Senate Armed Services Committee releases a report unanimously, bipartisanly implicating Rumsfeld, Cheney, Bush, et al in the torture committed by Americans at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo. Seeing as how many detainees have been killed by these interrogation tactics, our President, Vice President, and former Secretary of Defense are accessories to murder and guilty of war crimes.
One would think this would be a big deal, but it wasn't. No one in the media has reported on this for four days because they've been busy trying to imply that Barack Obama was somehow involved with Rod Blagojevich despite there not being any evidence for that claim.
I hate the media.
Monday, December 15, 2008
Thursday, December 11, 2008
Who's dumbest?
Detroit?
Washington?
Republican House Members?
Republican Senators?
The President?
Democrats?
The UAW?
Jesus. Bunch of morons, all of them.
Washington?
Republican House Members?
Republican Senators?
The President?
Democrats?
The UAW?
Jesus. Bunch of morons, all of them.
Sunday, December 7, 2008
Playoffs!
Because it's silly not to do this (knock one weekend off the regular season):
Teams with byes:
(1) Texas
(2) Oklahoma
(3) Florida
(4) Alabama
Games that would have been played yesterday:
(12) Texas Christian @ (5) USC
(11) Cincinatti @ (6) Utah
(10) Ohio State @ (7) Texas Tech
(9) Boise State @ (8) Penn State
Games to be played December 13th:
Winner of 8/9 plays @ Texas
Winner of 7/10 plays @ Oklahoma
Winner of 6/11 plays @ Florida
Winner of 5/12 plays @ Alabama
Semifinals (re-seeded) in New Orleans and Miami on December 20. Championship game New Year's Day in Pasadena. Problem solved.
Teams with byes:
(1) Texas
(2) Oklahoma
(3) Florida
(4) Alabama
Games that would have been played yesterday:
(12) Texas Christian @ (5) USC
(11) Cincinatti @ (6) Utah
(10) Ohio State @ (7) Texas Tech
(9) Boise State @ (8) Penn State
Games to be played December 13th:
Winner of 8/9 plays @ Texas
Winner of 7/10 plays @ Oklahoma
Winner of 6/11 plays @ Florida
Winner of 5/12 plays @ Alabama
Semifinals (re-seeded) in New Orleans and Miami on December 20. Championship game New Year's Day in Pasadena. Problem solved.
Thursday, December 4, 2008
Apologies!
So apparently pneumonia also puts a big cramp on your blogging activity in addition to all of its other fun effects. I am feeling mostly better at this point so hopefully something resembling content will start appearing soon.
Sunday, November 23, 2008
Stupidity
Dear College Football Voters (Especially Ones Who Want a Playoff),
The University of Texas beat the University of Oklahoma on a neutral field. Please vote accordingly.
Thank you,
Sane people everywhere
The University of Texas beat the University of Oklahoma on a neutral field. Please vote accordingly.
Thank you,
Sane people everywhere
Thursday, November 20, 2008
Good News Everyone! (And not in the Professor Farnsworth sense)
So today my Congressman, John Dingell was tossed out of his chairmanship of the House Energy committee. So why am I celebrating the loss of power for my congresscritter? Well, obviously I didn't vote for the guy if I'm celebrating, but why not?
First of all, John Dingell has been representing parts of southeast Michigan for nearly 54 years. I have a problem with that in general so I'm already not a fan. But Dingell in particular is loathesome for extra special reasons. In particular, he is bought and paid for by the auto companies. For some things, like the auto company bailout I'm mildly in favor of, this is a good thing.
However, as chair of the House Energy committee, it's a disaster. For his entire 50 years, and in particular since we realized that oil was not a limitless resource (originally in the 70s, and again lately) he's blocked all kinds of legislation that would improve CAFE standards or move us towards a genuine energy policy. Fortunately, our newly progressive Democratic overlords led in particular by the President-elect, Nancy Pelosi, and Henry Waxman our new Energy chair, ousted his sorry ass today in a close vote among the Democratic caucus. Yay!
