Hmm... I just say season one of "Prison Break" used over at GameStop. I should probably grab that before it becomes another series I want to watch but need to watch three or more seasons in order to catch up.
If you decide to watch Prison Break, be prepared to give it at least half a season before you pass judgment. When I first saw the first couple episodes, I was ready to dismiss it as a rip-off of The Shawshank Redemption that had been stretched out to fill an entire season.
By the mid-point, I realized that it was actually a rip-off of every single prison / conspiracy / Perils of Pauline thing ever produced in any medium. And, that I really like it.
Nothing really interests me other than the handful of shows I watch now - Smallville, The Biggest Loser, and, uh... that's about it.
Aren't you sick of Smallville yet? I thought the first season was *hilarious* and the second season was genuinely very good, but from there the series has slipped into such a rote and formulaic routine, it's hard to believe that they've filled four more *seasons* with the same old stuff.
When Clark Kent was 15, the angst he experienced over being different from everyone else made a lot of sense. Every teenager feels like an outsider and a freak, so it's easy to imagine that literally arriving from another planet -- as part of a devastating meteor shower, no less - would greatly amplify his awkwardness and uncertainty.
But now Clark's in his early 20's, and those same powers have been used to save hundreds of lives. Perhaps more tellingly, he's been stripped of his powers on a number of occasions and always found himself worse off for the experience. So why, after six years, is he still moping around in his parent's barn and whining about the terrible burden of being different? Why is he still pining away for the same unpleasant, self-involved girl from high school? Why is he still passively stitting back, struggling against the destiny that others want to force upon him, but never taking responsibility to forge one for himself?
There was a real breaking point this season when Green Arrow suddenly revealed that he'd assembled a team of other superheroes to travel around the world fighting evil. When a recurring guest star starts talking about things that are way more interesting than anything that's actually happened on the show in a few years, there's a big problem.
By comparison, I think Supernatural is an excellent "Monster of the Week" series with tons of remaining potential. If they can find a way to embrace the sort of evolving mythos and deep story arcs that made shows like Angel so fantastic, I could envision this series continuing for years to come.
I've been a little aimless since finishing off Wind Waker, not having found a single game to occupy the majority of my gaming time. Instead, I'll probably be splitting my attention between the Company of Heroes campaign, Super Paper Mario, and Supreme Commander.
Miami attorney Jack Thompson upped the ante on his controversial crusade against violent videogames this week, alleging in a formal complaint to the Department of Homeland Security that they pose "a dire threat to our national defense."
"Rewarding the player for violently dismembering uniformed America (sic) soldiers seduces our children into supporting violent acts against our military and instructs them on how to carry out acts of terrorism themselves," the grievance continues.
The complaint centers primarily on a 2005 game titled 'The Incredible Hulk: Ultimate Destruction' and describes how players are enticed into commiting repeated terrorist attacks against American civilian and military targets. Special rewards are recieved for successfully slaughtering U.S. soldiers, destroying their tanks and helicopters, and knocking down civilian buildings.
"This is nothing less than a terrorist simulator," Thompson wrote in a prepared statement. "Anyone with common sense can see how training our children in the ways and means of assaulting U.S. armed forces is the highest form of treason."
The complaint, received Thursday by the office of Homeland Security Director Michael Chertoff, has not yet recieved a formal response. "The concerns brought to our attention by Mr. Thompson are quite grave," said DHS spokeswoman Victoria Benning, "and rest assured that we aggressively pursue all credible threats to our national security."
'Hulk' developer Radical Entertainment flatly rejects Thompson's charge, arguing that the game "clearly takes place in the context of a fictionalized comic book setting." The press release goes on to say, "Mr. Thompson's allegations are absurd on their face. We're extremely proud of the quality of our product and the positive reception it received among the gaming community."
Thompson immediately fired back, "The absurdity here is that a company with "Radical" in the name would think we're all stupid enough not to realize the true nature of their anarchist agenda."
A polarizing figure among members of the videogame industry, Thompson has gained notoriety for previous civil lawsuits over videogames like 'Bully,' 'Grand Theft Auto: Vice City,' and 'Manhunt 2'. He is currently wrapping up a brief speaking tour addressing parent groups on how the Virginia Tech shootings may have been inspired by similar violence found in games.
'The Incredible Hulk: Ultimate Destruction' was developed by Radical Entertainment and published by its parent company Vivendi Universal in 2005. It carries a rating of "T for Teen" by the Electronic Software Ratings Board.
Some games are tense (Resident Evil 4) and some games are creepy (System Shock 2, Thief), but only Fatal Frame 2 has ever triggered such frequent, vivid, and intense nightmares that I was forced to stop playing.
I'm saying my personal views effect the people I elect and they, in turn, would hopefully represent my personal views (if I was in the majority on election day).
I think you're saying that the legislators, themselves, keep their personal views out of the voting, which I would hope!
Am I way off?
