Lol. The narrator sounds quite ominous...dark and foreboding. Judging by his tone, I expected him to finish by saying "in that one magical hour, the fireflies of Mexico eat people."
*promote a *quality natural event. Nature's fireworks.

So, basically, the next Dark Souls.

Which is fine, because I enjoy those games. Character and enemy designs look great, but at this point they're just regurgitating a formula. It looks foreboding, it's probably going to be brutally difficult, there will be some interesting monsters and probably a convoluted, western-style dark fantasy plot. That's the same thing that Demon's Souls, Dark Souls and Dark Souls 2 offered to a 'T'.
Someone no one else has ever agreed with me from the game industry is personal reinvention, and I wish consumer demand was more fickle for less repetitive offerings.
I *might* play this, but after 3 games, multiple playthroughs of each (because I loved them so much), I'm pretty much over it. Plus, fuck next gen consoles, I could have gotten another 5 years from the current crop. I expect truly talented developers to innovate when they're lauded for their perceived innovation from past successes. Tackling an entirely different genre in the same way the *Souls games were throwbacks to more unforgiving times, or taking the extremes from the previous entries to completely unexpected heights.
There are so many fucking vectors of unexplored progress in the medium that it never surprises me when industry reports year-over-year declines for half a decade, and infuriates me to the point that I wish it would all just fucking die already, wipe out the failures, and rebuild it with this millenniums version of the NES. It's not even about finding "completely new, unexplored methods of interactive media", because you can continue to build on the genre's that exist with a 4-decade-old toolbox that an entire industry only recognizes the most recently opened drawer of.

I love how they make it sound all foreboding and scary.

>> ^Deano:

>> ^ChaosEngine:
Superman?
A boring character with almost no vulnerabilities and no interesting character traits.
Zack Synder?
Technically competent but artistically bankrupt. Don't believe me? See what he comes up with when he doesn't have two of the biggest names in comics writing for him. Derivative, immature and vaguely creepy (and not in a good way).
Will have to do a lot better after the Avengers (solid action, genuinely funny script) and the Dark Knight Rises (visually stunning with real emotive weight).

I loved The Avengers. Bright, colourful, uncomplicated superheroes having fun. The story was very simple but that was needed to allow room for all the characters to breath and interact. As you say a nice script and some good lines.
It's much more my cup of tea than the foreboding, depressing Dark Knight films.


I loved every minute of both The Avengers and The Dark Knight Rises.

Also, have to disagree with wtih @ChaosEngine about Zack Synder. He simply can't write, but he can sure as shit direct and has such a fantastic eye for visuals. Not every director should be able to write, as long as they can take good material and make something excellent from it, which he has done, multiple times.

>> ^ChaosEngine:

>> ^Deano:
I loved The Avengers. Bright, colourful, uncomplicated superheroes having fun. The story was very simple but that was needed to allow room for all the characters to breath and interact. As you say a nice script and some good lines.
It's much more my cup of tea than the foreboding, depressing Dark Knight films.

Agreed, but I feel there's room for both.


True, I'm just not rushing to see the Batman film. After I saw the last one it just made me reread The Dark Knight Returns and appreciate how well it's dystopian vision worked on paper. Seeing bits of it used here and there in the films felt wrong. Leaving Miller's work alone might have made the film better.

>> ^Deano:

I loved The Avengers. Bright, colourful, uncomplicated superheroes having fun. The story was very simple but that was needed to allow room for all the characters to breath and interact. As you say a nice script and some good lines.
It's much more my cup of tea than the foreboding, depressing Dark Knight films.


Agreed, but I feel there's room for both.

>> ^ChaosEngine:

Superman?
A boring character with almost no vulnerabilities and no interesting character traits.
Zack Synder?
Technically competent but artistically bankrupt. Don't believe me? See what he comes up with when he doesn't have two of the biggest names in comics writing for him. Derivative, immature and vaguely creepy (and not in a good way).
Will have to do a lot better after the Avengers (solid action, genuinely funny script) and the Dark Knight Rises (visually stunning with real emotive weight).


I loved The Avengers. Bright, colourful, uncomplicated superheroes having fun. The story was very simple but that was needed to allow room for all the characters to breath and interact. As you say a nice script and some good lines.

It's much more my cup of tea than the foreboding, depressing Dark Knight films.

>> ^PlayhousePals:

>> ^Sagemind:
If they go bankrupt, we won't have to use it anymore.

I'm proud to say I've NEVER had a FacePlant account. I had a foreboding feeling about it from the git go and refused to participate no matter how much pressure i got from family and friends [real ones]. I must admit I am amused by the recent developments. TeeHee =o)


I had one, but with fake data. I got kicked off after a few weeks. Heh. MySpace, Friendster, etc. didn't ban me.

