparently Holder did more than just pass a recommendation along, he hand carried it to Clinton, bypassing the US Attorneys in the process (a circumvention of DoJ rules). Additionally, Rich's lawyer, Jack Quinn, was previously Clinton's White House Counsel (a VERY busy job in those days). After the pardon was issued. Quinn hired both of Holder's assistants, at Holder's suggestion. There is at least one clear instance of influence peddling, minor though it is. I think you will agree the piece linked below sheds a little more light on that but it is true there is no evidence he was paid off. But apparently he took extraordinary pains to make it happen, one has to ask, what WAS in it for him? Oh I will freely admit I am openly contemptuous and suspicious of Democrats in general. My political experience with them in Florida left me thinking of that whole institution as an organized white collar crime family. I can't say I hold the Republican Party of Florida in much higher regard but at least I worked with and for a few who were true believers and patriots. But in the Rich case, there is so much money being thrown around it is hard not to believe Holder was not rewarded for his efforts in some way. It's not like the Clinton Admin was clean in any way. Need I bring up $4M in donations from China (via proxies who fled the country to avoid prosecution) followed by the AG's office declining to fully investigate Chinese weapons espionage? None of it proven true, but where there is smoke... http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/22/opinion/...amp;ref=opinion

I don't think it's hard to figure out the impetus at all. Marc Rich gave Bill Clinton $400,000 for his "library". Marc Rich gave Hillary Clinton's senate campaign $70,000. Marc Rich gave the DNC $1,000,000. Marc Rich gave the Clinton legal defense fund $10,000. All of it BEFORE receiving a pardon in the dark of the night on Clintons last day in office. Still having trouble figuring that one out? Rich bought a pardon for $1.48 Million Dollars. Or more accurately Bill Clinton sold a pardon for $1.48 Million Dollars and our new Attoney General Designate Eric Holder brokered the sale under the guise of doing his job. I'm quite certain some of that money found it's way into his pocket. Ah the good old days when the democrats ran the show, corruption was rampant, and I had my taxes jacked up to pay for it all. The good old days are here again.

Actually I have no issue with anyone he picks. It's his cabinet he can pick who he pleases. I just find it humorous that after using the word "change" in every other sentence during the campaign he is building an administration that is anything but. As far as Hillary is concerned he is a fool if he regards her as anything other than a rival. If he should become Jimmy Carter 2.0 there is no doubt she will be in a strong position to challenge him in 2012, and will do so gleefully I might add. No one will argue that Ted Kennedy cost Carter the election in 1980, but he sure did not help. If by chance she becomes the Senate Majority Leader she will be in a position to make headaches for him. If he nominates her for the SC it will give the Repubs a BIG weapon against him. By nominating her to the Sec State he can: a) Allow her to serve and use any failure on her part, real or perceived, to destroy her. b) Allow her to serve and prevent her from using any failure of his administration, real or perceived, against him. c) Use the vetting process to destroy her as a viable candidate by allowing the skeletons out of hers and Bills closet (via proxies of course). If they do that they will remove a rival and look like the good guys for even considering her to begin with. If I were advising Obama, I'd recommend that he nominate Richard Lugar for Sec Def. He is a liberal Republican and it will make Obama look bipartisan. His defense credentials are impeccable and it is an area Obama is weak in. Obama will damage the Repubs in the Senate by taking out a powerful and influential Senator and replacing him with a weaker and inexperienced one (Indiana's Governor is a Repub) and possibly putting that seat in play in 2010. It will make Obama's closest ally Evan Bayh the senior senator in Ind. Lugar may even accept since he will be a part of a very small minority is he stays where he is and the Republicans will not lose his seat if he accepts. That would be smart on Obama's part.

I'm glad Obama is so committed to change. Why with his election all these new faces are coming into power like a breath of fresh cool wind off the Potomac. So far we have 1)Rahm Emanuel who was a political adviser to Paul Tsongas and Bill Clinton, a four year stint on the Board of Directors of Freddy Mac (his only "real" job), and a short stint in Congress and as the DNC chairman. In short a career political hack and beltway "insider". 2)Tom Daschle who aside from a very short time in the US Air Force as spent his entire career as a political aide, congressman and senator. He spent so little time in his home state of South Dakota that no one there recognized him. Finally they got sick of his weak kneed, hand wringing and gentle weeping and voted him out of office in 2004. Rather than get a real job he moved to DC full time and became a lobbyist for a number of BIG pharmaceutical companies. Now he (who represented the interests of BIG Pharm) will be the next Secretary of the Health and Human Services Department and in charge of "reforming" health care. 3)Eric Holder has spent his entire career in the Justice Dept in DC, was the Deputy Attorney General under Clinton, and is best known for convincing Clinton to pardon Marc Rich. If you forgot who he was that fine gentleman made millions illegally trading with Iran during the embargo by buying oil dirt cheap and selling to the US at a HUGE markup. He was finally indicted for tax fraud and fled the country rather than stand trial. Before his pardon Rich donated "large" amounts of money to the Democrat National Committee and Bill Clinton's Presidential Library. I wonder how much of that money ended up in Holders pocket? He is a career Washington insider and political hack with no qualms about peddling influence for money. 4) Hillary Clinton (possibly). Good grief, where do I even start? Wow, all this change coming to America. Meet the new boss... same as the old boss. What is this hand basket we are in and where are we going?

Just got home, drinking a cup of two day old, microwaved coffee, getting ready to start working on my shed again. The dogs are running around like nuts. The bad news is I'm leaving on Monday for Birmingham, then Montgomery on Wednesday. Fortunately this will be my last road trip for a long time.