I'm not sure I'd want legislators who automatically voted for whatever the majority of their constituents thought they wanted at any given time. It seems reasonable to me that senators and representatives who devote themselves to learning about specific issues -- foreign policy, healthcare, tort reform -- are going to be in a better position to make an educated decision on the matter. Sometimes that means defying popular opinion.
I don't expect my legislators to represent my personal views, but rather the best interests of their constituents. That isn't a small distinction to me -- justice and equal opportunity are often contingent on a society's willingness to uphold the rights of the unpopular minority.
I think Al Sharpton's remark was just plain old stupid; it's his refusal to apologize and retract his statement that advances it into the realm of bigotry. Anyone can make an off-the-cuff quip that comes out in an unintended way, but when Sharpton insists on protecting his pride at the cost of his credibility -- not a new position for him -- there's really no choice but to accept that he meant exactly what he said.
Coming from a presidential candidate, however, Mitt Romney's response was fascinating:
Quote from: Mitt Romney
I can only wonder if there's not bigotry that still remains in America. That's an extraordinary thing for someone to say. I can't imagine what prompted him to say something of that nature. ... It's an extraordinarily bigoted kind of statement."
I love the idea that as recently as a few days ago, a leading Republican presidential candidate apparently believed that bigotry and racism had been totally eradicated from this country, and now he has to totally reassess that position because one bigoted comment was made by one guy.
It seems unrealistic to assume that he referred to the number of books authored by Obama in a derogatory manner, and then praised them in the same sentence. In the following sentences of the paragraph he goes on to talk about Obama's unthreatening tone. The most reasonable explanation is that he is saying that the books are fine oratory (even though they aren't oral at all) but lack the substance that would have disturbed their genial tone.
I believe you'll find that "those stem-winders" Ehrenstein mentions do not refer to the books, but to the stump speeches he mentions earlier in the article.
Quote from: David Ehrenstein
The senator's famously stem-winding stump speeches have been drawing huge crowds to hear him talk of uniting rather than dividing.
When Ehrenstein writes, "Obama's fame right now has little to do with his political record or what he's written in his two (count 'em) books, or even what he's actually said in those stem-winders," he's citing two separate elements of his public persona: first his books, then his speeches. He's making his point that Obama's popularity has more to do with his style than his substance. It's an argument I've heard many times since before Obama even declared his candidacy...though Ehrenstein's article is the first one I've read that suggests that whites only *really* like him because he helps assuage their liberal guilt.
Why not go after an actual source of those attitudes? Because none of them used the phrase "Magic Negro," and the people at The Rush Limbaugh Show desperately wanted to adopt that term as something they could toss around as part of their crypto-racist jargon. "Hey, don't blame us: we didn't make it up! We're just repeating something the drive-by media likes to say!"
Can you clarify what you mean by this? From my reading, it sounds as if you are saying that Rush Limbaugh brough the phrase "Magic Negro" into the debate by himself. The first half of Ehrenstein's op-ed piece is about the origins of the "magic negro" stereotype and the headline of the article is "Obama the 'Magic Negro'." It seems strange to criticize Limbaugh for using the phrase when he is actually trying to discredit the "Magic Negro" stereotype (or at least the idea that it appeals to whites).
Rush Limbaugh and Poleaxe defend "Barack The Magic Negro" as a "parody of the far-left attitude that Barack Obama isn't black enough." The critical flaw with that argument is that the song specifically targets an LA Times op-ed piece which makes the exact opposite point. From the song lyrics:
Quote from: The Rush Limbaugh Show
Barack, the magic negro Lives in DC The LA Times, dey call him dat 'Cause he's not authentic like me
Yeah, da guy from the LA paper Said he made guilty whites feel good They'll vote for him and not for me 'Cause he's not from da hood
See, real black men like Snoop Dogg Or me, a fella con Have talked the talk, and walked the walk Not come in late and won
Here's the problem: although Ehrenstein's piece does make the argument that white people only support Barack Obama because his skin color helps assuage liberal white guilt, the section that calls Sharpton and Snoop Dogg "sterling examples of genuine blackness" can *only* be read as a sarcastic response *against* people who have questioned Obama's "racial credentials."
Some people have questioned his racial credentials, but Rush Limbaugh's song writers don't go after any of them. They aren't even mentioned in the song, ignored in favor of lyrics which deliberately misrepresent Ehrenstein's article. If they're trying to parody the "Obama Isn't Black Enough" attitude that they claim, why would they ignore the actual proponents of that argument in favor of targeting an article that takes the opposite tact?
This song has nothing to do with parody and everything to do with generating an excuse for Rush Limbaugh to use the phrase "Barack the Magic Negro" on a national stage. It's an entertaining nickname with a wink-wink racist taint that Limbaugh can incessantly drill into the minds of his legions of dittoheads until the next election, and by pretending that a single LA Times columnist used it question Obama's racial authenticity, they get to claim that they're mocking the drive-by media. Not, you know, talking about how bring a convict is part of how black people "walk the walk."
