Enoch

*For winning the battle, thepixiesrock gains 426 experience points* *Level Up!*

The theory is that . What I don't get is why ? Really, all the focus on the . And, yes, the epilogue stunk. It just seems wrong that our only view into the future of these characters is . Overall, I enjoyed the book, though. The revelation about was a pleasant surprise. It also had more interesting, tense action sequences than the first six books did put together. Although I was disappointed that .

Thanks, Pop. Maybe I will pick that up when I get a chance.

I really liked Chabon's Kavalier & Clay, but I'd been shying away from this one. Based on reviews I've seen, it looks to be full of references based on nuances of 20th century Judaism/Israel/etc. I'm a bit reticent, in that I think most of these would sail over my head. Is background reading necessary (or worthwhile)?

Honestly, I think that a majority of Democrats would rather that HRC not be the nominee-- they just don't agree on who they would prefer instead of her. If, say, the Edwards campaign starts falling apart, I suspect that almost all of his supporters would go to Obama before they would Hillary (which would put him in the lead in national polls). Also, contrary to what talk radio has said about her for the past decade and a half, Hillary is probably the most moderate of the leading Democratic candidates. She's the most hawkish of them on national security issues, and much of her support is from the more moderate pro-business Democratic establishment, as opposed to the ideological netroots. (Recall the blistering her husband took from his own party for supporting welfare reform in the mid-90s.)

Well, the constituent-pleasing spending is a problem that is inherent in democracy-- any time a leader is elected, it is in his or her best interest to reward the public that elected him or her. And, yes, a divided government is a nice check on excesses of this type. Personally, as long as it doesn't get ridiculously excessive or rise to the level of actual bribes, I think that it's a reasonable price to pay for a stable democracy. Anyhow, the real threat to the fiscal future in America isn't discretionary spending based on the preferences of current legislators (bridges to nowhere, et al.)-- it's demographic changes and longstanding entitlement programs that haven't adjusted to take these new demographics into account. As for whether people with "sound economic credentials" support "the hard left version of fiscal policy," that depends on your definition of "hard left." If you take it so far as to include nationalization of industries (that aren't plagued with widespread acknowledged market failures (i.e., healthcare)), then you're probably right. But if you mean policies that function to redistribute income/wealth, provide a social safety net, and prioritize employment levels moreso than economic growth or inflation, I think that there is a fair amount of support among many economists. The theory is that, while such policies are not efficiency-maximizing according to the rubrics of classical economics, they pay off in that they reduce economic externalities associated with poverty (urban blight, crime, malnutrition, social instability, etc.).

And that improvement in quality of life over the past 60 years has had nothing to do with government involvement? The GI bill? Subsidized student loans? The FDIC and Federal Reserve? Federal highways? Research grants? Environmental laws like the Clean Water Act? Any cynic can point to examples of fraud, waste, and abuse in government (that's actually my employer's raison d'etre) and places where politics drives policy more than good sense does, but there's a fair amount of baby in that bathwater. There are lots of people with "sound economic credentials" on the left and on the right (and both sides have an eqaully inconsistent record in the degree to which they listen to them). Oh, and for any conspiracy theorists still hanging around in the thread, Cheney gets to be the man for a few hours tomorrow while Bush gets his bunghole penetrated. Any bets on which countries we'll be bombing first?

Saw HP5 last night. My overall impression was positive, but mixed. The good: The visuals of the Ministry of Magic and Sirius' house were impressive. Imelda Staunton was an excellent Dolores Umbridge, and the design for her office was perfect. The girl playing Luna Lovegood was also great-- she stole every scene she was in. The rest of the cast was also very good (as always). If anything, I was upset that some of them didn't get enough screen time (In particular, Emma Thompson's turn as Trelawney was far too brief). The bad: The use of the Daily Prophet as a segue and exposition felt gimmicky. The was kind of underwhelming-- it could have been handled much better. . It was cut down dramatically from the book, which I'm generally OK with, but it totally screws whoever is writing & directing films 6 & 7, because much of the material that was cut is necessary exposition for stuff that happens later in the series. (Mostly, they never explained why Voldy wanted the prophecy in the first place, and I have a feeling that will have an important role in book 7.) The one cut that I felt really hurt this film was -- Umbridge's hate of "half breeds" and "near-humans" wasn't set up at all until the scene at the very end . It made that whole scene feel rather forced-- an unsatisfactory end for an otherwise excellent villain.

Oh, don't get me wrong-- AD&D was worse that D&D in most respects. Mostly, I'm sick of clunky rules that were clearly designed to be implemented in a tabletop game with nothing more than a few dice and some scratch paper as a calculation mechanism. That and endless fanboys on message boards complaining that the developers didn't implement their favorite obscure race/class/feat properly.

All the more reason for good game developers to write their own rules systems. I am sick to death of D&D/D20.

