Hurlshort

I typically play a new game a month, and I don't finish most of them. It's actually rare that a game keeps my attention longer than a month.

I thought very few of the dwarves looked good as well. At least Thorin was well done, and the brothers, but the rest were silly or easy to forget.

I thought the trolls in the Hobbit could have been done better. There were also a few scenes that I thought were designed simply to make a 3D experience worthwhile, and that bothered me. But the positives far outweighed that stuff.

I actually think there are parts that would make less sense if you hadn't read the books. I mean it wasn't hard to follow, but it helped to have that background. The LotRO game actually had quite a few connections as well, right down to collecting Bilbo's buttons in Goblintown

I have a few people close to me running small businesses, and I've really had trouble finding any evidence that Obamacare will negatively affect them. I have been looking, my mother-in-law has enough troubles keeping her doors open without new costs. But most of the facts I can find on small businesses read like this article: http://www.slate.com/articles/business/small_business/2012/07/nfib_is_wrong_on_obamacare_the_aca_should_actually_help_small_business.html

After watching The Hobbit, I got an itch to load up Lord of the Rings Online. Holy Moly, I forgot what a huge and complex game this is. I spent all day getting back into my level 62 (now 63!) character and catching up to speed on some of the events. I've still got a ways ahead before I can head to Rohan, but I'm making my way along the path to Saruman's tower and that should help me gain a few levels. I actually just did a quest where I traveled around the whole map talking to the Rangers and enlisting them to fight for Aragorn. It took me most of the day but I got to reminisce about all the great areas I had adventured in over the years.

Sadly the Republicans are too divided to even get much credit from these tax cuts. When you have a vocal group yelling 'let it burn!' it tends to make everyone look bad.

I can see Hiro's point, but I genuinely thought this would be a fun activity for my dad. We did have wine in the house by the way, just nothing special. My dad built a wine cellar in his house, collects bottles, and generally enjoys visiting vineyards. We had recently moved to this house and it was only a few blocks away from this winery. Also I'm no expert on wines, so giving my dad a chance to choose something nice for the dinner seemed like a good idea. My wife and I are definitely not the most formal hosts, but we do the best we can. We both teach full time and we've got two little kids to raise, so it's fairly amazing when we manage to get a dinner on the table. My wife's parents seem to recognize that, as well as all my good friends, so it is disappointing that my parents do not. I don't know, it just doesn't seem like any of this is worth dividing the family over. edit: The winery in question

Sorry it took awhile to respond to these questions, I was on vacation and it can be hard to think about, let alone discuss. The short answer is yes, he is clearly exaggerating. I have a good example that I have tried to use with him, and I will share it with you guys. About a year ago, we had my parents over for dinner. When they arrived, my wife noticed that we had very little wine in the house, and my dad is a big wine guy. We have a winery just down the street from our house, and so she asked my father if he would like to go with her and pick something out there. I thought this was a great idea, it gave my father a chance to do something he enjoys and I thought it might be a nice moment for him and my wife to share together. Of course she paid for the bottle, so that should not have offended him. I brought this up when he was listing all the character flaws of my wife, and his take on the story was very different. First, he says as a host we should have already had the wine. Then he said it was inconsiderate that he had to leave the gathering and go with my wife. Lastly, he said the winery was not really that good (which is a bit crazy, this is a winery that has existed since 1925 and is quite famous.) I was flabbergasted by this response. It just showed me how different our perspectives are. I really have no idea how to guide someone into seeing the good in somebody, so I'm really at a loss. I believe Azure's advice about letting them come to me is sound, I have tried to reach out and bridge gaps, find common ground, etc. but it doesn't seem to be working. So I'll give it time and hope that either they come to their senses or I think about them less often.

The Hobbit - Really enjoyed returning to Peter Jackson's Middle Earth. It was enjoyable, and I look forward to the next chapter.

I'll hopefully be in bed around 10:30. Staying up until midnight sounds exhausting.

Basterds had some great scenes, but I did find the reckless abandonment of history disconcerting. Still, Tarantino seems to just keep improving as a director.