Whether or not you like the phrase "Magic Negro" or the archetype it describes, Ehrenstein's article in the the LA Times lays out a clear explanation of what it means and why he thinks it should be applies to Barack Obama's presidential campaign. I don't hear a single line in Rush Limbaugh's song that could possibly be interpreted as a response to that article, a parody of the ideas it represents, or a rejection of the phrase "Magic Negro." I hear a poor imitation of Al Sharpton used as a thinly veiled excuse to mischaracterize several lines from an op-ed piece, all to establish a plausible basis for Limbaugh and his listeners to start co-opting some of the more racially charged portions for themselves.
I don't see how Limbaugh could be trying to "discredit the 'Magic Negro' stereotype" when the song he's using for that alleged purpose has nothing to do with the stereotype and somehow reverses the points Ehrenstein was trying to make.
The problem with what you're saying is that Ehrenstein never delivers the second half of your point. He never says: "Hey, that's just the way white america perceives him- he's really a fine example of black America."
Look at this paragraph:
Obama's fame right now has little to do with his political record or what he's written in his two (count 'em) books, or even what he's actually said in those stem-winders. It's the way he's said it that counts the most. It's his manner, which, as presidential hopeful Sen. Joe Biden ham-fistedly reminded us, is "articulate." His tone is always genial, his voice warm and unthreatening, and he hasn't called his opponents names (despite being baited by the media).
Note the bolded phrases- he's not being complimentary here. So even if his point is that white america is projecting, he also seems to be damning Obama for being a receptive target of that projection.
I was not familiar with the definition of a "stem-winding speech", so I looked it up. Multiplewebsites seem to agree that it is an adjective "of, relating to, or characterized by rousing oration." One website notes that a newer sort of usage seems to imply that a speech is too long or overblown, but also points out that this is not the commonly accepted meaning. I disagree with your assertion that it's used here in a derogatory fashion.
Now look at the paragraph that preceeded the one you quoted:
Quote from: David Ehrenstein
The only mud that momentarily stuck was criticism (white and black alike) concerning Obama's alleged "inauthenticty," as compared to such sterling examples of "genuine" blackness as Al Sharpton and Snoop Dogg. Speaking as an African American whose last name has led to his racial "credentials" being challenged — often several times a day — I know how pesky this sort of thing can be.
The sarcasm used here in distinguishing Obama's racial "inauthenticity" from the "sterling examples" of "'genuine' blackness" is obvious...except, apparently, to the song writers at The Rush Limbaugh Show who base an entire song on the pretense that it was intended as an earnest criticism of Obama's "racial credentials."
This is why the song does not qualify as a parody: it specifically and repeatedly cites the LA Times op-ed piece as the target of its mockery, grossly mischaracterizing the actual content of the article in the process. You can scour the internet for examples where Obama's racial credentials actually are called into question, but the fact remains that the song is dishonestly attributes those attitudes where they don't actually exist.
Why not go after an actual source of those attitudes? Because none of them used the phrase "Magic Negro," and the people at The Rush Limbaugh Show desperately wanted to adopt that term as something they could toss around as part of their crypto-racist jargon. "Hey, don't blame us: we didn't make it up! We're just repeating something the drive-by media likes to say!"
Ehrenstein concluded: "Like a comic-book superhero, Obama is there to help, out of the sheer goodness of a heart we need not know or understand. For as with all Magic Negroes, the less real he seems, the more desirable he becomes. If he were real, white America couldn't project all its fantasies of curative black benevolence on him."
Read that second quote again. I've read it before, and have read it again, now. No matter how you slice it Ehrenstein is saying that Obama isn't a real black man.
True...provided that the phrase "Magic Negro" is synonymous with "black man." It isn't.
Instead, Ehrenstein is literally saying that the less people know about Barack Obama, the more of their own hope and idealism they're able to project into him. Like the pop culture "Magic Negro" archetype that Ehrenstein defines (the benevolent and quasi-mystical black man with no past, no baggage, no vice, and no limitation to his altruism), he theorizes that Obama's greatest strength is that he *appears* perfect because voters know so little about him, and that as his image inevitably gives way to the truth of a real person with real virtues and real faults, people will have to reassess him as a "real candidate."
In order to argue that Ehrenstein is saying "Obama isn't a real black man", you must first believe that Ehrenstein defines a "real black man" as "a comic-book superhero who helps people out of the goodness of his heart and helps assuage white liberal guilt." He's actually doing just the opposite, pointing out that Barack Obama belongs in the "real man" category and arguing that white people have mistaken him for a "Magic Negro" because he happens to be black. He's not arguing that Obama isn't black enough; he's arguing that the fact Obama is black causes white people are willing to propel a black man they know nothing about to superstardom, simply to relieve their white liberal guilt.
There's a particular scene in Spiderman 3 that really epitomizes its worst elements. This isn't much of a spoiler, but I'll tag it just in case.
Spoiler for Hiden:
An out-of-control construction crane has slammed into the side of a building, and now Gwen Stacy is dangling sixty-two stories above the pavement. When her father, the police commissioner arrives on the scene and discovers that his daughter is about to fall to her death, the next two sentences out of his mouth are, "What would Gwen be doing here?" and, to Eddie Brock, "Who are you?"
