deganawida

The AP is now reporting that Kerry has called Bush and conceded the election.

Dookie was crap (no pun intended). Their earlier stuff was truer punk.

Funny bit of trivia. Yahoo! has an electoral map up. There's just one problem: they did their math wrong. According to the actual electoral votes contained in the states that have been declared for Bush, his total is 1 higher than the total that they show. Right now, for example, they're showing him with 195 electoral votes. However, if you add up the individual states, you come up with 196. Guess Yahoo! needs to have a recount...

We aren't allowed to vote more than once, either, but that doesn't stop people from trying. There are people who try to vote multiple times, use the names of the deceased, use made-up names, ad infinitum.

No matter how anyone votes, I am proud of my fellow citizens for voting. We've been lax in the voting department for far too long.

Or what? You'll castigate me through the anonymous medium that is the Internet? You'll claim that Americans are dumb/deserving of terrorist attacks/ugly/fat, if you don't like my choice? I got to tell you, those prospects are mighty terrifying.

Oh, cool. I thought that the topic was a sentence fragment. I looked 'cause I was asking, "First doctor who publicity shot what?"

True, but something about a more classic approach to the suit gets me anytime. That, or some of the Elseworlds variants. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I agree. That's why I love the current Bat-suit; it has the retro look of the 30s Batman, but incorporates infrared, an on-board targeting and ident system, comlink, and other functional enhancements similar to what Azrael did.

Capes are seriously impractical and interfering no matter what their structure is. Capes are there for the sole purpose of looking cool, and finding fault with the practicality of a cape design is pretty much taking the fun out of it. And I think the cape in this illustration, practical or no, looks cool, which is the whole point. There's nothing practical about superheroes, so I don't expect their costumes to be practical. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Actually, Batman's cape does serve some practical purposes. Number one, it's scary as hell, and Batman believes that "criminals are a cowardly, superstitious lot" and so he uses the cape to make himself more menacing. Second, at night and in the dark, it blurs his outline, making his features indistinguishable, and making it more difficult for enemies with guns to draw an accurate bead on his head or chest. It still would interfere with movement, but that's been an issue since we first invented armor (mobility vs. protection).

Bah! Jean-Paul Valley had the best Batman costume. The Ultimate Batman costume looks nice at first glance, but take a closer look at how the cape covers the shoulders and part of the chest. That cape would be a serious liability anytime Bats would have to use his arms in a life-or-death situation. The standard cape is bad enough (as Azrael noted), but is necessary for the fear factor; this cape would see Bruce dead his first night out.

As far as I know that is so far unproven. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Correct. They only provable results that have been reached in the multitude of studies regarding homosexuality is that there is a correlation between homosexuality and some abnormal brain structures. However, this is correlative, not causal, so no further conclusions can be safely made. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> So tell me, exactly, why someone would choose to be a homosexual? Especially someone in a state like Mississippi? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Your argument is flawed. Assume, for a moment, that homosexuality is not a biological condition, meaning that it is not caused by genetics or exposure to chemicals, then it falls that homosexuality is a behavioral condition. Now, your argument posits that one would conciously choose an undesirable behavior while living in an environment that finds such behavior particularly deplorable. If one accepts that position, then one must conclude that being a criminal, a high-school dropout, a teen mother, a domestic abuser, a Republican or Democrat in a state that is the opposite political persuasion, etc., is a biological condition. However, that position ignores the bulk of psychological research on when behavior patterns are formed. The majority of behavioral patterns, both positive and negative, are formed in early childhood, with the next largest grouping coming in early adolescence. Further, these patterns are learned through modeling; that is, a child witnesses a behavior and attempts to copy it. There is no value judgement in this type of behavior; the child does not reason out if such behavior is good or bad, desirable or undesirable, conducive to a healthy social life or destructive. All that matters to the child is that someone important to the child is exhibiting this behavior. IF one were to use this criteria to formulate a hypothesis, one might hypothesize that parental figures and their relationships might be a contributing factor in homosexuality. Perhaps in single-parent homes, homes where there is no positive male role-model, or in situations where the male parental figure is rarely present, young boys begin modeling their behaviors, likes, and dislikes on their mothers. Perhaps there is a correlation between increased rates of male homosexuality and the types of situations described (please note, this is a hypothetical argument). Now, in none of these cases did the child actively choose to be homosexual; however, when presented with limited choices, it modeled itself on the one person who consistently was present and providing for it. Simple instinct directed the behavior, not the concious choice and reasoning of an adult.

Just that, The accusation is often made that he, and he alone, lied. I am merely attempting to present evidence that might lead others to consider that maybe he was just mistaken.

D'oh! Forgot about that part! The red giant will swallow everything up to Mars, right? It's been a while.