Waxman in particular is awesome. Last seen battling the forces of evil and investigating damn near every aspect of the Bush Administration, he was before that a damn fine legislator. It seems likely that the United States will finally have a real energy policy, and that's a change we can all believe in.
First of all, John Dingell has been representing parts of southeast Michigan for nearly 54 years. I have a problem with that in general so I'm already not a fan. But Dingell in particular is loathesome for extra special reasons. In particular, he is bought and paid for by the auto companies. For some things, like the auto company bailout I'm mildly in favor of, this is a good thing.
However, as chair of the House Energy committee, it's a disaster. For his entire 50 years, and in particular since we realized that oil was not a limitless resource (originally in the 70s, and again lately) he's blocked all kinds of legislation that would improve CAFE standards or move us towards a genuine energy policy. Fortunately, our newly progressive Democratic overlords led in particular by the President-elect, Nancy Pelosi, and Henry Waxman our new Energy chair, ousted his sorry ass today in a close vote among the Democratic caucus. Yay!
Waxman in particular is awesome. Last seen battling the forces of evil and investigating damn near every aspect of the Bush Administration, he was before that a damn fine legislator. It seems likely that the United States will finally have a real energy policy, and that's a change we can all believe in.
Tuesday, November 18, 2008
Alaska can stay in the union!
Link
Also, I'm the worst blogger ever, sorry!
Brain shut off post-election, content should be forthcoming. Hopefully.
Also, I'm the worst blogger ever, sorry!
Brain shut off post-election, content should be forthcoming. Hopefully.
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
Sunday, November 2, 2008
Why he's winning
I understand times are hard. This won't be easy. The storm hasn't quite passed yet. Sometimes the skies look cloudy, and it's dark, and you think, "the rains will never pass." But here's what I understand: that as long as all of us are together, as long as we're all committed that there's nothing we can't do. That's why we started off this campaign saying "yes we can." That's why we understood that Black, White, Hispanic, Asian, Native American, young, old, rich, poor it doesn't matter we're all Americans. That our destiny will be shaped by us! And this young generation that's out here, the young people of America! Understand that the clouds, these too will pass! That a brighter day will come! That if you are willing to work for us, if you're willing to roll up your sleeves, if you're willing to lock arms and march, and talk to your friends, and talk to your neighbors, make a phone call, do some organizing, yes do some community organizing then I promise you, Fredericksburg, we will win Virginia, we will this general election, and you and I together will change this country and change the world! God bless you and God bless America.
-Barack Obama in a driving rainstorm, Fredericksburg Virginia
Change We Can Believe In
From here
Hat tip: Simon
Charlotte, N.C. - There has been a lot of speculation that Barack Obama might win the election due to his better "ground game" and superior campaign organization.
I had the chance to view that organization up close this month when I canvassed for him. I'm not sure I learned much about his chances, but I learned a lot about myself and about this election.
Let me make it clear: I'm pretty conservative. I grew up in the suburbs. I voted for George H.W. Bush twice, and his son once. I was disappointed when Bill Clinton won, and disappointed he couldn't run again.
I encouraged my son to join the military. I was proud of him in Afghanistan, and happy when he came home, and angry when he was recalled because of the invasion of Iraq. I'm white, 55, I live in the South and I'm definitely going to get a bigger tax bill if Obama wins.
I am the dreaded swing voter.
So you can imagine my surprise when my wife suggested we spend a Saturday morning canvassing for Obama. I have never canvassed for any candidate. But I did, of course, what most middle-aged married men do: what I was told.
At the Obama headquarters, we stood in a group to receive our instructions. I wasn't the oldest, but close, and the youngest was maybe in high school. I watched a campaign organizer match up a young black man who looked to be college age with a white guy about my age to canvas together. It should not have been a big thing, but the beauty of the image did not escape me.
