Alan Grayson Meets Basil Marceaux
Alan Grayson (D) has something in common with everyone's favorite Basil Marceaux. What is it you ask?
Nefarious international schemes to murder them, naturally.
He also compared the seriousness of the death threats to “John Kennedy, Robert Kennedy, Martin Luther King, Malcolm X,” and “John Lennon.”
He then goes on to warn the reporter that his life is in danger from the same men who shot Abraham Lincoln and Martin Luther King Jr., and that if the reporter comes to visit him, she should probably bring a rifle.
One of these men is a hero to their party. One is a joke to his. I'll let you figure out which is which.
Steny Hoyer: Tax Increases Shall Not Pass
George Bush had a dastardly scheme back in 2001 (no not that one, Paultards!). He passed a $1.3 trillion tax cut for nearly every American. The bill is set to expire in 2011, raising those taxes back to the 2001 levels. Steny Hoyer says this dastardly tax cutting scheme will not happen and he'll extend those tax cuts. Which, um, Republicans want to happen.
“We have no intention of allowing the Republican tax increase — that their policies would lead to — to go into effect for working Americans. Period,” he said. “We’re going to act and make sure that the Republican phase out and increase in taxes does not end as they provided for in the laws they passed.”
First, English teachers diagram this sentence for me. It's nearly incomprehensible.
Secondly. Get this? The Republicans had a dastardly scheme back in 2001 to cut your taxes. If they'd only offered a plan to make those cuts permanent, the plan would have been thwarted. You'd think that Hoyer, protector of the middle class, would have supported this plan, right? Can't let those Republicans raise taxes, after all.
But you'd be mistaken. Hoyer voted against the Bush tax cuts and he voted against making them permanent as well.
- Voted NO on making the Bush tax cuts permanent. (Apr 2002)
- Voted NO on $99 B economic stimulus: capital gains & income tax cuts. (Oct 2001)
- Voted NO on Tax cut package of $958 B over 10 years. (May 2001)
Puzzle Quest 2 Arch Lich Tips
As a follow up to my Puzzle Quest 2 review yesterday (and as a way to make sure my server move worked properly - so if I can see this in a day or so, the move worked), here is how to beat the Arch Lich Greater Challenge very easily.
The fight is fantastically flawed in its design. Probably one of the easier "boss" fights I've done. So he's 100% immune to magic - so don't bother using your spells (the way they were intended). You will be doing damage mainly through skulls and action points. Occasionally, he'll cast a spell that damages you, and does 50% of that damage to himself as well - but this is a losing proposition for you, of course, so it's not a way to win.
So, prepare for the fight. Equip a weapon that uses 3-4 action points/attack and does about 2x that in damage (Ancient Shortsword is wonderul). Change all your spells to be the ones that use the -fewest- gems. Optimally, you want spells that use 3-4 red or 3-4 yellow or whatever, but not ones that use 3-4 red -and 3-4 yellow. Single gem usage is important, in case he casts his mana explosion and drains a given color.
So, you will play this fight on defense and only match skulls or action gems. Unless there is a 4 match available on board, you want to skip your turn. How? Simple. He's 100% spell resistant, so cast a spell. He'll resist it and you'll lose your turn and you won't lose any gems. So he'll move and make a match. Rinse-repeat this method till its over. Make action gem or skull matches over using your weapon. Use the weapon if there is no skull or action match on the board. If you can't use your weapon -and- no skull or action matches on the board -and- no 4 or 5 matches out there; cast a spell and end your turn.
If he uses his mana explosion, you'll lose a full bar of mana so you might have to change spells now and again but the premise is the same. If all your mana pools are empty, match the color you need as far to the top as possible to limit secondary matches that you might not want to make.
All in all, a very easy fight. First "Greater Challenge" I did in one shot and ended up with about half of my hit points left in the end.
Puzzle Quest 2 Review
So I've started playing Puzzle Quest 2 on my Xbox 360. I loved the first Puzzle Quest, but didn't feel like it played well on the Xbox, so I played it on the PC instead. This time, I decided to play it on the 360, since I want the achievement points (yeah, I don't know why either).
I'm going to start this little mini review with some peeves and I'll finish up with some positives and more or less let you decide if you want to play the game or not.
