sukeban

Ravens are awesome and I wouldn't be upset in the least if they won, but... Gotta go with the Niners. Just what the Bay Area needs, Super Bowl to go with our 2X World Series. I actually think that Baltimore is the more difficult team for San Francisco to handle, though--especially after Ridley got concussed in the second half. Brady commands respect, but the Patriot's absence of a running game made them pretty one-dimensional. Way Ray Rice and Pierce though, Baltimore has that angle covered, and running teams have been the teams that have given the Niners the most grief throughout the season. OTOH, Baltimore hasn't seen a quarterback like Kaepernick yet and I feel like he could light up the Baltimore defense if they try and play him like a pocket passer. Flacco looks good right now, but the Niners just got through handling Aaron Rodgers and Matt Ryan, so I don't particularly fear him in that context. And both defenses are pretty darn good, though based on yesterday's performances, I'd have to give the edge to the Ravens. Anyway, if I were the betting type, I'd put my money on the Niners both because I think they're the slight favorites but also to hold it down for the Golden State. Ravens owner >>> the York family though!

There's a fair bit of academic literature out there predicting a "fracture" of the Democratic coalition in the next ~20 or so years. I don't know that I really buy it, but it does raise some important issues potentially facing them in the years to come. Number One issue in these is usually the tension between Democratic union workers (specifically PUBLIC-sector union workers) and workers in general. Private-sector workers have been, as we all know, cast to the dogs in terms of wages, benefits, actually having a job, etc. Their lot hasn't improved substantially in like twenty years. Meanwhile, not a day seems to go by between stories about public officials "spiking" their pensions into the 6-digit range, all the while state/county/city budgets bleed red ink. Even though it's only a small minority of corrupted officials that do this, it is extremely bad "optics" and paints all public-sector workers with a broad brush. Certain public-sector occupations, however, truly have crazy and unsustainable incomes/pensions (prison guards in California, police retiring at 45, etc.), and again--that makes everyone else in the public-sector look pretty bad. There is also a pretty good correlation between Democratic politicians and these crazy public-sector union salaries and pensions. So it is pretty easy to get into an envious "race to the bottom" pitting savaged private-sector workers against the "fat cat" public-sector workers, even though both groups might be Democrats. In order to avoid party infighting, Democrats need to get serious about reforming outdated pension schemes and curbing abuses, but also in attempting to better the lot of the private-sector workers. So I would argue that the Democratic party better avoid at all costs the Neoliberal "Democratic Leadership Committee" policies that, by and large, paved the way for outsourcing and globalization in the 1990s, and move back toward being an American worker-oriented labor movement. In response to their losses at the hands of Reagan, too many Democrats began thinking like free-marketers, as if being able to buy cheap goods from China and Mexico would somehow paper over the fact that loads of Americans don't even have a job. Clinton might be a smooth-talker now, and I'll admit that I like him when he speaks, but I'll never forget that he was the one who sold us out via NAFTA and laid the foundation to eviscerate the working class. Happily for Democrats, people pretty much identify Republicans with being the party of outsourcing-loving corporate honchos and have forgotten that Clinton was exactly that when he was in the Oval Office. Best for Democrats not to remind them of that period of time, and to instead focus on retooling the American economy to do more for itself. That'll take enormous investments in infrastructure and, more importantly, education and human capital. Those jobs that Clinton and Bush destroyed aren't coming back, but with the proper investments in our own people, there's no reason why we can't create entirely new ones. And right now, the Democrats are the only party n a position to actually start to have this conversation.

@HeyYou Whilest I see where you're coming from on that, I don't think that demonizing assault weapons is quite on the same level as talking about how you're going to blast federal agents or admonishing people to stockpile weapons for the coming United Nations invasion. One of these is attempting to score political points and enact public policy, the other is out-of-touch with reality and very dangerous. I also don't really see what use a hunter would have for an assault rifle (must be a terrible shot if one needs all them bullets...) when he could use a hunting rifle, but this isn't the Sandy Hook thread. @colour I laughed so hard when I heard that quote. SO many Republicans reference the Soviet Union even now, it's hilarious. Pining for the good old days, I guess. Also crazy about how unpopular Republicans are. You'd think they'd realize that they're in the hole and continue to dig, but alas, it seems like many of them simply do not realize that they're in the hole to begin with. Anyway, what do you guys think about the OP? I know that colourwheel doesn't think that it stands a chance at surviving the Supreme Court, but HeyYou what do you think? I know that you don't bat for either political team, so what would your prediction be if one party executed an electoral end-around like that? Would liberals (being liberals T_T) just lie down and take it or do you think that there'd be a major reaction to it, either at the ballot box in the next election or in the streets? I know that I would have to agree with colourwheel, that the Supreme Court probably would strike it down--lest it become viewed as a 100% political body rather than a neutral arbiter of the law. I think that is a part of the reason for why Roberts voted to uphold Obama's healthcare reforms, as he did not want to sully the already damaged reputation of the Court even more. I think that when faced with a completely partisan decision, it would either abstain from deciding or would strike it down. In any event, I think that if such a move were to transpire, that there would be an incredible backlash against Republicans during the next election. Their electoral scheme is precisely the sort of thing that would tilt even moderate conservatives to look askance at the Republican Party, not to mention the enormous mobilization it would give to the left and the damage it would do with independents. If they pulled it off before the next presidential election in 2016, they could win that election--though potentially no election after that, ever. They have been dancing on the razor's edge with their voter suppression efforts since 2000, but I think that the electoral scheme would be a move that would get the complete attention of non-minority voters (the targets of said suppression efforts) and galvanize the enormous majority of the voting public to do whatever it took to dislodge the Republicans from power. Won't lie though, our two-party system is bunk. We simply need more voices in our politics, such as cannot be accommodated within our present political structures. We won't ever move to a proportional representation system unless there is some sort of massive shock to the system that proves with finality the backwardness of territorial-based voting schemes and first-passed-the-post elections for legislative chambers. Our democracy getting hosed by a move such as this might be a nice conversation-starter for reformist groups of all political stripes to get to work hammering out the potential framework of a more workable, democratic, and modern system of government--whilst keeping the best features (strong checks and balances) of the old. I dunno about the rest of ya'll, but that is a trade that I'd probably be willing to make.