Some quotes to add perspective to this "lie". "One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line." - President Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998 "If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq 's weapons of mass destruction program." - President Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998 "Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face." - Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998 "He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983." - Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb. 18,1998 "[WE] urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs." - Letter to President Clinton, signed by Sens. Carl Levin (D-MI), Tom Daschle (D-SD), John Kerry( D - MA), and others, Oct. 9,1998 "Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process." - Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998 "Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies." > - Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999 "There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein has invigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of illicit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies." - Letter to President Bush, signed by Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL,) and others, December 5, 2001 "We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and the means of delivering them." - Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002. "We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country." - Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002 "Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power." - Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002 "We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction." - Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002 "The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..." - Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002 "I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force-- if necessary-- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security." - Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9,2002 "There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years . We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002 "He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do" - Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002 "In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members...It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons." - Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002 "We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction." - Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002 "Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime . He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real" - Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003 Those in bold are particularly relevant to this year's presidential election. So, that leaves us in a bit of a quandry; the Senate received the exact same intelligence briefings that the Bush Administration received. If, then, Bush lied about WoMD, then so did all these other elected officials, many of whom have no desire to aid Bush. If, however, the intelligence, though now revealed to have been faulty, was convincing enough that all these current and former government officials agreed with the Bush Administration that Hussein had WoMD and/or was rebuilding his programs, then Bush did not lie. You decide.

Minor correction: Sol doesn't have enough mass to go super nova. It will, however, go nova. It will still wipe out the earth and most of the solar system when it does go nova.

As far as I know that is so far unproven. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Correct. They only provable results that have been reached in the multitude of studies regarding homosexuality is that there is a correlation between homosexuality and some abnormal brain structures. However, this is correlative, not causal, so no further conclusions can be safely made.

Hey, at least it won't feature Nick Cage as a hyperactive Clark Kent. That was just plain stupid.

This is great! If people haven't heard of InXile before, they will now (assuming that they're a bit more than the casual gamer, of course). Great spoof for Fargo.

I can't speak from the perspective of someone in the industry (as I'm not), but given how many layoffs and company closings in the gaming industry in the last five years, I say go for it. Even if you can't get into the industry immediately, you will at least have a really good degree to make a living on while you keep trying.

What!?! Humor?! Humor doesn't belong on a gaming forum!!!! j/k Thanks, Ellester.

Update from the AP. Not precisely sure what this means yet. A cursory glance through the double-speak seems to suggest that recount calls are going to be made as soon as polls close in the "battleground" states. Interesting. This comes after 5 of 6 polls show Bush maintaining a 4-point lead of Kerry. If what I fear comes true, then elections will mean ____-all and our presidents will be picked in the courts from now on. Hell, voter fraud or disenfranchisement can be called on almost anything, even if there is little or no proof.

Hmm, might have to go to that. Columbus is about a four hour drive from here, but might be worth the effort.

Heroes Reborn was a unique event. Marvel sold the rights to FF, Cap, Hulk, Iron Man, and Avengers to Jim Lee and Rob Liefeld. They had full creative rights for a year, at which time Marvel would get the comics back. The ending of the Onslaught storyline was changed to get rid of the heroes, and Heroes Reborn was instigated to bring them back. Really ticked me off, 'cause it happened in the middle of the Waid/Wagner run of Cap, which was the best run Cap had seen in 40 years. Crisis was great, IMO. Zero Hour was pretty good, but shouldn't have been necessary. The DC hero shake-ups were a mixed bag; I felt that Knightfall was particularly good, as it illustrated why Batman was important, and why Bruce Wayne was even more important. The Death of Superman sucked, though.

D'oh! Didn't even think about GL also referring to Lucas. As to your other comments, Leferd, I was a casual reader before Kyle came along. Since the mid-90s, though, I've read many of Hal's pre-Emerald Twilight adventures. I feel that what happened to Hal in Emerald Twilight was a natural progression of events beginning two years before the destruction of Coast City. Hal had become harder-edged, more violent, less friendly, and had crossed the line a couple of times. He was already in a downward spiral before Marz ever got alhold of the comic, and thus it doesn't surprise me that he eventually took a "the ends justifies the means" stance to the troubles of the world. Further, the destruction of Coast City should have had a very real effect on him, and his desire to "rebuild" it with the ring was excellent (bad idea for him, but very effective story-telling). I don't know if Marz had any hand in the decision to destroy Coast City at the end of the Return of Superman saga, but regardless he had to show consequences for it. Oh, yeah, Darryl Banks was a fantastic artist. I loved how he gave Kyle's creations such personality and life. With the exception of Ron Lim and Pelletier, I don't think anyone has ever given the ring that much personality.