Instead of walking the tree-lined streets near our home, my wife and I were instructed to canvass a housing project. A middle-aged white couple with clipboards could not look more out of place in this predominantly black neighborhood.
We knocked on doors and voices from behind carefully locked doors shouted, "Who is it?"
"We're from the Obama campaign," we'd answer. And just like that doors opened and folks with wide smiles came out on the porch to talk.
Grandmothers kept one hand on their grandchildren and made sure they had all the information they needed for their son or daughter to vote for the first time.
Young people came to the door rubbing sleep from their eyes to find out where they could vote early, to make sure their vote got counted.
We knocked on every door we could find and checked off every name on our list. We did our job, but Obama may not have been the one who got the most out of the day's work.
I learned in just those three hours that this election is not about what we think of as the "big things."
It's not about taxes. I'm pretty sure mine are going to go up no matter who is elected.
It's not about foreign policy. I think we'll figure out a way to get out of Iraq and Afghanistan no matter which party controls the White House, mostly because the people who live there don't want us there anymore.
I don't see either of the candidates as having all the answers.
I've learned that this election is about the heart of America. It's about the young people who are losing hope and the old people who have been forgotten. It's about those who have worked all their lives and never fully realized the promise of America, but see that promise for their grandchildren in Barack Obama. The poor see a chance, when they often have few. I saw hope in the eyes and faces in those doorways.
My wife and I went out last weekend to knock on more doors. But this time, not because it was her idea. I don't know what it's going to do for the Obama campaign, but it's doing a lot for me.
Hat tip: Simon
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
Game Design, Part 2: Genres
So previously we explored how and why I became a gamer, and in particular why I became interested in the concept of game design. Today we're going to focus on the very first decision you can make as a designer: what genre of game would you like to make?
I'm going to argue that every game can be described with the following four elements: action, strategy, chance, and interaction.
Some games are nearly pure action games. These games have strategy, but the biggest draw is what is going on instead of why things are going on. The foremost examples in this case are sporting events and some video games, especially shooters. I have some ideas on these types of games, but they're not my passion so we won't be covering them in detail (at least not for a while).
Strategy games are focused on conceiving and executing a plan. Some sports (notably football) certainly have elements of this, but the purest strategy games are board games and board game like computer games. Chess would be the classic example, though I prefer games like Puerto Rico, Civilization, and X-COM.
These games are my favorite kinds of games, and the kind of thing that I would try to design. John and I have worked on a few of these games, though he's done more towards actually making any of these a reality. One of his I particularly enjoy and I'll ask him for permission and post the rules at some point. Strategy games are the games that are almost entirely about choices, which is why I'm most interested in them.
Games of chance are just that. Nearly all games have some element of chance, whether it be the die roll in Monopoly, the tiles drawn in Puerto Rico, the cards that come in poker, the way a ball rolls in football, etc. Chess is the obvious exception to the rule here. Meanwhile at the other end of the spectrum some games are purely chance with the only choice being how to bet (think Roulette or the slots). The key to these games from a design standpoint is to make winning appear more likely than it actually is. This requires a healthy amount of probability calculation and is not very interesting from a design standpoint. Instead what we want to draw from chance is a limited mechanic: one which makes outcomes uncertain, but also one which generally rewards good choices.
Then there are games of interactivity. I'm going to call these games "social" from now on because it's easier to understand. These games focus their attention on how one interacts with their fellow players. The current most prominent example of this is probably World of Warcraft (though it obviously has elements of chance, strategy, and action it is predominantly a social game). But there are other games that have prominent interactive or social aspects. A good example of this is poker, where knowing probability is hugely helpful, but having some social skill can get you a long way. Nearly all "party games" fall into this category as well for obvious reasons. Games like Apples to Apples, Loaded Questions, or Balderdash are all about who you're playing with to be fun.
One note: simulations (Sims, Sim City, Flight Simulator, Spore) are ignored here because they are more "toy" than "game" though some of them fall reasonably close to strategy games.