So I start playing the game. The intro quests are pretty easy (the troll fight is kinda cool), then you get into the real game and your first encounter is with a "Rat swarm" or something. A bunch of rats that do rather puny amounts of damage. Seems easy enough, right? It's then that the game introduces a mechanic that lets opponents block attacks an insane amount of the time. This rat thing has a defense of like 52 (which I presume means he blocks 52% of the time, though I'm still not sure if that's correct - but it seems close). So my sorcerer does like 1 point of damage on a 3 skull match. And maybe 5 on a spell attack at this point. The rat wipes the floor with me. And here I am thinking - this is retarded. So, instead I make the Paladin type character (a tank essentially - doesn't do a lot of damage, but a lot of mitigation so he's hard to kill). And it's a lot easier. Fights take a while, but there are long stretches where I don't even have to match tiles. I can completely control the battlefield. I just steal his action points and hit him with my sword - 9 hit points at a time adds up after a while. So, in summary - the game has some really irritating combat mechanics (especially blocking - though I understand why they put it in there).
The next thing that bugs the crap out of me are the quests. Not the quests themselves, they are as varied as they can be for a match-3 type game. But after you complete a quest, you gotta wait like 10-15 seconds while it rewards you xp, gold, items and then completes it; before you can even move again. It's silly and pointless. Needless delays like that are just frustrating. Leading me to the next point...
The combat animations are cute at first, but why do I have to keep watching my guy swing his sword for the millionth time? A way to turn that off would be nice. Yes, it does 9 hit points. Sometimes it criticals for 18. I know. I know. I also know it'll inevitably be blocked and do 4 hit points.
The looting of treasure chests and piles is stupid. Another match 3 game here, of course. If you get a "heroic effort" you get a random chest to spawn. If you match 3 of those, you'll get a "rare" item. Rarely is it worth the effort (see what I did there?). Yes, it's an item - not gold or some sort of material - so theoretically it could be helpful. But probably won't be. Also, it's always fun when those "rare" chests spawn at the bottom of the grid, then the grid eats it before you even have the chance to match it up.
Upgrading items. You cannot see what the end result of your "upgrade" is before spending the materials. I guess it's predictable if you use it enough; but really it would have been a simple mechanic to add to the game.
Monsters seem to get lucky in their "drops" WAY too often. Sometimes, you can catch the AI knowing what is coming next when it makes a play that makes no sense (IE skipping a match 4 to get 3 reds instead) which then produces a huge heroic effort. There is no way that move gets made unless the AI knows what gems are in the future rows that you can't see. It happens way too often to be a coincidence or random chance. That is the main source of frustration in the game too, unfortunately. I think that's the "challenge" I guess. If the AI played straight, it'd be a cake walk.
That's quite a list. A lot of it comes down to randomness in the game, but other parts are simply lazy coding. But really the game has a lot of fun features too that make it better than the first.
The combat is a lot more dynamic. You have a lot more abilities that you can swap in and out between battles to see how your toon performs. You can also learn new spells through quests - and that is very cool. Though most do not seem to be made for a Templar. That's okay.
The dungeon exploring is fun. No more just pretending to enter a cave and kill a rat. You actually explore an entire dungeon, going room to room (not freely of course, it's guided) and killing stuff.
The quests are pretty varied (keeping in mind every one of them is a match 3 game). Putting out a fire (blue matches put it out, red matches hurt you), freeing captured goblins from their chains, etc etc etc.
The use of items is a lot nicer. In the first Puzzle Quest, I wasn't sure half the time what I had equipped, now it's all very obvious and the inventory is handled pretty well. You can shop for items at vendors that are in town or sometimes in the dungeons and upgrade those items as well (with the previously mentioned caveat).
The game offers some intense challenges. The first "Greater Challenge" is a Yeti that is just insane. Requires good board management to win. And some luck - sucks when he gets 81 red gems on his opening turn and kills you immediately (if he gets 65 red gems, he does a 999 hp instant kill attack). Ended up winning that one with 7 hps left. The second one is a bit easier, a Cave Ogre - which was not that bad on the Templar once I played to my strengths - not matching tiles and using action points for weaker hits. Ended up winning that one with 33 hps left. After fights like these, the normal fights almost seem boring.