Personally, I would have gone with something like, "Holy shit, my daughter is about to die! Somebody help her!"
Then Spiderman swings in, rescues Gwen, and...leaves. I guess the wild crane just resolved itself? What happened to that guy trapped in the control booth?
This scene has all sorts of problems:
1) The exchange between Commissioner Stacy and Brock plays for laughs and falls flat on its face. It's horribly timed, makes zero sense given the fact that both characters are intimately familiar with the woman who's about to die, and frankly, wouldn't have been funny under any circumstances.
2) There is no reason for Commissioner Stacy to have been called to the scene of an emerging construction accident. Actually, there's no reason for his character to have appeared in the movie at all -- his entire role could easily have been summed up with just a couple throw-away lines by other characters. Yet there he is, a character with no meaningful impact on the plot appearing in a scene that would have flowed much better without him.
3) As I mentioned above, Spiderman really doesn't seem too concerned with the fate of the runaway crane, the operator, or any of the other people in the building. Wouldn't it have been nice if a cop had at least walked up and said, "Thanks Spidey! The crane worker found the 'Back Under Control' switch and everything is fine now. Thank God we had the Commissioner here to-- oops, hold on...that's my radio. See ya, Spidey!"
Spiderman 3 is lousy with these sorts of problems. Characters overlook the most sensible conclusions, plot points are mysteriously abandoned partway through, and both elements are needlessly rearranged and squandered throughout the film. This is a movie that frequently mistakes nonchalance for intensity, cheesiness for poignancy, and most of all, quantity for quality. I prefer Spiderman 2.
I was reading the fines imposed..$1500 was one. To her thats liek a penny is to me. They should raise a fine to compensate for the amount of money one has. A $500 fine to me should be like $500,000 to someone like Paris. How else is it really a punishment to someone like that?
Anssi Vanjoki, 44, has been ordered to pay a fine of 116,000 euros ($103,600) after being caught breaking the speed limit on his Harley Davidson motorbike in the capital, Helsinki, in October last year.
Police say he was driving at 75 km/h (47 mph) in a 50km/h (31 mph) zone.
In Finland, traffic fines are proportionate to the latest available data on an offender's income.
Unfortunately, here in America, people seem to perceive policies like that as "punishing the rich for making more money." The reality is that they seek to punish the rich for breaking the law, and recognize the obvious truth that the threat of a $1,500 fine is not the same deterrent to a multi-millionaire as it would be to an average middle class citizen.
I cannot comment on how the GameCube <--> GBA connectivity works since I haven't tried it, but I have played Metroid Prime 2 from start to finish and the last half of Wind Waker on the Wii, and the experience has been absolutely flawless. It's a perfect example of backwards compatibility done right, allowing players to enjoy all the new games for the Wii while maintaining 100% access to their old GameCube libraries.
If you never owned a GameCube, I couldn't recommend a Wii highly enough. It's *exactly* like getting both in a single box, and with all the best titles of the last generation down to a paltry $20, you'll gain access to hundreds of hours of premium game time for an incredibly efficient price.
Your tastes may vary, but some of my favorite Gamecube titles included the Metroid Prime games, Viewtiful Joe, Eternal Darkness, Harvest Moon: A Wonderful Life, and Resident Evil 4. And, although I've written at length on the issues I have with with the final third of Zelda: Wind Waker, I think that the majority of the game is good enough to safely recommend to any fan of the series.
I've gotten a good amount of use out of my Wii so far. Granted, some of that has been with games like Metroid Prime 2 and Wind Waker which I simply never played on the GameCube (I *LOVE* backwards compatibility!), but I've also been having a blast with Super Paper Mario and continue to enjoy Wii Sports. I've even been having fun with FarCry: Vengeance which, having dropped in price to $20, has been worth the money for the hilariously bad dialogue and innovative controls.
Soon, I intend to continue on to Twilight Princess which I still haven't played, and Godfather: Blackhand which I haven't played on any other system yet, and is supposed to be a great amount of fun. And with other games like Super Smash Brothers: Brawl, Super Mario Galaxy, and Metroid Prime 3 on the horizon, I'm very confident that I'll continue to enjoy the Wii!
These are the two points of the story that really stick out the most to me.
Quote from: ABC News
Fort Lincoln neighbors are enjoying what they consider the comedy of it all.
"The whole city is aware of this lawsuit," said Bob King, who represents Fort Lincoln on the Advisory Neighborhood Commissions. "Everybody's laughing about it."
Everybody except the Chungs, who have spent thousands of dollars defending themselves against Pearson's lawsuit.
"It's not humorous, not funny and nobody would have thought that something like this would have happened," Soo Chung told ABC News through an interpreter.
Her husband agreed.
"It's affecting us first of all financially, because of all the lawyers' fees," Jin Chung said. "For two years, we've been paying lawyer fees. … We've gotten bad credit as well, and secondly, it's been difficult mentally and physically because of the level of stress."