I agree with this. Talk radio provides a huge dose of this anger, and that is a medium almost exclusively utilized by the Right. The closest thing to left-wing talk radio that there is are certain segments airing on NPR affiliates, but most of that is just lame hand-wringing over the loss of education funding and/or cautioning us not to barge into a war with Iran. That or an interview with some random anthropologist recently arrived from a expedition with the Tuareg. Pretty benign stuff when compared to the borderline seditious and extremely charged/violently suggestive yelling coming from right-wing talk radio hosts. And there aren't American left-wingers on YouTube making videos holding the Communist Manifesto and an AR-15 and saying stuff like "I'm not saying that you should go out and commit a felony--TODAY, but I AM saying that maybe you should be waiting, training, cleaning your weapons in the meantime...." The violent left ended in the 1970s. The violent right began in the 1990s and will only continue to get pissed off as the country changes around it and it realizes that it is increasingly powerless to do anything about it politically. Mainstream conservatives will move on and reorganize themselves after spending some time in the political wilderness, but the "FEMA Death Camp/UN Mind-Control Pills" crowd will likely never come back into the fold. In the meantime, we've got to start talking about real issues again--like balancing the budget, paying down the debt, and reinvesting in education, infrastructure, and science to better prepare ourselves for the future. These are issues that the far-right has no real interest in solving, as their thinking about the future begins and ends with their inevitable last stand against the UN Helicopters and/or the combined Communistic/Socialistic/Fascistic horde of Obama. It is like trying to get some messianic street-preacher to invest in a 401k account. Unfortunately, these types of attitudes are given a tentative legitimacy when they are promoted by right-wing media outlets, which then feeds back to their media consumers and validates the sense that they are right. They think this because a) it is coming from someone in a position of authority ("their" media) and b) it means that they are not alone in thinking it (the importance of belonging to the group). Unfortunately, just like seeing the ubiquitous Goldline commercials running on Fox News (the pitch-line is: "Conservative [oh double-entrendre] investors have long known the importance of gold), right-wing news outlets are preying on these types of folks, peddling them trash news whilst selling them equally trashy investment schemes, taking their Neilsen ratings and ad revenues back to the bank. The networks profit and their viewers (and the nation) are intellectually impoverished. Liberals are tired of this dog and pony show--when people discuss crazy right-wing talking points in otherwise serious conversations about difficult issues. Conservatives have good points to bring to the table, but they do us all a disservice by allowing the craziest among them to speak on their behalf. Sure, liberals can be mean and nasty, but you won't find them advocating seceding from the Union, shooting government officials that "come to get their guns," or making not-so-cryptic statements about "starting another 1776" against the "Obama Redcoats." That is the craziness you see on the far-right, and it has no analogue to anything found presently on the left.

@Elven I agree to an extent with what you say, but really the misfortunes of the Right are entirely of their own making. I would like to say that Pelosi and/or Reid are intelligent enough to engineer such a public relations disaster (for the Republicans), but... I won't give them that much credit. Democrats had 2008 as a slam-dunk due to the absolute disaster that was the second term of Bush. They probably could have put up a beagle for their presidential candidate, but instead they went for the maximum humiliation and put up a skilled politician in Obama. McCain never really stood a chance following on after Bush, facing a beagle or Mr. Obama. 2012, however, was an EMINENTLY winnable election for Republicans and... they blew it, hard. As you say, the far-right of the Republican party (the Tea Party) calls the shots now, making sure that only the most fringe, far-right candidates have any chance of surviving their self-destructive primary process. They had Jon Huntsman--an honorable and talented dude by any estimation--but he never stood a chance given the virulently right-wing bent of the Republican primary base. Instead, they gave the front-runner status to clowns like Michelle Bachmann, Herman Cain, Newt Gingrich, Rick Santorum, before finally giving their collective "Oh well" and accepting Romney. But by that time, Romney had had to kowtow to the far right-wing in order to merely stay in the game, and his positions were toxic to the general electorate. I still remember that debate question: "How many of you would accept 10:1 spending cuts to tax revenues" and NOBODY raised their hand (not even Huntsman). That was a moment of sheer insanity that the general electorate never forgot. But yes, the Republicans are doomed if they think that ginning up fear in ethnic whites is going to somehow start winning them elections again. We're at the point where the white vote--and the fear of the ethnic "other"--simply isn't enough to put you over the top anymore, thus under-cutting the "classic" Republican strategy that dominated from the era of Nixon to the era of Bush II. Now, parties actually have to appeal to other ethnicities to gain higher office, and to different religions and genders, too. 2012 will forever be written about as the end of the WASP deathgrip over American politics, the election where that coalition captured by Obama in 2008 showed up again and proved that it wasn't just a one-off fluke. But some segments of the far-right are crazy as hell and probably will fire some shots before this thing is all said and done. I wouldn't really be surprised if the next twenty years or so featured terrorism and potentially some small-scale militia revolts--all on the part of FAR right-wing groups trying for one last, paramilitary grasp at the political apple. The far right-wing of today is like the far left-wing of the 1960s and 1970s, in a way that members of the left (such as can be called in America) fundamentally are not. Left-wingers are not armed nor are they as angry (because their political star is in ascendance) as the far right-wingers of today are. Right-wingers have everything to lose (their 30-year dominance over politics) and no hope really on the horizon. And given the traditional affinity of right-wing groups and all things martial, if I were the director of the FBI, I would start listening to "chatter" amongst these groups starting today. Real talk, the greatest threat facing the USA today probably isn't from an Islamic fundamentalist at all, but is from a Timothy McVeigh-style "The Black UN Helicopters Are Coming for Us" (Alex Jones) type of crazy right-winger. Again, liberals might get mad at Obama and Congress because they dilute otherwise progressive bills, but they are not at all on the same level of craziness as some of the far-right are, blasting over talk radio about "Firing the first shot" and "Starting another Lexington" due to Obama's modest proposed gun-control and mental health reforms. We dismiss claims such as those as mere "talk" at our own peril, as inevitably someone out there is taking this "talk" very, very seriously.

Because to a whole lot of people, the Tea Party sounded pretty good back in 2010. Obama had just passed his healthcare legislation without a single Republican vote, and the GOP was busy ginning up talk about Death Panels, Birth Certificates, and the budget apocalypse. Whatever the Tea Party might or might not have authentically been, it should be clear to all that it's simply the electoral manifestation of the most right-wing elements in our nation, trying to turn the clock back not to 1776 but to an imaginary version of 1980 (I'm no fan of Reagan, but he was a moderate compromiser compared with the Tea Party bloc) where Republicans ran government and never backed down from their "principles." Anyway, due to that one-off Tea Party wave, all of these Republicans were elected to nominally blue states. Same sort of thing happened in 2006 and 2008 with Democrats being elected in blood-red states, simply because many folks were equally fed up with the excesses of Bush. The difference is that a) Democrats are slightly less devious than Republicans (or don't have to be because they know their popularity is greater than the Republicans) and b) 2010 was the "huge enchilada" of Redistricting. 2010 was the single WORST time to massively lose an election that Democrats could ever pick, since its repercussions will be felt far longer than one session of Congress. It should be a cautionary tale to the Democratic electorate that loves to "check out" when there isn't a Presidential candidate to be picked. Anyway, the Republicans currently sitting in blue states are a total fluke, an artifact of a very unique election in 2010. These folks have an extremely short shelf-life (since they've greatly antagonized the majority coalitions of their states) and are trying to change the rules of the game before the next large sequence of Gubernatorial elections beginning in 2014 that will inevitably see all of these clowns swept aside. State Legislative races are less competitive because Republicans were able to gerrymander those districts, too! But you can't gerrymander the borders of a state, leaving these Tea Party governors with huge bulls eyes on them for every Democratic strategist in the nation.