I got back from LA last night, we spent three days there at the Beverly Garland Holiday Inn. It was a great trip, we mostly stuck to Universal Studios and The Citywalk area. The crowds weren't bad and we tried to go early, head to the room in the afternoon for rest, and then return in the evenings. That helped us avoid the crowds a bit. My favorite ride/experience was the studio tour. It is a 45 minute tram ride on the backlot area, and it has quite a few different experiences like the Jaws area and a King Kong section. It was really cool just rolling through the environments. My 2 and a half year old son was also able to go on this, unlike most rides, so it was fun for him. He got pretty scared in some areas, but he was smiling big as we left. The earthquake simulation really got him! The Transformers ride was pretty good too. They have a neat child switch thing which lets one parent go on the ride while the other parent stays with the kid, then you can switch out without re-waiting in line. My biggest problem was all the 3-D stuff, I started getting pretty nauseous and had to avoid a few of them. My wife and daughter did much better. Waterworld was also a pretty cool show, lots of pyrotechnics. It was my first time at Universal Studios, and I was impressed. It was better than I expected.

I think it was a rhetorical question, but he forgot to post a picture of the rhetorical unicorn next to it.

Django Unchained - This probably says a lot about my affinity for westerns, but this was my favorite Tarantino film to date. It was just fantastic on many levels. He's been on quite a roll with Kill Bill 1 and 2, Inglorious Basterds, and now this.

We are staying in socal right now, and we spent the last day at Universal Studios. I will post pictures and stuff later, but it has been a blast.

I'd just say it is safer to say the military is mostly from the US and wouldn't fight their own. You don't really need to qualify it by a specific region. It's not like all the troops that were born in California are going to be okey dokey with fighting American citizens.

My daughter has also been digging the Leappad, while I'm busy playing with my Kindle Fire. I already took down the tree and cleaned up pretty well, we are leaving for Universal Studios tomorrow.

If you scroll down on that page, you have a few folks explaining why those stats are bogus http://nationalpriorities.org/analysis/2011/military-recruitment-2010/ Seems like a better breakdown at the above link.

Yeah, I'd like to see that supported by some evidence. I'm not actually sure what he means by the south, and if Dagon means the traditional Southern states, then I'm pretty sure those states simply don't have the numbers to back that claim up.

That basically supports my argument. The citizens wouldn't need to be armed because the army wouldn't mobilize against them. I'm not actually against gun ownership, but I think gun ownership to protect yourself from the government makes little sense in our modern society. Its the principle of the thing that's worth upholding. There is no real reason citizens shouldn't be armed. The few moronic accidents do not disqualify thousands of responsible gun owners from ownership. I consider disarming people suspicious, and voluntary abandonment of the privileges of owning a weapon disappointing. Most people are likely to go through their whole life without ever needing one, but if circumstances should arise that they need a weapon and they don't have one because they willingly discarded their right to it* - then they deserve whatever happens to them. *That is the current sad state of affairs throughout most of Europe, and the right to bear arms is one thing I admire about the US, even if the climate there leans dangerously towards worshiping guns as a panacea instead of merely treating them as the tools they are. But one of those few moronic accidents leads to a mentally unstable person opening fire on 6 year old children, you have to question the current policies. That is completely reasonable, even if at the end you decide that the gun control policies are adequate. At this point in the thread, I've calmed down from the initial shock of the event and I'm ready address my biggest concerns. Guns are not at the top of the list, but they are on there. 1. Parenting - This was a gross failure of parenting, both by the father and the mother. The mother paid for that with her life. 2. Mental Health Care - We aren't doing enough, or we aren't addressing it correctly. 3. Guns - Extended clips, guns that look like assault rifles, etc. There should be some changes in both the rules and the culture of the gun owning community. This isn't the wild west.

That basically supports my argument. The citizens wouldn't need to be armed because the army wouldn't mobilize against them. I'm not actually against gun ownership, but I think gun ownership to protect yourself from the government makes little sense in our modern society.

Since I get to vote, that basically makes me a board member in our government. Yeah, my vote is only one among a ton, but I can lobby for more, and on a local level I can have a good deal of influence. With corporations I vote with my dollars, but that means someone with more money is more important. Sure, our politicians rely way too heavily on campaign contributions and the like, but my vote is still as valuable as a wealthy individual. I'm not saying I fully trust either, but I do see the government as serving the interests of all people more effectively.

But those scientologists used all those fancy electronics to determine my spiritual trauma!

Our citizens, as they are currently armed, would really not stand any chance against the government at this stage. Military technology is just too advanced. But it's not really a necessity either, because our government has nothing to gain from becoming a tyranny. We have a lot more to fear from the megacorporations than anything else.