Later, Soo Chung broke down in tears.
"I would have never thought it would have dragged on this long," she told ABC News. "I don't want to live here anymore. It's been so difficult. I just want to go home, go back to Korea."
Quote from: ABC News
First, Pearson demanded $1,150 for a new suit. Lawyers were hired, legal wrangling ensued and eventually the Chungs offered Pearson $3,000 in compensation.
Then they offered him $4,600.
Finally, they offered $12,000 for the missing gray trousers with the red and blue stripes.
Pearson said no.
This is not a "frivolous" lawsuit. This is not entertainment, greed, or stupidity -- it's raw malevolence. The only possible reason to press the case to this point is to destroy this dry cleaning business and the family that runs it. I truly hope that the justice system comes to its senses and hands down a ruling that offers the Chung family full restitution for the *actual* anguish and suffering they've had to endure, as well as severely punishing the plaintiff for carrying out such a petty vendetta.
I replaced my Super Paper Mario disc at the store, finished Chapter 4, and then went back into 4-1 to replay the section that had been causing the crash before. Everything worked perfectly fine with the new disc, so hopefully it'll be smooth sailing from now on!
I seem to have encountered a severe problem in Chapter 4-1 of Super Paper Mario which hard-locks my Wii console, and I'm curious if anyone else has had a similar issue.
The problem happens on the final section of the chapter: you can see an asteroid in the background with a tiny pipe sticking out of it, and three times now the system has crashed as I shoot the enemies in that area. My speakers start making a piercing monotone, and the system becomes totally non-responsive -- I can't even shut it off by holding down the power button on the console, so I have to physically unplug it from the wall. I finally slipped past this point by gliding past without firing a shot and tagging the star to end the level.
I've used my Wii extensively for games like Trauma Center and Wii Sports, and I've spent a *lot* of time playing Metroid Prime 2: Echoes and Zelda: Wind Waker via the backwards compatibility, and this is the very first problem I've had of any kind. A quick Google search hasn't turned up anyone else with this problem -- has anyone else seen anything similar to this?
Yes, things look a little rougher around the edges -- not surprising considering that this is still an unfinished build -- but it's a rather impressive recreation of the art style found in Wind Waker. I never thought the screen shots for that game looked any good either, but seeing it in motion was a completely different story.
If the animation is up to the task, this could be a great looking game!
I expect to be finishing Zelda: Wind Waker this weekend. I've completed the well-publicized scavenger hunt section and have entered the (presumably) final dungeon of the game.
This game really has been a study in extremes. The graphics and music are fantastic, the storyline is interesting (though not quite up to the level of the Nintendo 64 Zeldas), and the combat is probably better than at any previous point in the series, but the traveling becomes tedious and the puzzles run the gamut from brilliant to positively infuriating. Some of them actually seem to employ deliberate misdirection to make the actual solution seem as improbable as possible.
And if [democrats] had any guts to stand behind what they believe in and ran on, that the war cannot be won and all that, they would cut the funding. But that would be politically bad to do, so they wont.
This argument reminds me of triple-dog-daring a guy to stick his tongue to a frozen metal pole. If he does, he's a sucker and a moron. If he doesn't, he's a coward. And either way, you get to sit back, free from accountability, and mock him from a comfortable distance.
The republicans in this country bragged up a storm about how they were going to remake the world. The republicans are the ones who spread a lot of rumors to justify picking a fight with Iraq. The republicans are the ones who planned, executed, and financed that fight for four years, and the republicans are the ones who bear responsibility for the scandalous failures that have ensued, not to mention the reprehensible treatment of the brave soldiers who successfully accomplished every single mission they were assigned.
And now, republicans are the ones who are triple-dog-daring democrats into the politically and militarily foolish plan to cut funding for troops on the battlefield. If they do it, they're anti-American defeatists. If they don't, they're cowards. And either way, republicans hope to sit back, mock from a safe distance, and hope to God that everyone forgets the fact that they've presided over five years of failed strategies and false predictions.
Democrats have put forth a plan to end this war within the next year. They recognize that America cannot use military might to force political stability in the midst of a civil war, so they are backing a last-ditch effort to use a firm timeline to put political pressure on Iraqi leaders to get their act together. In order to criticize this strategy, republicans would first need to scrounge up enough credibility to explain how their plan -- which only came about after severe losses in the 2006 elections -- will somehow find success where all of their previous attempts have failed.
In other words, if you're the one who's stuck his tongue to a freezing pole, you don't really get to complain about the taste of your rescuer's warm water unless you've got a better idea.
The thing that really gets me about all of this is that Bush seems to be clearly defying and going against what is a majority view held by American People about the Iraq War at this point in time.
I don't object to idea of political leaders going against the majority opinion. Someone who devotes their lives to national defense should logically have a better grasp of how to handle it than the millions of people who focus their lives on mundane office work and raising their families. The problem in this specific case, however, is that this administration has really exhausted the "We Know Best!" argument by using it to justify failure after failure.