First of all, read this article in the National Review if you haven't already. TLDR version is this: State-level Republicans in Democratic states are seeking to circumvent the traditional Electoral College vote distribution (winner take all) by instead apportioning their states' electoral votes by Congressional District--districts that they were able to successfully gerrymander after 2010. These states are most of the competitive "battleground" states of 2008 and 2012--Michigan, Wisconsin, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and Florida--many of which are historically Democratic-voting, but which voted in Republican statehouses in the 2010 election. Due to this one-off election, Republicans are seeking to undermine the outcome of all future elections in these states, tilting the electoral playing field almost insurmountably in the favor of the Republicans. Using Congressional Districts would have resulted in an Obama LOSS--27 to 19--in the reliably Democratic states of Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania--despite Obama's winning these states by rather large margins in the popular vote and winning their Electoral Votes 46-0 in November. Extrapolated to the rest of the country, this would be even crazier, with some estimates putting Obama's loss at 125 Electoral Votes in 2012 despite winning the popular vote by more than 5 million or 4%. This would, simply put, put an anti-democratic (small "d") lock on the presidency for Republicans, even as they continue to decline in national popularity. IMO, such a move would spark a crisis in the legitimacy of our democracy, if one party could rig the rules to favor it in spite of losing the popular vote in election after election. That is something that Mubarak would have done--or Castro, Chavez, or Ahmadinejad. Democrats could have done this same thing after the elections in 2006 and 2008--and certainly could have done so in the 1930s, 1940s, 1950s, and 1960s--but they chose not to (or, more likely, the thought didn't cross their mind) because they respected our electoral processes enough not to mess up our elections for inevitably short-lived and destructive political gain. No good can possibly come of this, and it is truly playing with matches at a time when our political system has been badly frayed. Definitely is telling that high-level Republicans would sacrifice our democracy for the sake of their party rather than develop a more compelling message to sell to voters. Hopefully more level-headed members of government will prevail upon them to desist. What do you think? Have you heard of this? Do you favor it? Do you think it will happen? What would you think if it did?

Not to self-advertise, but I can think of two mods that do this: 1. Morrowloot 2. SME - Skyrim Medieval Economy (my mod!) I'm sure that there are others as well, but I can personally vouch for Morrowloot--as I've played with it before--and obviously, I can definitely vouch for SME. In terms of differentiating the two, Morrowloot is... pretty much an unleveled take on the Skyrim loot system and includes many artifacts from Morrowind in hand-laced locations. SME is an entire economy rebalance, but also delevels loot and makes sure that only lore-friendly loot winds up in lore-appropriate containers (vendors and as loot). If you're interested in SME, I'd advise to read the Comments section, as that's where the most recent information can be found. Morrowloot seems to be final/ceased development, whereas SME is an ongoing project.

I can definitely feel you on this one. One need only look at the Morrowind bestiary, architecture, culture, armors, magic, etc. to see just how different TES used to be. But--this should make sense to a certain extent, no? Humans are... humans, no matter where they're at. Cyrodiil, Skyrim... both human lands. Morrowind... not so much. It wouldn't make much sense to just insert random "alien" things into these provinces because they are based off of real-world historical precedents (High Rock and Hammerfell as well). It just comes with the territory of making 1/2 of Tamriel dominated by normal human beings; they've got to play by normal human rules. Magic would be one area where there could be a ton more creativity (especially in Skyrim...), but not much else. Well, Skyrim kind of ret-conned Nord culture, making it more generic fantasy Viking than TES Nord. But that sort of comes with the whole dilution of dialogue in the series, the opportunities for cultural expression have fallen by the wayside (since so much of culture is expressed via idiom and speech). Anyway, here's to hoping the next TES is in Summerset Isles!

We have a representative Gov. Our Gov votes on certain issues. The Moot is composed of Jarls. The Jarls represent the people of their holds. Typically, the Jarls are greatly respected by their people. The Jarls are close to their people, they know them and the people know their Jarl. Skyrim has it's own political system SEPARATE from whatever the Empire is doing. That is why in Skyrim, they have their own High King, that is why in Skyrim, the local and regional authorities ELECT their High King whenever the Moot is called. Again, this is Feudalism. However, yes, the High King is answerable to the Emperor because Skyrim is a member of the Empire. But Skyrim's politics still follow Skyrim tradition even with the Empire. Empire cannot possibly choose the High King. No way at all. Again simple math, you have (4) Stormcloak Jarls and (4) Imperial Jarls. At least (1) Stormcloak Jarl VOTED for Torygg. Incorrect. The Moot VOTES on the new king. Same as we vote for President, except it's a little different as we do it by electoral votes. Still, logic dictates Torygg would not be High King unless the Moot elected him by a vote. And you can only express tradition in one way or another. Either it's the tradition the High King is voted in by the Moot or it's not. One way or the other. And the other way is not lawful, so there you go. Not to mention how Ulfric stopped the Moot from voting again... which is against tradition, def not something a true Nord would do and is treason too. Haha, I've been pretty awesome actually! Hopefully you too? I'd still have to respectfully disagree with your position. Since the Jarls are not elected (like representatives in a democracy), they cannot be said to represent the will of the people in any means that would be recognizable today (where voting confers legitimacy). A Jarl may "know" his people, but he is not beholden to his people; if he wants to disregard what they think--he is free to do so without consequence (again, apart from the implied threat of revolt). He cannot be "booted out" in the next election for Jarl. I don't disagree that the Skyrim political system is--in theory--independent from the Imperial political system, but I also maintain that it would be naive to think that Imperial influence was not felt within Skyrim and within this system. The Empire is far larger and more powerful than Skyrim alone and thus could have exerted huge influence over the outcome of the votes in the Moot, as well as many other day-to-day governing decisions. And since Skyrim is not a democracy, nor close to it, the actual people of Skyrim could have had but little actual say in the outcomes of those decisions. Given that Skyrim was historically an Imperial province, who do you think a Jarl would listen to: their people or their political patron? Again, like in the US--money talks, public opinion walks. So the Moot being "traditional" has no bearing as to whether or not its decisions are democratic or legitimate. Not giving the vote to women in the US was "traditional"--before we decided otherwise. Tradition, to anybody interested in egalitarianism, does not automatically equal legitimacy. Especially coming from ancient and medieval times, "tradition" was simply code for "we say so" on the part of the militarily trained elite, whose claim to "legitimacy" rested solely on religious mumbo jumbo (divine right of kings) and, if that failed, their ability to outright kill any measly peasants who dared contest their claims. I don't disagree that one Stormcloak Jarl must have voted for Torygg--but that is immaterial to the discussion of popular legitimacy in a modern (democratic) sense. Since the Moot is a feudal, anti-democratic organization--what they do and do not decide doesn't matter--only the fact that the people have no say in the outcome does. Again, the College of Cardinals is NOT a democratic organization simply because they vote on the next Pope. They do not democratically represent anybody (they are appointed by the Vatican, not elected), thus their will does not express anything other than THEIR will--not the people's.

