HOWEVER.  I am kinda interested in seeing where the story goes.  If I could just fire up the game and hit ‘skip’ every time a fight started and ‘warp’ to take me from conversation point to point, I would totally do it.  Because I want to know how “my” story ends.  I keep hearing tell of how the things you did in chapters 1 & 2 actually affected the outcome – I really want to see that.

So.  Yeah.  DA2 is just sitting on the shelf waiting for me to finish it.  Someday.  And Bioware (DA & ME franchises) is now off my “buy on release day” list and now on my “maybe never buy” list.  Maybe I’ll rent ME3 after it’s been out for a few months.  I think I’ll just stick to reading summaries for DA3.  But hey, maybe something will change and the DA3 design will have all the marbles again.  Environments that vary.  Fights that vary.  More enemy types.  Less console-ish.

*That I can remember.  That disclaimer should probably go after everything I say that involves things I may have done a decade ago.

Why else would the writer say things like

The result is a tax system that exempts almost half the country from paying for programs that benefit everyone, including national defense, public safety, infrastructure and education.  It is a system in which the top 10 percent of earners – households making an average of $366,400 in 2006 – paid about 73 percent of the income taxes collected by the federal government.

yet completely neglect to mention that the top 10% controls something like 70-71%* of the total wealth?  Maybe because, with that information, that 73% number doesn’t look so high?

Now, let’s look at the first sentence of that paragraph.  Sure, the programs “benefit everyone” but, realistically, I kinda wonder who really benefits the most.  I’d wager it might be the corporations and wealthy.  What?  Why?  Well, because they own most of the property, capital, land, etc.  IE things that would be destroyed were the national defenses to fail, public safety to be violated, infrastructure to collapse, etc.  Sure, the rest of us would be screwed to… but on a purely numerical level we have much less to lose.  Education, I think, is the one out of those four you could best argue doesn’t benefit the wealthy – they don’t go to public schools anyway, etc.  However, their employees do.  Do the wealthy benefit from having competent employees and a job pool filled with talented, educated people?  I think so.  Probably at least as much as those people benefit from receiving an education.

Later:

The bottom 40 percent, on average, make a profit from the federal income tax, meaning they get more money in tax credits than they would otherwise owe in taxes. For those people, the government sends them a payment.

and

But income tax rates were lowered at every income level. The changes made it relatively easy for families of four making $50,000 to eliminate their income tax liability.

Here’s how they did it, according to Deloitte Tax:

The family was entitled to a standard deduction of $11,400 and four personal exemptions of $3,650 apiece, leaving a taxable income of $24,000. The federal income tax on $24,000 is $2,769.

With two children younger than 17, the family qualified for two $1,000 child tax credits. Its Making Work Pay credit was $800 because the parents were married filing jointly.

The $2,800 in credits exceeds the $2,769 in taxes, so the family makes a $31 profit from the federal income tax. That ought to take the sting out of April 15.

Wow! $31 dollarsdinero!!!  I bet that family of four living off of <$50,000 is going to go to town with that $31.  Luckily they probably didn’t have to spend hundreds or thousands on healthcare huh?

But seriously.  So they made $31 – is that a good return on the thousands that were withheld from their check?  I kinda doubt it.  Also, this presupposes that the government shoves the money deep into its sphincter for twelve months instead of oh, INVESTING IT… or something.  Not that I don’t think the linked article is misleading for implying that taxpayers will actually see that money – my point is just that the government is using your money and preventing you from doing so.  I’m not saying I think people shouldn’t have to pay taxes – just that I think the setup above is misleading.  As the article mentions (kind of), the government offers various refunds and credits – ideally for a reason.  IE you get a credit for making you home more energy efficient – which will help everyone in the long run.  Or something like that.  The government isn’t “just” throwing away money – ostensibly they are paying for a service which either benefits them, us, the economy, the environment, etc.

I’m sure someone more politically and statistically inclined can either make a better case for this, or shred my argument.  More power to them.

*This is the number I see stated everywhere, but I’m having trouble coming up with a direct citation for it… other than wikipedia which cites a book not available online, and dates the # to 2001.  Wait, this UCSC study/paper/thing puts it at 69.8% in 2000.  Close enough?

1. Man molests pre-pubescent boy.
2. Therefore, man must be attracted to males.
3. Therefore, man is gay.
4. Therefore, all/most gays are child molesters.

Now, of course we can all point out the obvious logical fallacy involved in traversing the gulf between steps 3 and 4, right?

If not, please don’t call me.  Ever.

Instead, I’m going to dwell briefly on the more interesting breakdown of the brain between steps 1 & 2.

Oh wait, first, lets run the same logic train on a man who molested a little girl (which never happens, right?!):

1. Man molests pre-pubescent girl.
2. Therefore, man must be attracted to girls.
3. Therefore, man is straight.
4. Therefore, all/most straights are child molesters.

Oooo.  It burns doesn’t it? It should.  If not, pick up your phone – and don’t call me.

An average gay man, just like an average straight man, is attracted to people on the post- side of that wacky, sticky river of puberty.   The entrances just don’t completely overlap.   Hey – no harm, no foul eh?