I remember thinking that going to war in Iraq seemed like a really terrible idea at first, but then I watched Colin Powell's formal address to the United Nations chronicling everything the United States knew about Saddam Hussein's WMD programs. He had vials of anthrax and satellite photographs of mobile chemical weapons labs and information on aluminum tubes which could *only* be used for enriching weapons-grade uranium, and I was convinced. I was willing to put my faith in their judgment, trusting that they had a rock-solid basis for their intelligence.
Today, we know that every single "irrefutable fact" presented in that address was actually intensely contested by our own intelligence agencies. Some were pure supposition put together by the Office of Special Plans under the guidance of Douglas Feith. Others, like the story about the aluminum tubes, were outright lies -- the tubes were wholly unsuited for centrifuging uranium, and everybody with an ounce of nuclear weapons knowledge were saying so at the time.
People sometimes accuse me of being a "Bush hater," as though I consciously decided in advance to dislike him and have just been objecting to his policies ever since. In fact, it was just the opposite: the Bush administration played the American people for suckers, taking advantage of our belief in the inherent honesty, integrity, and righteousness of our government to gain support for missions of extremely dubious national interest, and then botched those missions at a terrible, terrible cost. I am not angry about body armor shortages or abysmal medical care for our troops because I just mistrust Bush; I mistrust Bush because I've seen how his behavior has hurt our troops.
Why is there such a standoff over the troop withdrawal deadlines in this funding bill? Because everyone in both political parties recognize that this war can continue to be waged indefinitely, but the only possible ending is the pullout of American forces and a full-blown Iraqi civil war.
Congressional democrats see that the war is unwinnable and want to represent the wishes of their constituents by bringing it to an end, but are casting about for a way to do it without allowing the republicans to brand them as "surrender monkeys" who gave up "just as we were about to win!"
Congressional republicans see that the war in unwinnable and are desperate for a permission slip to bring to an end, but they need to find a way to pin responsibility for the defeat on the newly elected democrats rather than on their own half-decade worth of failed policies.
And President Bush....Bush is just running down the clock. In a perfect world, he'd bring about the victory he'd envisioned and be hailed as the Great Liberator of the Middle East. That isn't going to happen, so the best available alternative is to try and maintain the status quo through the end of his presidency and pass the problem off to somebody else. So long as the defeat comes on someone else's watch, he and his supporters will always be able to maintain that he was a principled defender of liberty whose strong core values refused to give in to political pressure. It's simply the best potential legacy.
I don't see much "good" vs. "evil" here. There's no altruism or malice involved; it's really just two sides striking the most pragmatically advantageous positions available to them. The difference between them is that one of the two sides is solely responsible for the preceding five years of incompetence that brought us into this position. Ultimately, that makes my choice of who to support a lot easier.
I would like to nominate several puzzles in Zelda: Wind Waker. I know everybody complains about the "Tingle Torture," but I think inane filler takes a distant backseat to some of the downright counter-intuitive puzzles in this game. Here are some examples:
Spoiler for Hiden:
1) A woman on Windfall Isle fills three text boxes talking about how much she wants Skull Necklaces, so much so that the words "Skull Necklaces" are highlighted in bright orange, yet she does not react when you try to give her one. Why? Because the actual collector of the necklaces is some other random townie who mentions them one time in passing -- someone who already got rich selling Skull Necklaces, and would therefore no longer need them.
2) One of the tasks on Windfall is to tag four little kids, one of whom is standing at the very top of a tall tree. You cannot hit him with your boomerang, grappling hook, bow & arrow, or hook shot. You cannot dislodge him with an exploding bomb. If you use the Deku Leaf to float down from the nearest wall and STAND RIGHT NEXT TO HIM, you cannot strike him with your sword or smack him with your hand. No, the only solution is to perform a roll attack against the base of the tree. As if that weren't already the least likely solution, it also needs to be lined up *perfectly* or you'll just roll past the trunk of the tree -- I know because I'd already tried it several times before checking a hint guide out of sheer desperation and discovering that it should have worked.
3) The first "traveling merchant" I encountered on Great Fish Island traded me a Sea Flower in exchange for my Town Flower and encouraged me to seek out his friends. I did, but they refused to trade anything new to me. It turns out that after receiving the Sea Flower, I was supposed to turn around and trade it right back TO THE SAME MERCHANT for something even better.
I don't know if something was lost in translation during the localization process or if these are just examples of careless game design, but they're certainly not the sort or obtuse, nonsensical solutions I would have expected in a modern Legend of Zelda game. In fact, considering how clever and logical the dungeon puzzles have been throughout the game, I would not be surprised at all to learn that two entirely separate teams were in charge of developing the different elements of the game.
I've played Zelda II, Link to the Past, Ocarina of Time, and Majora's Mask from start to finish without ever resorting to a strategy guide or even accepting a hint from a friend. Wind Waker may be superior to the majority of other adventure-themed games on the market but given its pedigree, it's hard not to be disappointed with its sloppy non-sequiturs and how easily they might have been avoided.