I haven't finished the game of course, but you can see I've listed what I think are pretty fair pro's and con's about it. I'd recommend it - if you like match 3 games and can tolerate some really frustrating fights. If you don't and can't - then don't get it. It's pretty simple, I think.
Apocalypse Island: History Channel Should be Ashamed
So I was watching History Channel the other night and they had this 2 hour thing about Apocalypse Island. So for 2 hours, we watch these dudes talking about the Mayans and some island that is supposed to do something or other in 2012, when the world ends.
So, you have to wait an hour and a half to see this rock the guy claims the Mayans carved. It's supposed to be a head and a lion behind it or something. But, really, it just looks like a tall rock with another one behind it. Rare! Mysterious! Never do they even talk about tool marks (are there any?) to make him think it was carved or maybe it was just a natural formation. History Channel even goes out of its way (on multiple occasions) to show the rock as this guy imagines it (a head with a lion behind it) and not even show a graphic saying this was computer generated. It doesn't even matter that the features they claim the rocks should have don't even fit with the way the rocks look at all. Just awful.
Then, these guys climb all over this thing. As if you'd crawl to the top of the Egyptian Pyramids without taking any care to, you know, damage them?
Then they talk about the solar eclipse in 2012 and Venus crossing in front of the Sun in 2012 as well. Both of these are visible from, you know, a ton of places on the planet. The island's location is simply a post hoc logical fallacy on part of these idiots. No proof of any of the assertions made, but 2 hours of trying (too hard, if you ask me) to convince without any effort of evidence.
I think it's a huge shame that the History Channel is pimping this 2012 stuff so hard. Giving credibility to guys who, for all intents and purposes, are probably crack pots. The lack of any real science done during this show, and others of the 2012 series are just awful.
Then they countdown the 13 eras of the Mayans or whatever. Saying this happened on 12th, that on the 11th, etc etc etc. Well, of course something happened on those years. It's amazing, really. Mayans were so apt at predicting the future, you'd think they would have foresaw their own demise. Doh!
Imagine if the Mayans did carve something on Apocalypse Island, so they could see the end of the world. Then, a few years after it was done...they were like "Ah, screw it. I'm not waiting. Let's up and vanish, instead." The thought seems to disprove the point that the Mayans had any clue about anything.
Barry Saunders: I Abuse Animals For Fun
In an odd defense of Bob Etheridge and his assault on a student who asked him a question, Barry Saunders admits to abusing animals.
Most guys who've ever dated a woman with a pet they didn't like know how to surreptitiously poke Fluffy or elbow it in the ribs while appearing to caress it.
(Note to the woman he's dating: Yeah, you might not want him to look after Fluffy for the weekend. It might end up in the freezer.)
That's quite the defense, I suppose. A lot of analogies could be made here, I think (So that's how Democrats treat voters!, So that's how politicians treat tax payers!, etc etc etc) but I think this little comment here - which apparently he thinks is somewhat normal - betrays his true feelings.
Instead of ignoring the kid on the street (Etheridge is, of course, under no obligation to answer or even acknowledge the person), he grabs his wrist, steals his phone and goes all creeper on him. Fluffy deserved to be poked, and elbowed for doing, um, nothing wrong.
In the rest of the column, Saunders seems to be obsessed with the students for not having a face. He mentions it 6 or 7 times. There might be some further issues here to discuss, but that'd really be between him and his therapist, I'm sure.
In the mean time, I'd like to invite PETA to denounce Saunders for admitting to casual animal abuse.
Chris Christie – The Day of Reckoning
This guy is just amazing. I love him. The one thing you can never say about this guy is that he's never talking from his heart. No teleprompters. No um'ing or ah'ing. Or politically correct bull crap. Just the honest truth. This clip is almost 7 minutes of it. Forget Romney or Palin or (eek!) Huckabee - I hope this guy runs for President in 2012. Him and Jindal.
While the national Republican Party is incompetent, these two men communicate small government principles better than anyone else out there that I've seen in a very long time. Christie is out there fighting obscene union benefits and cutting the pork laden NJ budget - and watching him give a speech - it's just incredible. And look at the audience. Smiling, nodding and attentive. They know he's sincere in what he's saying and they know what he's saying is the truth.