The question of choices comes up in all four game types to varying degrees. Choice in pure games of chance is about WHAT to do. Choice in action games is both about WHAT to do and HOW to do it. Choices in strategy games are about WHAT to do, HOW to do it, WHY you should, and WHERE these choices are taking you (Basically, is there a plan? There should be). And finally social games all of the above take place but you have to add the question of WHO are you playing with?
Social games are the toughest to play and the hardest to design effectively because the number of choices you're asking the player to make are large.
Making things a little more complicated is that almost no game is a pure game type. So things aren't easy to categorize. For example, knowing an opposing football coach and how he thinks in the NFL is a crucial element to winning games. Or in Risk if you become known as a backstabber, it's hard to make alliances and you become more likely to be targeted earlier in future games. But fundamentally Risk is a game of chance with strategic and social aspects. The NFL is an action game with strategic and social aspects. (Texas Hold 'Em) Poker is a strategy game heavily influenced by social and chance elements. Other variants of poker have more chance elements (think Draw) or social elements (Blind Man's Bluff).
But all games are fundamentally predicated on having those four elements. Obviously I'm most interested in the games that are fundamentally about strategy. It's the math geek in me. But that's for next time when we ask the seemingly simple question of "why are choices the key to a good game?" and maybe (we'll see how I feel) the more interesting question of "what does this tell us about other topics like the inevitability of history?"
I'm going to argue that every game can be described with the following four elements: action, strategy, chance, and interaction.
Some games are nearly pure action games. These games have strategy, but the biggest draw is what is going on instead of why things are going on. The foremost examples in this case are sporting events and some video games, especially shooters. I have some ideas on these types of games, but they're not my passion so we won't be covering them in detail (at least not for a while).
Strategy games are focused on conceiving and executing a plan. Some sports (notably football) certainly have elements of this, but the purest strategy games are board games and board game like computer games. Chess would be the classic example, though I prefer games like Puerto Rico, Civilization, and X-COM.
These games are my favorite kinds of games, and the kind of thing that I would try to design. John and I have worked on a few of these games, though he's done more towards actually making any of these a reality. One of his I particularly enjoy and I'll ask him for permission and post the rules at some point. Strategy games are the games that are almost entirely about choices, which is why I'm most interested in them.
Games of chance are just that. Nearly all games have some element of chance, whether it be the die roll in Monopoly, the tiles drawn in Puerto Rico, the cards that come in poker, the way a ball rolls in football, etc. Chess is the obvious exception to the rule here. Meanwhile at the other end of the spectrum some games are purely chance with the only choice being how to bet (think Roulette or the slots). The key to these games from a design standpoint is to make winning appear more likely than it actually is. This requires a healthy amount of probability calculation and is not very interesting from a design standpoint. Instead what we want to draw from chance is a limited mechanic: one which makes outcomes uncertain, but also one which generally rewards good choices.
Then there are games of interactivity. I'm going to call these games "social" from now on because it's easier to understand. These games focus their attention on how one interacts with their fellow players. The current most prominent example of this is probably World of Warcraft (though it obviously has elements of chance, strategy, and action it is predominantly a social game). But there are other games that have prominent interactive or social aspects. A good example of this is poker, where knowing probability is hugely helpful, but having some social skill can get you a long way. Nearly all "party games" fall into this category as well for obvious reasons. Games like Apples to Apples, Loaded Questions, or Balderdash are all about who you're playing with to be fun.
One note: simulations (Sims, Sim City, Flight Simulator, Spore) are ignored here because they are more "toy" than "game" though some of them fall reasonably close to strategy games.
The question of choices comes up in all four game types to varying degrees. Choice in pure games of chance is about WHAT to do. Choice in action games is both about WHAT to do and HOW to do it. Choices in strategy games are about WHAT to do, HOW to do it, WHY you should, and WHERE these choices are taking you (Basically, is there a plan? There should be). And finally social games all of the above take place but you have to add the question of WHO are you playing with?