EDIT: to be more polite. Definitely not wanting to insinuate that we here support things like that. But like HeyYou mentioned several pages back, certain "communities" (other websites) seem to view mod-able games as nothing but a platform to express their (highly illegal) fantasies. Were I am game developer, I would be horrified to think that certain people were thinking "Oh yeah! Look at those realistic skeletons and physics... I'll bet we can make such awesome [insert fetish] mods out of those"--utterly not caring about the game apart from it being a vehicle for their own sexual expression. Also I'll have to agree to disagree about some of the "skimpy/anime" mods. With the caveat that some are definitely more well done than others (I'll acknowledge the real difference between an inspired anime armor and a relatively straightforward "strip everything down to the g-string" "armor"), I do not view it is singularly positive that the these types of mods are so overwhelmingly popular, especially vis-a-vis more conservative and lore-friendly styles. So no, I don't think that all mods or modders are deserving of the same acclaim. I think that skimpy/anime strip-down mods tend to overshadow lore-friendly mods and I'm pretty sure a quick search of "most downloaded' probably bears that out. It is definitely true that nobody forces one to download these, but by the same token I routinely want to table flip my computer when I open five "most recent" mods that sound interesting, only to find out that they are skimpy re-works of Triss Armor. As in art, not all artists are created equally--nor should their work be considered equal simply because it is all considered "art."

Incorrect. So, while on any given day I suffer from mild aggrivative-soctocious from dealing with people (outside of this forum of course :) ), I'm not confused. You say High King is elected by a Moot, ok and then it's convened when the King dies which it would be done this way because it's a Feudalisitic system and then we have to think about this. You're saying three things: 1) Convened only when the king dies and there is no legal heir to the throne. 2) In all other cases it's taken by the eldest son. 3) There was no Democracy involved in the "vote". So which is it? The moot votes or the kin take the throne? The answer of course is the moot votes. This my dear, is the *fundamental difference* between say a Monarchy or Dynasty and Feudalism. Feudalism is really closer to Republic but as you said, that is another argument. What actually happened was they still had a Democratic vote and I'm sure an open forum as well along with some heated Dialogue on the matter of choosing the next High King. Torygg was elected High King, because they wanted his son to continue his father's legacy. By all accounts, Islod did an awesome job as High King. Even Ulfric agrees Islod was a good king. Also... there is this... :D The cold frightening truth about Troygg being elected High King... was in order to have a majority vote... the majority has to vote one way... or another and there are no less than 8 Jarls in Skyrim (4 v 4). Right? So, I'm afraid in order to vote Torygg in... at least (1) or more Stormcloak Jarls had to vote for him. This is what I am saying, exactly what I am saying. The moot should have been called soon after Torygg's death and this is why Ulfric is refusing the Moot - He wants his own INTERESTS and his personal RETRIBUTION to come first. To hell with Skyrim. Because not even all of the Stormcloak Jarls are with him... and... he knows this. Uflric is no dummy. Hello again, old friend! I sort of can't believe that this thread is still ongoing, but alas.... I just want to chime in and back up LadyMilla here, not really to dispute much of what you've said before. The Moot definitely is not like an actual democratic election. The Jarls themselves (I believe, it's been a while lol) are not elected and thus only have highly tentative ability to claim that they are "representing" anybody other than themselves and their own interests when they vote. Thus, they are not "representatives" like our members of the House or Senate are in our Republic as they really do not have claim to any popular backing or electoral legitimacy. This, of course, is one of the many differences between democratic (not direct democracy, but republican democracy) and feudalism--that in this case the "people" of Skyrim have no say in who the Jarls are and are not (other than from peasant revolt, I assume [but that is why nobles have knights trololol]). So you cannot say that the vote of the Moot is an expression of the popular will of the people, since the people have no say in determining the composition of the Moot. Individual Jarls are free to then maximize their own "interest" in that vote, meaning voting in whatever way most benefits their political standing and/or money supply. It is referenced again and again in Skyrim that the Empire supply chests of gold to Jarls that are friendly with them. Presumably this is the price for their loyalty--including their vote in the Moot. Vote for "their man" (Torygg) and the chests of gold keep arriving, cross them and they get cut off. Classic fundraising control exactly like you see in American politics with political donors and special interests. The Empire is one large special interest, and they make sure that THEIR representatives (loyal Jarls) are rewarded handsomely. Presumably, this state of affairs has prevailed for quite some time. So anyway, my only point is that LadyMilla is right--that the Moot is not real democracy and does not express the opinion of the people of Skyrim--you would have to hold a plebiscite for that. Whatever else might be said about Torygg and Ulfric, they are both operating within a corrupted political system that does not necessarily represent the will of anyone but the high-level players involved. Sort of sounds like American democracy, actually.... The Moot does not provide legitimacy in any modern sense (democratic theory), and is instead an expression of the classic feudal axiom of "might makes right." And in true feudal fashion, Ulfric is testing his "might" against that of the Empire. Ultimately, whoever's "might" is the most enduring must certainly have been "right" all along. Only Bethesda canon will determine this. Elle, oh elle.

@colourwheel I definitely agree with what you say about how Ratings can act as a guide for parents/guardians who might otherwise not have a clue about the content of games that they consider buying for their children. I'd also agree that these could and should be more strict and more explicit about what comes in the game. Perhaps some games should have wrappers around them like "certain" publications at corner stores (or cigarettes!) vividly displaying the "best" examples of what is inside. Not that that would do much for digital purchases, however... (though I'm sure something similar could be worked out). I also agree with Nintii and others saying that parents need to step up and actually put in the work necessary to preventing kids from accessing material that they aren't meant to. That probably should mean things like no computers/tv's IN a child's room, and strict control over bought games and programs watched. Clearly the internet is still (and probs forever will be) the "wild" west, but that doesn't mean that involved parents can't take the initiative ahead of time. Due to the demands of the modern economy, often one or both parents won't be around at some point when a child is--and I'm really not sure that there is much that can be done about that--but perhaps that's where more proactive education about sexuality and having good manners (even to strangers!) can come into play. If sex isn't so foreign and new for teenagers (due to not being overly prudish about it around the dinner table), perhaps teenagers won't find it necessary to bend over backwards being devious and rotten in order to seek out the forbidden fruit. Finally, I detest "skimpy anime" mods, "Size Quadrupple Z Cup" mods, Rape mods--all that jazz. I feel this way for varying reasons: from trivializing the game and its message (anime) to sexual objectification (ZZZZ Cup), to just promoting highly regressive, dangerous, and sick attitudes toward sex and gender (Rape). Obviously, most fetishes are weird and harmless, but some definitely cross a red line that modding communities really should throw the gauntlet down on. I don't care if somebody wants BDSM or hairy bear (not the animal) housecarls in their Skyrim, but I do care if somebody wants to go after children or go on a forced sex rampage. I think that nudity mods are fine and probably more lore-friendly than weird medieval underwear on poverty-stricken bandits. I'm not down with adding anime ears to everything or skimpy armor because I respect the developers enough to want to experience the game more or less as they had intended (aka go play a JRPG if you want a JRPG).