The day of reckoning is here. The fat man is singing it every day.
Also, homeless man tells Christie how awesome he is.
h/t Instapundit.
Alvin Greene, Rocket Scientist, Senate Candidate
So that's Senate Candidate Alvin Greene on Olbermann the other night. Wow. Ooookay.
Let's get a few things straight. Yes, he's obviously unprepared. One could argue he's mentally disabled, I guess. So how did he get to be candidate for Senate in South Carolina?
First, let's go thru the conspiracy theory that he's a Republican plant.
Let's assume he's a plant. So, the GOP put this guy out there, hoping he'd get the nomination. Did the Republicans send him any money? No. Did they vote for him? No. Do the moronic Republicans even seem capable of pulling something like this off? No. The theory just doesn't wash on any level at all.
The far more plausible theory is, is that democrat voters are mindless robots. His name was top on the ballot, given that there was no incumbent on the Democrat side. Lazy voters just picked the first name they saw and went with it. That is far more plausible than a Republican plant (and it's not even the first time it has happened). It's something Democrats obviously don't want to hear - but that's normal for them . Coming to terms with reality has never been their strong point.
So, in that light, let's think about Clyburn's call for an investigation into the vote. The exact same people who voted for Greene voted for Clyburn - especially in the primary. So are both results questionable, or is just Greene's? Are Democrats in SC simply not capable of voting properly? If so, should Clyburn's election also be put into doubt?
Let's take it even further. What's so bad about Greene? He says he's a lifelong Democrat. One would presume he'd be a reliable vote for anything he's told to vote for. Seems to me, he's exactly what Democrats want up there. How is he different than, say, John Kerry? Or Al Franken? His voting record would probably be near identical to theirs. He's a perfect fit into the caucus. Just another nameless/faceless automaton in the Senate - voting for whatever he's told to vote for. He's the perfect distillation of what the Democrats want - mindless, obedient, reliable, no ambition. How is he any different than, say, Cynthia McKinney? Or Maxine Waters?
Really, does it scare them that the logical conclusion of their beliefs is people like Alvin Greene? Or is it that they just don't want him to the face of it? Why do they tolerate people like Maxine Waters? or Cynthia McKinney?
Final thought on the Olbermann interview. Did Greene really say anything more stupid than what Olbermann says on a nightly basis? Or Maddow? Or Leg Thrill Matthews?
Fan Theories That Make Movies Better
Just saw this at Cracked today and thought most of it was pretty good.
However, something stood out to me. Particularly #3.
There are a couple theories floating around here. One is that the younger brother is a mental fiction created by Elijah Wood's narrator to cope with the abuse--it's notable that no one except the narrator's family interacts with the younger brother. Another theory (which even Roger Ebert suggested) is that the younger brother plummets to his death or is beaten to death by his stepfather.
I love this movie and I always assumed the child died when he rolled his radio flyer down the hill. It's the only way to explain the comment near the end "Now do you understand what I mean about history being in the mind of the teller?"
If the older brother, who lived, invented this memory to cover up his brothers' death and sent cards home to try and make his mother feel better - the story is very touching, albeit very depressing as well. I think Hanks' comment near the end makes it apparent that the younger brother died. I'm not sure how it could be read any other way. It would make no sense, in the sense of the story, that the younger brother is flying all over the world - for real. He's dead. The older brother is just rationalizing what he's done.
So I'm not sure I'd call this a conspiracy. More like the unspoken part of the script.
And #6, I thought "James Bond" being a code name was pretty apparent as well. Given the number of people who've played him over the years, it seems that 007 is his rank. In one Bond (View to a Kill, I believe), we have a 009 (who is killed), and others with 003's (multiple 003's are killed, I believe). And what not. So 007 is rank, James Bond is the code name of the Agent. In Casino Royale, I do not believe he is called "James Bond" until he gets promoted from 006 to 007.
It'd be smart to keep the name "James Bond" going from agent to agent. That way, if you know James Bond is after you, you're screwed. Then again, why do the villains keep toying with him and not kill him immediately if they know who he is - the best British agent.