Social games are the toughest to play and the hardest to design effectively because the number of choices you're asking the player to make are large.
Making things a little more complicated is that almost no game is a pure game type. So things aren't easy to categorize. For example, knowing an opposing football coach and how he thinks in the NFL is a crucial element to winning games. Or in Risk if you become known as a backstabber, it's hard to make alliances and you become more likely to be targeted earlier in future games. But fundamentally Risk is a game of chance with strategic and social aspects. The NFL is an action game with strategic and social aspects. (Texas Hold 'Em) Poker is a strategy game heavily influenced by social and chance elements. Other variants of poker have more chance elements (think Draw) or social elements (Blind Man's Bluff).
But all games are fundamentally predicated on having those four elements. Obviously I'm most interested in the games that are fundamentally about strategy. It's the math geek in me. But that's for next time when we ask the seemingly simple question of "why are choices the key to a good game?" and maybe (we'll see how I feel) the more interesting question of "what does this tell us about other topics like the inevitability of history?"
Monday, October 27, 2008
Game Design, Part 1: Why I'm a gamer
So one of the things I'm really interested in, and if I could find a way to actually do it for a living I would, is game design. And while I'm interested in how one things about game design in an electronic medium (PC/Wii/360/PS3/DS/etc obviously), I'm far more interested in tabletop design. Specifically board and card games.
The origins of this are pretty simple: my dad's family is made of a group of gamers, and my dad is probably the most prolific of them. He grew up playing Acquire, High, Stocks and Bonds and various other old games and moved into bookshelf games (especially WW2 strategy games) later on. For those of you who have been to my house, you can see the evidence of this in our downstairs closet and the bookshelf in the den where there are several versions of various Panzer games.
One of the biggest family traditions is that all of the grandchildren (and now I suppose great grandchildren with Isabella) gets a game at Christmas. That night and most of the next day are devoted to playing the new games and seeing which are good and which are not. Sometimes we've already looked to Board Game Geek but most of the time it's based on instincts. By this point, we're pretty good at it.
Before John moved to Seattle, he and I were particularly interested in learning the mechanics, usually far more interested in that than actually winning the game. Which mechanics made the game fun? Which were in other games? Was there anything new that we hadn't seen before? Why does this rule exist, or that restriction? It was always an analytical exercise, because for us that was an interesting and fun endeavor. Even now we tend to have extremely long phone conversations a couple days after Christmas analyzing all the new games we played and what worked and what didn't.
I think after all this time, I've learned a good amount about game design and what works and what doesn't. But more than that, my interest in game design has led me to some general conclusions about philosophy. For example, Patti and I were talking about whether or not history is inevitable the night I started this blog. My conclusion was that history cannot be entirely inevitable because choices by individuals have to matter, because that's not an interesting design if history were a game. I'll start to explain how I came to that conclusion in the next post on gaming which will come approximately whenever I feel like it. But the fundamental lesson is this: the best games are about interesting choices.
The origins of this are pretty simple: my dad's family is made of a group of gamers, and my dad is probably the most prolific of them. He grew up playing Acquire, High, Stocks and Bonds and various other old games and moved into bookshelf games (especially WW2 strategy games) later on. For those of you who have been to my house, you can see the evidence of this in our downstairs closet and the bookshelf in the den where there are several versions of various Panzer games.
One of the biggest family traditions is that all of the grandchildren (and now I suppose great grandchildren with Isabella) gets a game at Christmas. That night and most of the next day are devoted to playing the new games and seeing which are good and which are not. Sometimes we've already looked to Board Game Geek but most of the time it's based on instincts. By this point, we're pretty good at it.
Before John moved to Seattle, he and I were particularly interested in learning the mechanics, usually far more interested in that than actually winning the game. Which mechanics made the game fun? Which were in other games? Was there anything new that we hadn't seen before? Why does this rule exist, or that restriction? It was always an analytical exercise, because for us that was an interesting and fun endeavor. Even now we tend to have extremely long phone conversations a couple days after Christmas analyzing all the new games we played and what worked and what didn't.