I like this rubric, though I might have a slightly less expansive reading of it. I'd just add that to my mind, art should have an aesthetic component to it, though I suppose that can be in the eye of the beholder. I wouldn't necessarily call an innovative ad campaign "art" but perhaps somebody else would. In this way, I wouldn't necessarily consider a balance/realism/whathaveyou mod to be "art" even though they often require quite liberal doses of creativity, but I certainly would consider a nice, tasteful new armor set or texture/mesh for a new type of tree to be art. But I certainly don't hold that to be any sort of universal standard or anything. So I wouldn't consider "Duel - Combat Realism" to be art (though perhaps an AI programmer might :D) but I would consider Lost Longswords or Realistic Lighting (or ENBs) to be art, due to the aesthetic component that is obviously being expressed. But somebody might weep for a beautiful AI, so Combat Realism could be high art to that person.

Yes the republican party won't run out of money yet by shrinking their political funding vastly from the New Egland area will have a dramatic effect on how the party tries to evenly distribute where they will try to invest in. Sheldon Adelson isn't dumb and wouldn't spend every dime he has just to get polititian's in office just for one cycle. Even with Super-PACs and other funding a majority of the nations wealth actually comes from the New Englad area. When political contributers are not funding one party they vastly shift to fund the other party or use it for another agenda. I am a little more optimistic that the Democrates will control the house, senate, as well as the White house next cycle reguardless of gerrymandering districts. When the most popular person in your party is Chris Christie for several reasons as well as Republican party already being divided internally, I don't see the Republicans very organized even when 2014 comes around. You have to think despite any plans the Republicans might have to still maintain control of the house they have wasted and still are wasting time arguing amongst their own party, the democratics have had plenty of time organizing and planning since the 2012 elections ended. Recently if you have analyzed how the past elections have unfolded, Most campaigns start the moment after the elections end. Politics have changed in a big way since Super-PACs were allowed. And looking at the current state in American politics the Democrates have already had a 2 month head start without any of them doing anything politically damaging unlike the republicans currently in office are doing... Democrats have an distinct advantage in terms of their media targeting and get-out-the-vote operation. A large component of this is due to the "brain drain" of highly educated professionals in the high-tech fields as well as academics, inclusive of: statisticians, psychologists, political scientists, behavioral economists, software engineers, network engineers, communications strategists, etc.) from the Republican party, largely due to their retrograde social stances and their general "resistance" to empiricism and scientific thought. These folks have now, almost as a bloc, joined the Democratic coalition and have volunteered their services in working on Democratic campaign endeavors. To Obama's credit, he has been open to accepting their aid. Meanwhile, on the Republican side, your have pseudo-scientific "gurus" like Rove, whose apprehension of modern politics is based largely on historical precedent and their "gut instinct" regarding how elections will break. 2012 proved that the scientists were correct, and presaged the Maya 2012 of the right-wing gurus. Politics will henceforth be fought with data, with precise media targets and messaging. Republicans a) realized this trend too late, and b) have a far more shallow "bench" of professionals from which to draw upon. Likely, they will be able to close the gap somewhat by throwing money at the problem, but the most innovative work will--for the foreseeable future--continue to be done by Democratic campaigns simply because of who their coalition represents. Be that as it may--district lines are district lines. Democrats live in high-density and easily "quarantinable" districts. And due to the increased geographic divergence between "red" and "blue" America, they are not likely to ever move back to the countryside. There's lots of data and analysis out there of just how high the hurdle is for a Democratic takeover of the house under the 2010 gerrymandered districts. Ohio and Pennsylvania in particular stand out as eye-popping examples of anti-democratic (small "d") districting, with Democrats winning both of those states yet receiving small minorities of their House seats--all due to teh gerrymander. Given the "pwnd by scope" nature of Republican demographics, more and more of those elderly, rural dwellers will leave the voting pool (euphemism) each year, whereas new Democratic voters are being minted each and every day. At a certain point though, even those high red walls will be breached. But the question is when, and I don't see 2014 as that time--unless Republicans do something truly insane like actually cause us to default or a right-wing militia goes crazy in some deep red state. But don't fool yourself in the meantime. Wall Street is going to continue to donate to Republicans (and Democrats to a lesser extent). They have money enough to rebuild after Sandy and don't need FEMA. I don't think that those people in New Jersey STILL without power were donating big dollars to the GOP in the first place.

Arguing about rights in this day and age.... @coldheart It should BE obvious, in concurrence with Ghogiel et al. that rights--even if somebody claims them as natural or God-given--are only in effect if they are recognized as such by a society or country, e.g. some manner of government or agreed upon order. They do not exist outside of this context. Rights can, in fact, only be defined in the context of competing interests--other people--for a man on a deserted island has every right--and no rights--as there is nothing save for coconuts and monkeys for him to define his "freedom" against. To claim a right is not to possess that right, let alone legitimately posses that right. Legitimacy (should) come(s) through laws, which are given by groups of people organized in governments. Furthermore, the entire conception of "rights" is entirely a western european phenomenon. Ask an elderly Chinese person or a Russian what they think about "rights" (to say nothing of Africans, Egyptians, or Salvadoreans, etc.) and you will hear an entirely different story unless they have been educated and exposed to western political thought. I do not support Relativism in all cases, but this is a case of you attempting to ascribe rights to other people that they may or may not want. Most people likely do not desire to be oppressed, but there is that ancient Persian (I think) saying of "Better 1000 years of autocracy than 1 day of anarchy." The concept of rights are rooted in cultures and all cultures are obviously not the same. Asian cultures are more group-oriented, Russian culture is more paternalistic and resigned. Not all cultures desire "rugged individualism" as you do. To hold that all cultures aspire to the same rights is vehemently ethnocentric and, TBH, narcissistic. @colourwheel Republicans won't run out of money anytime soon. Though their base of small donors is dwindling, in the era of Super-PACs you don't need that anymore. Sheldon Adelson alone could probably finance their entire campaign in 2014 as his Macau casinos enable him to essentially mint his own money (I thought of him when watching Skyfall, actually). The only saving grace is that money doesn't ensure victory. Is a necessary precondition but it is not in itself sufficient for victory. I would also caution against thinking Democrats will pick up the House in 2014. The gerrymander is still too fresh, and the PVIs are too stacked against Democrats for anything less than a 2006 wave to sweep them aside. I think that Democrats will pick up seats, yes, but not anywhere close to enough for a majority. Democrats need to win the popular vote something like 54-46% in order to secure a majority. In 2012, they only won 51-49. I would say 2016 would be the best, earliest hope for unified government.