Volo, you're making the mistake of assuming that all NFL fans and all potential NFL fans view the league the same way as you do. Here's how I addressed this same point when you make it a few months ago with reference to Pac-Man Jones: If Vick were to play this season, I would not be at all surprised to see the stadium more than half empty for the Falcons home opener. If the star of my favorite team did what Vick did, I'd rather stay at home than express any public support for his exploits (and you can bet that the Humane Society and the ASPCA would be urging fans and advertisers to do exactly that). And you're certainly not going to see any Purina ads during NFL telecasts. The Kobe rape case is an interesting contrast, but I don't think it's a good predictor of what would happen if Vick were to play. That was a straight-up "he said she said" case and it was pretty easy for most Kobe fans to dismiss the accuser as a money-grubbing 'ho. There's no one accuser to demonize here, and bloodlust has stronger negative PR consequences than plain old lust.

You mean the Church of God the Utterly Indifferent?

This has been a hobbyhorse for Volo for a while now. He simply believes that the NFL has no business even inquiring about illegal activity by its employees unless there has been a conviction. This is, of course, an extraordinarily naive viewpoint. If a normal employee at some accounting firm or whatever announced to his supervisors that he had been indicted on federal conspiracy charges, he would be fired (or at least encouraged to take a leave of absence without pay) before the day was out. According to Volo, the NFL shouldn't be allowed to behave in a similar manner, even though its business depends entirely on its perception in the eyes of the general public.

Charlie Parker - Blues for Alice.

Prediction: Culpepper ends up in Baltimore, backing up Steve McNair. As for Vick, I would be pretty shocked if he plays another down in the NFL. For an indictment to come out so quickly, the evidence against him must be pretty strong. Also, this is a federal case, so it's less likely that whatever legal dream team Vick assembles will be able to outmaneuver the U.S. Atty's office doing to prosecuting. He'll be dumped by all his sponsors immediately, and either the Falcons or the League will suspend him shortly thereafter. Some have said a suspension is unlikely because it's Vick's first offense. I doubt this very much, because: 1) He lied directly to the faces of both Falcons owner Arthur Blank and League Commissioner Roger Goddell; 2) There is illegal gambling involved, which the NFL rules are very harsh on; and 3) Various animal rights groups will demand it (not just the PETA freaks-- I'm thinking ASPCA), threatening to boycott NFL sponsors and the Home Depot (which Blank co-founded).

I haven't played a space-trader game since Starflight 2. But I think I could get interested in similar games again. Although I'd prefer a game that's heavy on the "trading ignorant alien savages worthless beads in exchange for valuable intergalactic commodities" and lighter on the "blowin' stuff up." Recommendations?

I only took just enough criminal law to get through law school (i.e., one class in my first year and then a couple days of review classes before the Bar exam), but based on that and the occasional Law & Order rerun, the answer is yes. However, I recall that most states will allow the defense in the second case to present as evidence the fact that someone else has been convicted of this crime. If the prosecution doesn't have some kind of theory of joint liability (conspiracy, accomplice, etc.), it will probably kill their case unless they've already let the other guy go and nullified his conviction.

Five Guys is just the East Coast's sad attempt at imitating the glory that is In-N-Out Burger. I've only been to an In-N-Out once, and it wasn't a particularly pleasant experience. First off, the lines were crossed in their self-serve soda machines, which gave me diet soda when I wanted regular. I dumped what I had and switched to orange soda when I discovered this, but the horrendous aspartame aftertaste cast a pallor over the entire meal. Then I discovered that the basic cheeseburger I ordered came with mayonnaise on it (and they put lots of it on mine), which is just flat-out wrong. Apart from the mayo, it was a decent burger, but the fries were uninspired. I'd be willing to give them another chance, but I remain skeptical.

Crabcake Sandwich. Failing that, I suppose I'll take a hamburger. From Five Guys.

This past weekend, my fiancee and I drove up to Baltimore and met up with my parents there (they drove down from NJ). We saw the aquarium (which I haven't been to since I was in grade school), hit a few bars, and generally bummed around the inner harbor area. It was about as fun as a weekend with the 'rents can be.

Beatles - Within You Without You

The glass is completely full. Half with water, half with air. What do I win?

you would... Have him in your party the next time you go to and your opinion of Mr. Gnomehands might change. His reaction to is probably the most touching moment in the game.

Dexter Gordon - Love for Sale

To me, it's really the PS:T companions, and then the field (although Ignus, Vhailor, and Grace really didn't live up to the standard that the others set). I suppose Kreia and Jolee from the KotORs deserve some mention, too. The BG1 companions were nothing but a stat sheet, a picture, and a half-dozen quips, and I never really enjoyed the BG2 character interaction as much as many people seemed to. (The best part about the romances in BG2: the soundtracks for the Aerie & Jahiera romance conversations were the best tracks in the game.) The compelling character in BG2 was the villain, not any of the companions. Of the Fallout characters, FO2's Marcus is the best of the lot (and that's not saying much-- they all seemed like afterthoughts tossed into the game). I hated Arcanum. Some of the NWN2 companions had potential, but they were all kinda half-done, ending the game just shy of some actual meaningful development. So, I'll make it a top-5 and say: Dak'kon, Morte, Annah, Kreia, and Jolee. Nordom just misses the cut.