I think after all this time, I've learned a good amount about game design and what works and what doesn't. But more than that, my interest in game design has led me to some general conclusions about philosophy. For example, Patti and I were talking about whether or not history is inevitable the night I started this blog. My conclusion was that history cannot be entirely inevitable because choices by individuals have to matter, because that's not an interesting design if history were a game. I'll start to explain how I came to that conclusion in the next post on gaming which will come approximately whenever I feel like it. But the fundamental lesson is this: the best games are about interesting choices.
Sunday, October 26, 2008
Concern trollery!
My biggest fear about the election right now is Phillies fans rioting and burning down Philadelphia when they win the World Series.
Friday, October 24, 2008
Quick Friday Night Michigan Preview
Tomorrow Michigan plays Michigan State and god damn do these two teams suck tremendously this year.
Michigan State's offense relies entirely on Javon Ringer, but even his yards per carry is not very good, he's mostly got amazing stats by piling a humongous number of carries. Expect him to get his usual 35 carries for 150 and 2 TDs or so.
Brian Hoyer sucks and is injured so barring major brain cramps by Michigan's defense (which are probably likely), the Michigan State passing game isn't terribly concerning.
Michigan might have found a running game last week with Minor running straight ahead. As long as he doesn't fumble as his usual history, hopefully this will continue to improve.
Michigan can't throw the ball regardless of how good/bad MSU is in the secondary so whatever.
Keys:
Threet being healthy
Don't turn the damn ball over
Prevent a big Ringer run
Prediction:
State 23-20, probably on a stupid fumble on special teams.
Michigan State's offense relies entirely on Javon Ringer, but even his yards per carry is not very good, he's mostly got amazing stats by piling a humongous number of carries. Expect him to get his usual 35 carries for 150 and 2 TDs or so.
Brian Hoyer sucks and is injured so barring major brain cramps by Michigan's defense (which are probably likely), the Michigan State passing game isn't terribly concerning.
Michigan might have found a running game last week with Minor running straight ahead. As long as he doesn't fumble as his usual history, hopefully this will continue to improve.
Michigan can't throw the ball regardless of how good/bad MSU is in the secondary so whatever.
Keys:
Threet being healthy
Don't turn the damn ball over
Prevent a big Ringer run
Prediction:
State 23-20, probably on a stupid fumble on special teams.
Thursday, October 23, 2008
Election Update (Links!)
So Sarah Palin makes me hate her all over again. (Video link)
Basic summary is that abortion clinic bombers aren't necessarily terrorists, but Bill Ayers is. Argh.
Meanwhile, the AP thinks John McCain only has 12 million to spend on the last 11 days. They have been spending about 1.5 million a day, so they should be forced to cut back a little bit. So fewer obnoxious ads. Meanwhile of course, Obama's spent six million on next Wednesday's 30 minute commercial.
538 has Obama's lead as massive at the moment. Today was a strong polling day for Obama, particularly some dubious polls from the Big Ten showing he leads in every Big Ten state (Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Ohio, and Pennsylvania) by double digits. This seems unlikely, at best. Anyway, Nate Silver gives Obama a 96.3% chance to win, with his most likely electoral vote total being between 375 and 380.
Basically:
Basic summary is that abortion clinic bombers aren't necessarily terrorists, but Bill Ayers is. Argh.
Meanwhile, the AP thinks John McCain only has 12 million to spend on the last 11 days. They have been spending about 1.5 million a day, so they should be forced to cut back a little bit. So fewer obnoxious ads. Meanwhile of course, Obama's spent six million on next Wednesday's 30 minute commercial.
538 has Obama's lead as massive at the moment. Today was a strong polling day for Obama, particularly some dubious polls from the Big Ten showing he leads in every Big Ten state (Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Ohio, and Pennsylvania) by double digits. This seems unlikely, at best. Anyway, Nate Silver gives Obama a 96.3% chance to win, with his most likely electoral vote total being between 375 and 380.