I also had a Magikarp fish, which the pokedex says is the weakest of all Pokemon. There's got to be a catch here, no? Totally harmless at the moment, but I've been training him up a bit in hopes that he'll eventually become something.
Magikarp will eventually
Spoiler for Hiden:
evolve into Gyarados who is a very useful flying/water-type pokemon. I can't remember off the top of my head when the evolution occurs, but it's natural and doesn't require any special conditions or items.
Quote from: Godzilla Blitz
I've got in my mind that I'm supposed to "collect 'em all", so I've been trying to capture every new type of Pokemon that I come across. Isn't that the way most everyone plays?
Yes. Certain rare AI characters will want to trade pokemon with you, giving you access to something you might not be able to get elsewhere, and you'll never know what they might want in exchange. Also, you'll never know when you might want to have a certain type of pokemon for breeding purposes, or to trade with another player!
I played a good deal of Zelda: Wind Waker, completing two dungeons and charting several new islands on my sea chart. I'm now at the point where
Spoiler for Hiden:
I need to find all the Triforce Charts, pay Tingle large sums of cash to mince around and decipher them, and collect the pieces. I already have two pieces -- we'll have to see how it goes from here.
When Wind Waker is good, it's very, very good. The two dungeons I finished were filled with extremely clever, inventive, and intuitive puzzles that made excellent use of all the different items I've acquired so far. The stylized graphics continue to impress -- I still love the way the color temperature of the world is used to such great effect in establishing the weather conditions -- and the animation, particularly of the bosses, is just incredible.
Then there's all the stuff between the dungeons: an enormous, sprawling ocean where everything is at *least* five minutes away from everything else, every single sector needs to be individually charted by bribing the local marine life, and the townsfolk tend to speak in odd little riddles that leave it unclear how, or if, you're supposed to interact with them. One woman stands on a dock, looking out to sea and pining away for some Skull Necklaces to attract her son's attention, yet has no reaction when I try to offer her one. People keep warning me about encountering the Ghost Ship if I'm out at sea on certain nights, but in all my time playing, I haven't seen it even once.
And then there are the totally unnecessary gameplay conventions. In most games, switching between two controllable characters would be a single button push. Not here...instead, you need to
a) have the Wind Waker assigned to a hotkey,
b) perform a four-note song,
c) watch while Link then re-performs the four-note song,
d) finally take control of the other character.
Is that really necessary? He can't just "ask" his friend to fly over there and hit the switch? He needs to perform a mind-control spell every single time?
I don't mean to exaggerate the annoyance factor here. It's actually a great testament to the quality of the core game play that despite these warts, I'm still enjoying Wind Waker as much as I am. I just can't shake the feeling that so many of the warts were wholly unnecessary, and that only a little more polish and a little less padding would have greatly improved the whole package.
Just having finished Metroid Prime Echoes I will add the final boss fights/ending. I am thankful they put a save right before the boss, unlike in the first game where you had to go through the metroid room every time you had to restart, ugh. Anyway, the final boss in MP2 has three forms. The first is actually the hardest I think, but the whole fight probably takes close to 20 - 30 minutes. Then the time limit starts and you have to escape, which is normal Metroid fashion. Guess what, there is another boss with two forms that you have to defeat before the timer runs out. So in the end the whole boss fight/ending takes about 40 minutes. I went through it three times yesterday before I finished. It was highly doable though and I didn't really think it was cheap overall, especially as I got better at it. There were quite a few points in Echoes where I was cursing under my breath. That could be why it took me 2.5 years to finish it.
I enjoyed Echoes through to the end, but even I have to admit that the final boss fight seemed needlessly frustrating. The technique you're supposed to use
Spoiler for Hiden:
(absorbing the small phazon orbs with your charge beam and firing them back at the boss)
only seems to work about one-third of the time; the rest of the time you just take damage and wonder why the hell it didn't work right.
I think Devil May Cry is a perfect example of a popular franchise that I find *far* more difficult than fun. I tried getting into the original game on three seperate occasions, each involving multiple days of playing and really giving it a some time to grow on me, and every time the boss fights were so grueling that it just seemed like way more effort than it was worth. The stupid fire-scorpion boss comes really early in the game, and the damn thing is so much harder than everything that preceeded it...why am I putting myself through this?? I'm no action slouch -- I *love* Ninja Gaiden: Black for the X-Box -- but DMC's sudden spikes in difficulty are just too punishing for me.
Should I buy 2 diamonds or a diamond & pearl? Main reason for 2 copies is the wifi battles with my son.
You should *definitely* buy one Diamond and one Pearl. The two versions are 100% compatible for wifi battles with your son, but since each version has a few exclusive Pokemon that the other does not, you'll be able to trade them between the two versions.
Buying two copies of Diamond will still allow you to battle and trade with your son, but you'll wind up missing on some content (admittedly a pretty small percentage) and gain nothing in exchange. Get one of each.