Many factors contributed to the offshoring of american jobs. The government giving tax breaks for doing so being right up there on the list. What was intended to help developing nations, hurt the USA. Big time. That most certainly was NOT in the "best interests of the people", it was in the best interests of corporate america. Business won't regulate itself for the public good. They will do what makes them the most money. If lead-based paint is cheaper, that's what they will use. If dumping their waste in the back yard is cheaper than dealing with it so it doesn't poison the environment, (and thereby kill off their target consumers....) that's what they will do. They have more than adequately demonstrated that FACT time and again since the beginning of recorded history. None of this has anything at all to do with 'people demanding free stuff'. That is just a red herring to push the argument away from the real point, which is: Government is controlled by big business, via the lobbyists. It's clearly true that starting a business in US is a harder slog than in other places, and I already stated that I agree with you--to an extent--when it comes to over-regulation. But HeyYou is 100% on the ball when he says that companies DGAF about you or me or each other or the countries in which they do business--they are, definitionally, slaves to the almighty dollar. Saying that setting base regulations "forces" business to come in just under them is weak point; if companies truly were interested in being good corporate citizens they can go above and beyond the basic letter of the law, nothing is stopping them. Few companies do this, but some do--like Tom's of Maine. Sometimes the executives have a conscience that prioritizes ethical behavior more than their profit margin and sometimes "being good" is a sound business strategy, as it differentiates your company from most others and can attract the business of like-minded consumers. Ideally, these two things can go hand-in-hand. And yeah dude, I lived in China for a year and saw firsthand the absolute moonscape--or Mordor--that prevails in far too many regions of that country. And yes, that is partially the doing of the Chinese government, as it is their present economic strategy to keep regulations low or nonexistent in order to facilitate the investment of Western capital in their economy. Ditto for the wages paid and working conditions. But, if China ever changed their ways, Western capital would simply move to the next-worst place on the map, maybe back to Bangladesh or to Myanmar or certain portions of Africa. Basic point is that the Chinese government is doing what it perceives it HAS to do in order to keep capital flowing into the country; should they abandon this low-regulation scheme, capital can and will begin to leave. That is on the COMPANIES, not on the Chinese government. Companies--via globalism--have created this "race to the bottom" in terms of capital investment, the Chinese government is merely playing by the preexisting rules of the game. We should NOT be trying to emulate China in order to create jobs--I think that should be pretty obvious. And the "public good" IS important assuming that the social contract idea that forms the foundation of Western government remains in effect--that being, that we all have certain rights and responsibilities, and that individual free is sacrosanct until it begins to infringe upon the freedoms of other people in that society. Dumping poison gas in my air or fracking voodoo liquid in my river is most definitely infringing on my freedom not to be born with seven heads or develop some exotic cancer as a teenager. When you start doing that, you become Frankenstein's monster up there on that hill--and the villagers can and SHOULD come calling with pitchforks and hatchets.

What is the best interest of the "COUNTRY"? The interestes of the people who live in? You protect their interests by not getting in their way when they do business with each other. When people talk about collectiv interestes, like country, they usual mean the government should give them a free lunch. Free education for example. No! Everything government spends it has taken from someone else. It violated individual interests in the first place. Lobbyism isn't the problem. You see everyone is for seperation of church and state but doesn't know what this means. Its not to protect the state from the church, but the religion of every individual from the state. So if you seperate economy and state, that means Govuernment shouldn't have the power to dictate anything in the economy. If this is so, there is no reason to pay Lobbyists. It just makes sense when government can make regulations and acts to ban your competition or force people to buy your product. You wanna ban lobbyism? How? If people didn't get bribed in their activ serving time, they will payed after. Or hired after. Banning something doesn't make any sense. Congress can't do anything without stealing from someone in the first place. Its a bad deal. Well at least its a bad deal if you care about those who get robbed and want them to be free. If you don't care and just have the higher good in mind, that makes you a looter and even less than the Corporations who pay Politicians with the money they made themself. Oh snap! We've got a Randian on our hands! Whilst I agree that the only reason that lobbyists are effective is because government has interfered in certain areas of the economy, distorting natural markets--I profoundly disagree with you that such interference is always unnecessary. In business, you can see it all the time--useless regulations stifling private enterprise and driving up the cost of "doing business" beyond the natural price of the good or service. You can apply Bureaucratic Theory to this, that government agencies are more interested in maximizing their budget and manpower (see: the Pentagon) than they are about being efficacious administrators of the public good, and that any expansion of regulation is an automatic "win" for the regulatory agency. These agencies often they do not even talk to each other--or coordinate in any way!--and many folks staffing them are, to be frank, not very intelligent. Yet, since they are in government, they are able to hold businesses hostage and--sometimes to the point of narcissism--demand displays of "fealty" (wine and dine, gracious letters, free stuff) before they will act on your behalf. That is perverted and foul and saps life from the economy. On the other hand, government regulation does do plenty of nice things, like keep our air clean, our water clean, keeps chemicals out of children's toys, etc.--all of which I believe in. You can be some sort of a free-market militant about it and say "caveat emptor"--but if some child dies because there's rat poison in his lollipop, I sure as hell am not going to blame the kid or his mother for not reading the fine print on the back of the label or buying from a cut-rate candy maker. No, you go directly to the source and say: "You cannot put rat poison in lollipops!"--full stop. Certain things ARE a public good--like our air, our water, noise, etc. The impacts that one industry has on these cannot be contained to only the property that said business owns--it spreads to everyone else as well. Therefore, what one business does on their property is everyone's problem--and everyone else can have a say in it. That implies regulation and the elimination of certain practices that foul up public resources for private gain. And finally, free market fundamentalists ignore the complexity of this world and social science. PEOPLE ARE NOT RATIONAL ACTORS, in economics or in most of the rest of their lives. People buy new cars while they default on their home loans, they buy methamphetamines as their children starve, they buy expensive vacations going mountain climbing in Nepal when they could be saving for their retirement. The entire point of advertising is to distort "rational choice" and instead make purchasing an emotional, irrational experience. Given this, I frankly do not see how other people (entrepreneurs, peons, or corporations) can be trusted to behave rationally when they have such an extensive track record of doing precisely the opposite. Government needs to be there, laying down some ground rules to preserve society from the selfish, irrational eccentricities that we would all otherwise engage in if given complete freedom. Liberal convention dictates that these guidelines be as minimal of possible--but we still need them. This only becomes more true over time, as the world becomes more complex and the ability of one individual to screw it up becomes amplified. People and companies are obviously free to "to their own thing" within limits, but when doing that thing interfere with the things of so many others in an increasingly networked, connected world--I most definitely take the utilitarian view that the needs of the many outweight the needs of the one.