Basically:
Tuesday, October 21, 2008
Two weeks!
In two weeks, we will hopefully not be suffering through 2000 or 2004 again and know who the winner of the 2008 Presidential election is and have a good idea how large the Democratic majority in Congress will be. This will consume most of my attention on this blog, and if you know me at all, this will be no surprise.
I have a couple essential sources as far as covering the election goes: 538 and TPM are the two biggest in terms of polling and news respectively. I actually get a large portion of my news from the election thread over at Penny Arcade's forums, because there's nothing quite like a bunch of tech savvy gamer nerds sifting through the internet to get the essential news (and make immature jokes about it).
As probably everyone who's reading this knows, I've been on the Obama bandwagon for a ridiculously long period of time. Having followed this campaign obsessively for almost a year now, I'm just ready for it to end. I'm ready for John McCain to return to the Senate and hopefully work with the Democrats on a few of his pet causes: climate change and earmark reform come to mind in particular. I'm ready for Sarah Palin to go back to Wasilla with her lovely parting gifts. Mostly, I'm ready for the disaster that has been the last eight years to end and for George W Bush to go back to Crawford and hide for the rest of his life. And for Dick Cheney to go back to his own private undisclosed location instead of a taxpayer funded one.
However! There are two weeks to go in this neverending campaign. So while we're thinking about how much we want it to end, do some volunteering, phone banking, donate, or at the very least make sure you all get out and vote (even you, Peter!). Two more weeks and this can finally become reality:
Or you know, this:
Or you know, I could work on finding a job instead.
I have a couple essential sources as far as covering the election goes: 538 and TPM are the two biggest in terms of polling and news respectively. I actually get a large portion of my news from the election thread over at Penny Arcade's forums, because there's nothing quite like a bunch of tech savvy gamer nerds sifting through the internet to get the essential news (and make immature jokes about it).
As probably everyone who's reading this knows, I've been on the Obama bandwagon for a ridiculously long period of time. Having followed this campaign obsessively for almost a year now, I'm just ready for it to end. I'm ready for John McCain to return to the Senate and hopefully work with the Democrats on a few of his pet causes: climate change and earmark reform come to mind in particular. I'm ready for Sarah Palin to go back to Wasilla with her lovely parting gifts. Mostly, I'm ready for the disaster that has been the last eight years to end and for George W Bush to go back to Crawford and hide for the rest of his life. And for Dick Cheney to go back to his own private undisclosed location instead of a taxpayer funded one.
However! There are two weeks to go in this neverending campaign. So while we're thinking about how much we want it to end, do some volunteering, phone banking, donate, or at the very least make sure you all get out and vote (even you, Peter!). Two more weeks and this can finally become reality:
Or you know, this:
Or you know, I could work on finding a job instead.
Lame Posts are Lame
But introductory posts are probably necessary, I'll get to something useful either later tonight or sometime tomorrow, depending how involved in a debate over the inevitability of history I'm having with Patti I am.
Anyway, I've been kicking around the idea of blogging for a while now, but never really got motivated to go ahead and do it. But now I have, so here we go. There aren't too many specific plans for posts (though there are a few, the title up there will give you a few hints) or posting topics, but expect to see a lot about: politics, particularly the campaign for the next two weeks; sports, particularly college football even though my team (Michigan) sucks this year; and gaming, particularly my theories on game design (and its larger implications).
Alternately, whatever strikes me as interesting.
Anyway, I've been kicking around the idea of blogging for a while now, but never really got motivated to go ahead and do it. But now I have, so here we go. There aren't too many specific plans for posts (though there are a few, the title up there will give you a few hints) or posting topics, but expect to see a lot about: politics, particularly the campaign for the next two weeks; sports, particularly college football even though my team (Michigan) sucks this year; and gaming, particularly my theories on game design (and its larger implications).
Alternately, whatever strikes me as interesting.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)