Let’s get something straight:

There is a huge gulf between pre- and post- pubescence.  You should not be sexually attracted to someone on the pre- side of that river.

If you are, you are psychologically, hormonally, biologically (ETC!) damaged and should be kept away from children.

THE END.

So please, TV ads and ignorant people in general, please shut the fuck up with the “protect the children from the gays!” bullshit.  Your logic is insulting, not to mention insulting.

Good thing I wasn’t particularly motivated to read any of his new books anyway – although I did see Ender in Exile on the shelf recently and at least made a mental note to wiki it.

I prefer Brandon Sanderson’s “moderate Mormonism” to Orson’s somewhat more militant stance.  Even though they agree on the issue at hand, Brandon comes off looking much more rational & personable.

Check out this story for a dose of serious reality.-

This article marks the first place I’ve seen the phrase “the Noughties” – which I fear will become the phrase for this decade. I mean, it makes sense, but the double meaning is still kind of annoying.

Another point of interest, and one I’m going to focus on (although mostly unrelated to Dubai specifically) is this description of young male life in Saudi Arabia:

In Saudi, it’s hard to be straight when you’re young. The women are shut away so everyone has gay sex. But they only want to have sex with boys – 15- to 21-year-olds. I’m 27, so I’m too old now. I need to find real gays, so this is the best place. All Arab gays want to live in Dubai.

I recall seeing a documentary on sexuality abroad at some point, that mentioned this point.  I’ve talked about it with people and had them look at me like I was crazy.  But, come on people – this makes perfect sense.  Humans are sexual (especially young boys!!!) – deny them girls, and what happens (see: prison)?

I think the same documentary mentioned that something similar happens in India – basically it’s very common for young boys to have sex with other young boys – but this is “just sex”, and it’s very unmanly to have actual romantic feelings toward these boys..or something like that.  So it’s something you do up until you have access to a woman – marriage – although sometimes it continues discreetly after that (I imagine if you’re used to the same lover for 6-8 years it may be hard to give that up….).

I’ve always found this whole “I’ll fuck a dude when I need it, but I’m not gay!” dichotomy amazing.  Don’t get me wrong, I believe that they aren’t technically gay (as in romantically attracted to men) – but come on man, wtf?  Because, for a lot of people on the outside – it seems to be the sex that really defines gays and makes them so damn scary (some religions allow gays so long as they aren’t “succumbing to their darker nature” and whatnot).

I think that this shows that it’s not so much the sex (especially with a decent # of straight folks trying the back door loving these days…) – but somehow the thought of a man loving another man that is making folks feel threatenend and emasculated.  I really don’t get it.  Is it that one of them has to be some kind of subordinate and men just aren’t supposed to be submissive?  Is that it?  Is the whole thing a wizard of Oz curtain to distract us from the fact that they are deathly afraid of emotional non-dominant males?  Of female empowerment?????  That reminds me of this great essay I read on homophobia as a form of anti-female sexism.  Thought provoking stuff.  But I can’t find the damn link!  This is like it, but not as good.

Many times I can understand where someone is coming from, even if I completely disagree.  But this I just can’t empathize with – I cannot get myself spun around and looking out those eyes (not that I really want to – I’m just saying there’s usually some piece of insane logic I can base a convincing madman’s argument on, but I don’t see it here).  I’m not threatened by you loving or fucking anyone.  You know, within the standard bounds of not being a molester, etc.  But some people are.  And care enough to get wound up and protest against GLBT stuff.

So – more food to chew on: radical Islamists may have more (technically) gay sex per capita than the population of San Franscisco.

Man, that’s a piece of why they are so fucked up isn’t it?  The ones that really are gay can’t express their love without being put to death, and another big chunk of them wan’t sex so bad they’ll have sex with men they aren’t even attracted to.

I wonder if this is somehow less sinful than masturbation?  Because, you know, there is that.

After all the drama with her daughter’s “marriage” she really should know better.

And she’s supposedly planning a 2012 presidential run?  Man, talk about reality TV!

[EDIT: Here's more from Mudflats.]

Andrew Sullivan posts an exchange from Rush’s show where you can see how crazy he’s gotten.  Look, I remember hearing the guy at a friends house pretty regularly as a kid, and he’s always been crazy.  But, you know, it was a mild kind of crazy – or at least that’s all my young mind could pick up on.

This shit is real crazy son.  Subtle crazy, but still crazy.

I don’t see how he can have any pretense at being any kind of serious commentator, or even a serious Republican…but maybe he’s ok with that.  Maybe he’s incredibly self aware and the entire thing is an act almost beyond the bounds of Colbert to satirize.

Comment #1 on the root link:

So this guy is NOT a republican because he doesn’t want the US to torture people? OK Rush. Once again, proving to the world, you’re an idiot.

I think it should be obvious by now…but people still adore the guy.  Is it just because they are angry?  Are they clinging to whatever presents itself?  I mean, there’s always going to be that fringe, but the Right fringe is getting BIG.  Is it bigger than the Right itself these days?

Sounds like a good argument for a 3rd political party finally…Dems/Reps/Trolls ftw.