Which political party is ultimately to blame for this? Republican policies and the Bush administration. Bush and the republicans deciding to paying for two wars on a credit card as well as deciding to give tax cuts and breaks for everyone and tanking the economy at the same time. Not to mention after Bush left office the stock market almost collapsed in result of the damage of republican policies Bush left behind. Then people wonder why the national debt has become so high.... :rolleyes: geeze... it must be all Obama's all fault because thats what Republicans want you to believe because before Bush took office we had a surplus.... The political class are to blame as are the people who keep buying what they're selling, it's not a partisan issue. Democracy has a rather nasty flaw, when people realise they can vote themselves more money or services they don't pay fully for then that's exactly what they do, that money has to come from somewhere so it's borrowed or printed. Who benefits the most from all the borrowing? the 1% do, it's their money and they take the interest. Politicians also represent their own self interest rather than that of their constituents, they serve those who line their pockets and only notice the electorate when it's time to vote, they'll never side with the people against the money men. Anyway the west has been living beyond its means for decades, it can't go on indefinitely, sooner or later something has to give. Exactly, and it's coming within the next decade. The US is going to look a lot like Greece, for exactly the same reasons. We will see the US debt continue to grow, until various foreign countries get fed up with it, and stop loaning us money... at which point, our economy will collapse, and suck the rest of the world down the drain with it. It's going to suck. Badly. The politicians KNOW it is coming, yet do nothing. For them, it's "whatever puts the most money in my pocket right NOW, to hell with tomorrow." (or even the next five minutes....) We are in deep dark trouble, and Washington won't lift a finger to even make an attempt to avoid it. Should be fun huh? In a "dark side" type of way, I find this view plausible, but something like this can't happen as easily to the United States as it can to Greece... and if it does, there will be WAY more countries than the United States alone that are going to wish that it hadn't. Other countries might have once thought that the Euro was the emerging stable "world' currency of the future (like when Saddam was lobbying to get the Euro instated as the default currency of the oil market right before we invaded...), but that is now--given Europe--entirely a pipe dream. The US Dollar remains the reserve currency of the world, and if this ceased to be... we would likely not have much of a world economy left to speak of. Despite their free-riding off our Western global security/American (and European) exports, the Chinese juggernaut is slowing down, sagging under the weight of the Communist Party that can only bootleg so many inventions and create so many low-wage jobs before its people demand something more. The Communist Party is dependent upon American exports, as without those, it's economy is in ruins and its tenure as political monopolist is over. So the Chinese will not stop loaning us money anytime soon. After that, Japan (I believe) is our largest creditor, and I cannot imagine the Japanese giving up on the US and selling off their assets. Surpassing them, however, the American People are--by FAR--the largest holders of American debt, and they obviously have a vested interest in making sure that their current investments and entire economic future is not jeopardized by some sort of mass refusal to buy American sovereign debt. Point being, there will always be someone there to buy our debt, be it foreigners or the American people. In an unstable global economy, American Treasury bonds continue to be the world's most sought-after investment. It IS, however, a very sound conclusion of political science is that politicians WILL do whatever they believe is best for their reelection rather than what is best for the country. This leads into another big discussion about how our political competitions are decided--and the shift toward uncompetitive Red and Blue districts where unrelenting partisanship is not only encouraged, but is a precondition for staying in office. The oft-quoted number is that there are a scant 35(!!!) House districts that are genuinely competitive, and that the other ~400 or so are all but almost guaranteed to be either Republican or Democrat, barring sleeping with a sheep or underage boy/girl. Such is the foolishness of territorial districts... especially when incumbents are able to pick and choose their own boundaries. Democracy is subverted and our political outcomes are diminished. @colourwheel Definitely there are admirable representatives out there, like Franken, but they ARE few and far between (especially in the House). I fully support the California model of top-two elections, regardless of primary affiliation. This year, we had fully 1/3 of our races between Republican vs. Republican or Democrat vs. Democrat, and I am 100% okay with that. There is, IMO, no reason to trot out a sacrificial Republican lamb in an 80% Democratic district, and that democracy is better served if the two Democrats battle for the office instead. This also has the potential to cut down on partisanship, as candidates may be challenged from EITHER their right or their left. If an incumbent is viewed as being too partisan, they are open to being challenged from a more centrist member of their own party. Only time will tell as to whether or not this experiment truly succeeds, but it is off to an auspicious start.

No disagreement whatsoever with you on this. I mean, if I had my druthers, the topmost tax bracket would be 50% at least with estate taxes (on estates over five million) of 75%. I would also tax capital gains as earned income, with exceptions for seniors living on their investments. The data doesn't lie when it comes to "who has made the money" as you say, with middle class incomes stagnating for the last twenty years (and poor folks' incomes declining relative to inflation!) whilst the top 10% has increased its wealth by orders of magnitude. I don't want to squeeze the middle class more, but I don't know that 5% more in marginal rates is really going to break its back. Probably easy for me to say without kids, nor an owned home, and such, but paying an extra ~grand in taxes would seem like a patriotic action to pay off the debt. But no disagreement whatsoever that it has been the middle class and poor who have been doing all of the sacrificing since the 2000s and before. And unlike the Romneys of the world, the middle class and poor are unable to shift their assets (meager as they are) offshore and/or create shell companies and/or exploit every tax loophole and gimmick of the known world. And we make our money by actually working (taxed as ordinary income + paying Payroll Taxes) rather than chillin' back and collecting the dividend check (with extra points if you already came from money and didn't even work for your stake capital), getting taxed at 15% (theoretical rate) and avoiding paying anything for Social Security and Medicare. Truly, the brass of the right-wing to insist that there is no "Class Warfare" going on is truly stunning. There is, but not in the way that they would lead you to believe.

@naomis I agree with you that the "moment" is gone in the public's mind, just as right-wing politicians and the gun lobby predicted/banked on. It was large enough so that the NRA had to "say something" (even if it was idiotic), but it is no longer salient for many voters, meaning that it is no longer salient for their elected representatives either. Since the American government only seems to operate on a "crisis-to-crisis" basis with no capacity for foresight (kind of like some cretinous amoeba only able to respond to pain) and we are already on to the new crisis (Debt Ceiling)--it is already yesterday's news. In all honesty, I donated to the relief fund, but I haven't thought about it much in the last week or so either. Unfortunately, there will likely be another Sandy Hook-like incident sometime down the line. This being because nothing that contributed to Sandy Hook has actually been addressed, whether that be mental health, cheap/easy access to guns, the disintegration of "community," a recessed economy, violence-as-manhood in the media, etc. Republicans are Pwnd-by-Scope in terms of being a national governing party anytime soon. Their base is dying off without any hope on the horizon of replacement. Political science has this decline at about .35%/year in terms of General Election support in a "base vs. base" election like in 2004 and 2012. This comes in contrast to the growing base of the Democrats, which will add several million new voters by the time 2016 rolls around. This year was likely the tipping point in terms of Republicans (on their current platform) being competitive in a General Election. They already netted nearly 60% of the ethnic white vote, and they will need to net ever-increasing majorities of this vote until whites cease to be the majority ethnicity, estimated to be around 2040. That, simply put, will NOT happen, as there still plenty of self-described white liberals whose percentage of that white vote Republicans (as currently constituted) will never crack (myself amongst them). Republicans have more than their popular vote share (they lost) in the House vis-a-vis their seat total. This is because a) districts in many competitive states were gerrymandered by the 2010-won GOP state legislative majorities and signed into law by 2010-won GOP governors and b) because the Republican vote is more "efficiently distributed" than the Democratic vote. That is intuitive, with Republicans living across broad swaths of land (many districts) versus Democrats tending to cluster in large urban cores (single districts). But, to fall back on the "there's still a GOP House so America is still even divided" trope is not really true. Were we a parliamentary system with proportional representation, Democrats would control the House, Senate, and Presidency. And from 2013 to 2016, they will take over majority control of Governorships. By 2020, they will be free to gerrymander their own districts and marginalize the GOP... potentially forever.