I know Pokemon: Diamond and Pearl will have a big online trading system in place, but I'm hoping that trading with people here on the forum will reduce the odds of receiving pokemon with names like "Scrotum" or ";0("
I'll be getting Pearl, so if anybody wants to let me know what sort of Pearl-specific pokemon they'd like to trade for, I'll be sure to keep an eye out for them and pass them your way! I'd love to receive some Diamond-specific guys in exchange, and the lower level they are, the better! (I prefer raising them myself -- a Level 25 pokemon raised from birth tends to have much better stats than a Level 25 one found in the wild.
Having finished Metroid Prime 2: Echoes last weekend, I've started playing through Zelda: Wind Waker. I played some of this back when it came out, but got distracted by something else. I'm already farther than I was the last time, and plan to play some more this weekend.
I'm also slowly playing Super Paper Mario, running through a chapter here and there between other things. It's a lot of fun, but doesn't inspire the same sort of long play sessions that an adventure or RPG does.
As most people already know, there's a compelling rumor that Electronics Boutique and GameStop will be offering a very appealing trade-in offer for current 360 owners. The question is: what do I need to know about trading in my current hard drive for the new one? How can I prevent my downloaded content, gamertag, or credit card information from going to the next owner? Will my Gamer Score remain even if I don't transfer over all of my save games? And will a memory card allow me to move over my save games and all my unlocked content (ie. Dead Rising) intact?
If not for the format war between Blu-Ray and HD-DVD, I would feel very comfortable recommending the drive. It improves the look of normal DVDs, and HD-DVDs look simply *fantastic.*
Unfortunately, there is that pesky format war going on. I don't regret the purchase of my HD-DVD add-on one bit, but so long as there's a danger that Blu-Ray could prevail, it's hard for me to say that someone else should gamble their money on it.
I never said that the Bush spokesman said didn't say something stupid (which was an assumption on your part). In fact, you typically like to respond to me when I post something political and make general assumptions. I don't know if you think I have a bulls eye on my back or if it's just a way for you to get your rocks off, but when you notice a pattern like this, it's usually called an obsession. I don't usually post anything political, but when I do I can count on AA to come save the day for his liberal cronies. Prove me wrong and show me a political post I've made that you haven't replied to.
There are people who feel silenced on here because of the loud-mouthing on the boards by particular members. Quite frankly, I think that the boards were a lot friendlier when there wasn't all this political charged . I've gotten plenty of PMs when I've made comments thanking me. It's sad when we can't have a discussion about a travesty where a lot of people get hurt without politics rearing its ugly head.
Graham, if you feel that I'm somehow intimidating people into remaining silent or carrying out some personal vendetta against you specifically, you can always send me a private message or lodge a formal complaint. The moderators of this forum and the management of this website have always struck me as being a very capable and fair-minded group of people. You can even post your grievances in a public thread, invite the authors of those "plenty of PMs" to participate, and title it "Autistic Angel Is Poopy!" if you want.
This thread, however, is not about your persecution or my degree of poopiness. It's about a tragic mass murder, the facts surrounding the incident, and people's reactions to it. The position I'm taking is that it's disingenuous to accuse Eduardo X, jblank, Poleaxe, or anyone else of "trying to politicize the issue" because they're talking about a political statement that somebody else made. You don't get to blast people for wandering through an open door unless you're willing to first acknowledge the role of whoever crowbarred it off its hinges in the first place.
When planning your future posts, I think it would be more effective to focus on the merits of what people are saying rather than on your personal opinion of the individuals involved in the conversation.
I dodn't like the difficulty of the game either; I feel it is too hard.
I'm curious, which do you think is more difficult: the combat or the puzzles?
I found many of the boss characters more challenging in Echoes, but progression-wise, I thought the environmental puzzles were much more intuitive. There were points in the original Metroid Prime where I was wandering around for looooong periods of time trying to figure out what I was supposed to do next. By contrast, the goals in Echoes always seemed more straightforward so I usually had a clear idea of where I should go and what abilities I'd need to get there.
(I also played both games with the in-game Hint System set to 'Off' because I wanted to figure out things for myself. My experience may be different from other people's.)
Quote from: JSL
For some reason I do not like the light/dark world in Echoes either. I can't stand dying and knowing that I was not able to get to a save point, so those 45 minutes are wasted.
Yeah, that happened to me a couple times, too. Once, I was actually looking for a save point but wound up wandering into a boss battle instead, and lost about a half-hour of progress when I died. Some of those boss battles seem really tough! A good tip is that Save Rooms are almost always behind red Missile Doors, so when you see one, make sure to head in and chart it on your automap for future reference.
Dark Aether is really dangerous when you first visit, but it gets less and less inhospitable as you progress. Don't forget that standing in the "safe zones" will constantly regenerate your energy levels!
Finally, remember that you don't have to kill enemies to create ammo. If you blow open a container with a light shot, you'll probably get some dark ammo out of it. Use a dark shot, you'll get light ammo. I found it much easier to maintain my ammunition levels once I figured that out...