And she’s got something to prove right?  So, let’s get this fire cooking with rhino-grease lady!  Change the world, or burn out in tragic public embarassment like your husband.

Not a penny of the stimulus for the GOP districts

I suppose no one should be surprised that Washington is full of crass hypocrites, but if there were an Olympic event in hypocracy several Republican Congressional members would be vying for the gold.  Following the near complete GOP boycott on the economic stimulus bill, Republican congressional members are spending their President’s Day recess at home bragging about the programs they will be delivering to their districts.

Some reported examples:

-  From Rep. Blaine Luetkemeyer (R-MO):  “Within the stimulus package there is some Pell Grant money, which is a good thing. It helps students be able to pay for their education and that’s kind of a long term stimulus effect there. I mean obviously that’s not gonna provide a job in the next 120, 180 days, but the ability of someone to get an education is an economic development tool,” Luetkemeyer said at a local college. He was there, in another inside-outside Washington twist, to celebrate an earmark for a college building. (Link)

-  Rep. Don Young (R-AK) put out a press release saying that he “won a victory for the Alaska Native contracting program and other Alaska small business owners last night in H.R. 1, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act.”  (Link)

-  “All along he has believed infrastructure spending, in particular, should provide a boost to the Inland Empire’s economy,” a spokesman to Rep. Jerry Lewis (R-CA) said. (Link)

-  “While we philosophically have different opinions, we’re obligated to make sure this money is spent properly,” said Rep. Ken Calvert (R-CA). “All of us in the Inland Empire will do what we can to direct as much money as we can.” (Link)

-  From Sen. Kit Bond (R-MO) press release:  Last week, Bond led a bipartisan group of Senators in introducing an amendment to help provide needy families affordable housing. Bond’s amendment provides $2 billion to fund low-income housing tax credit (LIHTC) projects that have been stalled by the financial credit crisis. As part of the Democrats’ spending bill now signed into law, the Senate unanimously accepted Bond’s provision. […]  This provision will have a real impact in Missouri, especially for low-income, working families in need of safe and affordable housing. … Bond’s amendment will save more than 700 housing units and create 3,000 new jobs in Missouri.  “This is the type of emergency stimulus spending we should be supporting — programs that will create jobs now and help families,” Bond said. (Link)

– Gov. Tim Pawlenty (R-MN), who complained that the “federal government is spending money they don’t have,” told Rachel Maddow he would nevertheless accept funds for Minnesota: “Our view is, if you buy the pizza, it’s OK if you have a slice.”  (Link)

– Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), who also campaigned ardently against the bill, said he would nevertheless gladly accept its funds for his state. “You don’t want to be crazy here,” he said.  (Link)

– Rep. John Mica (R-FL) gushed over the bill, which he, too, voted against. “I applaud President Obama’s recognition that high-speed rail should be part of America’s future,” he said in a press release.  (Link)

– Rep. Don Young (R-AK) boasted that he “won a victory for…Alaska small business owners” in the recovery bill he refused to vote for.  (Link)

– Rep. Blaine Luetkemeyer (R-MO) boasted about the educational benefits of the recovery act, while Rep. Ken Calvert (R-CA) said his office “will do what we can to direct as much money as we can.” Neither voted for the bill. (Link)

-  Rep. Pete Hoekstra (R-MI) joins in, praising the stimulus’ “generous” incentives for home buyers on his Twitter feed:
“petehoekstra If you know of someone thinking of buying first home, now may be the time.Stimulus incentive is very generous!Up to 8k!Check it out.”  (Link)

-  BlueJersey notes adds Rep. Leonard Lance (R-NJ) to the growing list. After insisting last Friday that the recovery bill “would have exploded our national debt without providing meaningful job growth,” Lance toured construction sites in his district yesterday, touting funds that would come from the stimulus bill. “This is a classic example of a “shovel-ready’ project,” Lance said after the tour.  (Link)

It looks like these guys are now worried some positive results will come from the stimulus bill and they have some heavy liftting to reconstruct the history of their lack of involvement.  Who knows?  It may work and these guys will completely buffalo some of their constituents into believing the money destined for their districts comes from their representatives hard work and commitment.  For sure they won’t be reminding anyone they not only voted against the stimulus, but did everything in their power to kill the bill.  And following the vote, the House Republicans crowed about their unity in obstruction.  Even made a stupid video using an Aerosmith song.

But Democrats who did work hard on the stimulus bill should make sure that these GOP congress members are unsuccessful at tricking their districts voters, reminding them that the entire Republican party in Washington collaborated to kill the bill.  The folks who direct the money should insure that not a penny of the stimulus money flows to districts represented by the Republicans that worked so hard to obstruct the passage of the bill. Then the districts voters will understand the real value of their representation.

Not a penny.

.

.

[UPDATE:

Some useful info the original author left out (and that I left there in a comment):

/END UPDATE]

I only add “bastard” because it’s technically true.  I completely disagree with all negative connotations associated with the word: single parents can raise wonderful and loving children.   Good luck to Bristol though with that (now?) power-hungry manipulator for a mommy though.  Then again, I’m sure she’ll never have to want for money, so she’s already massively better off than most other young, single mothers.