This is some real talk. One has to chuckle inwardly (and then probably want to cry) when they see the Department of Defense specify places where they can save money/cut useless programs and then have CONGRESS veto their suggestions and spend the money anyway! At that point, they aren't really protecting the military or "our troops"--they're just protecting defense jobs (and if they aren't needed, what are they other than pork or welfare by another name?) in their districts and the defense giants that donate to their election campaigns. The ROI on buying members of Congress is truly insane; I remember reading (and believe posted at the time) that it was ranked by The Economist as the HIGHEST of any expenditure a company can make, something like a 50:1 return. The Debt Ceiling is a bogus construct in any case, as Congress has already spent/apportioned the money. The Ceiling should go up automatically when new debt is incurred via spending from Congress; the two-step process is needlessly redundant, though, to be fair, it has historically never been abused like it has been over the last two years. Playing "chicken" with the nation's credit rating and the stock market is _REALLY_ an exercise in jaw-dropping stupidity. While I agree in principal that the Debt is something that we should be trying hard to reduce as quickly as possible, messing around with our nation's credit rating is not at all a good way to go about doing it. Neither is voting against relief for Sandy victims because you demands offsets for the spending, as ~70 Republican House members have done. As colourwheel queries, where was this fiscal fundamentalism when Bush II was busy running up the credit card? Or REAGAN for that matter (check out the size of the debt before/after he took office). Seems to only strike when Republicans are out of the White House. Anyway, I agree with bben in principal that both parties bear blame for this state of affairs, but I would say that both sides do NOT bear equal blame. Democrats are at least up-front about their desire to spend--as well as the need to levy adequate taxes to pay for it. Republicans like to spend just as much (or more!) but lie about their desire to do so AND, what's worse, they peddle the lie that tax cuts will pay for it all. So we 2X the debt rather than one. I want a balanced approach to reducing the debt--with higher taxes (TBH, I disagreed with continuing any of the Bush tax cuts) and cuts to spending. Reason also states that this is the only tenable approach. Most voters seem to realize this--why doesn't the GOP?

I also vote for the Flavored Description. Skyrim's vanilla UI and descriptions is so blunt and terse, more expansive, "RPG-y" explanations are a very welcome alternative. Also let's you roleplay more :D This is looking good! And script-free is the way to be :D EDIT: Implementing via perks like in the above might be a good alternative to actually using Enchantments. Only thing I'd foresee would be that a) the condition situation for all those new perks would be highly complex, and b) you'd need a script to give those perks to players not starting a new game. If you're up to the labor, going with Perks would allow more flexibility/compatibility than using enchantments.

Hehehe, I wouldn't say that either party is above putting politics before the people--but, I would agree with you that a certain segment of Republicans would rather see the country run into the ground through inaction than ever make a politically difficult governing decision. Which is why, even though he is universally despised, Boehner will probably keep his Speakership--because nobody in the Tea Party Caucus is man enough to step up to the plate and challenge him. They won't do this because they realize that being the Speaker places a certain--through limited in the 2010-2012 era--demand on actually GOVERNING that Tea Party purists find repugnant. They would rather chill back in their ivory tower of ideological purity than ever put themselves in a position where they might be forced to make a compromise for the good of the country. The problem with the Republican party is precisely that they are two parties in one--in a way that Democrats are not, and have not been since the early 1960s (I refer to "Southern Democrats" versus the rest of the party vis-a-vis Civil Rights legislation). Republicans come in a wide variety of flavors these days, from the Libertarians (the ones that I'm most down with) like Ron Paul, to the Establishment (Boehner, Bush, McConnell, etc.), the Evangelicals (Huckabee, Santorum), and the Tea Party (Paul Ryan, Allen West, etc.). Establishment Republicans have traditionally been the most interested in actually governing (meaning compromising), but they are becoming an endangered species due to their consistently losing primary fights to Tea Partiers challenging them from their right. The result has been that that Establishment types have been held hostage by the threat of a primary challenge, the only antidote of which is 100% ideological purity and towing the Tea Party orthodox line. Anything less than that invites a primary challenge, and the Koch Bros. and/or Sheldon Adelson are only TOO happy to sponsor any--regardless of IQ or qualification--challenger willing to run under the Tea Party banner. The result is a Republican party that is literally quaking in their boots at the primary clout of the far-right, afraid to do their Constitutionally mandated job of actually governing all the while gumming up our political system because they... unfortunately... hold the majority in the House (for the time being). It invites the saying of "If you aren't part of the solution, get out of the way" except that the far-right refuses to get out of the way, guaranteeing that nothing of any importance ever gets done.

@guns I am of the mind that mandating strict punishments for irresponsible gun owners (if your gun gets stolen, that IS your problem, IMO, as it should have been secured better) is the inherently CONSERVATIVE position given their traditional aversion to moral hazard and emphasis on personal responsibility. If conservatives can trash talk economic moral hazard (folks refusing to get health care and then abusing the emergency room for their care, etc.), they can certainly see the inherent moral hazard of owning a deadly weapon and then refusing to take responsibility for what is done with it. If economic free riders are so despicable, what about a social free rider who gets somebody else killed due shirking their responsibility to secure their weapon? Certainly, that is a FAR more grave dereliction of moral duty than ducking the cost of medical procedure. I 100% agree that the mother should have been charged as an accomplice had she survived, just as I believe any gun owner should be held to account if their weapons bring harm to others. If that makes a gun owner nervous, perhaps they should be like Flintlock and invest in multiple gun lockers, keeping the means of access as a secret known only to himself. That is responsible gun ownership; leaving a magnum unattended on the front porch whilst kids play on the lawn or a cache of assault weapons left alone in the basement with a deranged teenager categorically IS NOT. The 2nd Amendment might allow unfettered access to those weapons, but certainly we can hold an owner's feet to the fire should they abuse that privilege, meeting their sober responsibility with a callous and willful negligence.