>> ^Sagemind:

If they go bankrupt, we won't have to use it anymore.


I'm proud to say I've NEVER had a FacePlant account. I had a foreboding feeling about it from the git go and refused to participate no matter how much pressure i got from family and friends [real ones]. I must admit I am amused by the recent developments. TeeHee =o)

Nice - Very Nice.
The somber mood characterizes the setting and adds a sense of foreboding.
The audio is not what I expected but sets the pace and character of the piece.

Hmm, looks like the channel invocations aren't working at the moment..

in any case, the hickey on that kid's neck is a foreboding signal that more children born into poverty are 'on the way'.

>> ^Ornthoron:

@shuac
Stephen Dillane, who got the role, seems to me a damn good choice too. The casting department has done a very good job so far, and I trust them to keep making good choices in the seasons to come.


No argument here, Orny. I'd never heard of this Dillane before but it makes little matter. If he's a skilled actor I have no doubt they'll make it work. For instance, the fellow they chose for Ser Jorah Mormont (Iain Glen) doesn't fit the description in the books whatsoever but I liked his portrayal even better than the book version. He's now one of my favorite characters on the show.

Still, it would have been great to have Butler as Stannis. His gruff Scottish, foreboding-looking, scenery-chewing mannerisms would've set fire to every scene he'd have been in.

Now, who'd be best for Melisandre, I wonder...?

~For Packo
declared terrorists not covered by the Geneva Convention

For which I believe Bush, Cheney and their entire entourage should be brought up on war crimes charges over. Cheney shouldn't even get a trial, he's written a bloody book staunchly defending his use of torture which should be enough to skip the conviction and get straight on to sentencing.

It's nitpicking, and childish to resort to a "who declared war on who"

I was responding to your declaration that it's not really war. I believe whether we call it a war or not is more than just semantics. The jihadists like Al-Qaida have been calling it war for their part since long before 9/11 finally made it a mutual declaration.

So as much as you believe it is WESTERN nation's responsibility to solve problems
I'm not saying it's their responsibility so much as recognizing that there are instances where western self interest happens to coincide with solving problems. It's vitally important difference.

Extremism will only be defeated by the environment in the Middle East being such that it can't take root and grow. This will never be accomplished by force or political buggery.

I agree with your sentiments on extremism and the environment in the Middle East being the key. I must ask though if a Middle East with Afghanistan still ruled by the Taliban and Iraq still ruled by Saddam really make a better environment for putting an end to extremism. I see the evidence being very strongly against it. Additionally, I don't see any way of improving Saddam era Iraq's environment without the use force. I don't think those are terribly radical and unfathomable statements, yet it seems most here seem not only content to reject it without evidence, but in the face any evidence and without any need for a defense either.

All of the above doesn't even touch on the original point I made that if you are a US Citizen, you should be viewing the assasination of a US Citizen, at your government's sayso, without their providing ample reason (or any really) as to why he could not have been captured, with some foreboding..

I still prefer it to Bush's stubborn insistence to explain everything to the public as though they were children. I believe Awlaki's past and present actions were expected to stand somewhat one their own, without really needing anyone to hold people's hand and explain to them what it meant to write books promoting Jihad in America and mentorship of a man that went on to kill for that very cause. I also believe they again don't feel they'll have much luck explaining why capturing an Al-Qaida operative in Yemen was going to be difficult for anyone that didn't already grasp that on their own.

I've already agreed up thread that the precedent is worrisome, but so is the alternative. I could have respected if Obama had come out and instead of announcing Awlaki's death had announced that he had the opportunity to assassinate him, and chose not to as a matter of ethics. I doubt however that his presidency could have survived such a moral move. He'd last until Awlaki's next attack before the Reps and Dems wanting his place would have people running him out of office for failing to protect the nation.

My real problem and raging here is at those content to convict and condemn Obama, but insistent that Awlaki be deemed innocent until the absolute highest bar of proof be satisfied.

My real problem and raging is those raving as though bombing Cambodia into the stone ages and backing the Khmer Rouge in those ashes is morally equivalent to the removal of Saddam's regime in Iraq and the holding of free elections there.

As though those indignities weren't enough, those same claimants then want to believe that they are the ones truly studying and seeing the shades of gray involved in these matters.

It's more than should be tolerated by any thinking person that cares enough to take these things seriously.

>> ^bcglorf:

>> ^packo:
>> ^NetRunner:
There are two key questions that I think we should try to keep distinct here.
First, was this legal? Well, yes. This isn't a criminal matter, this is war. You don't put enemy forces on trial before you shoot them, you just shoot them. There are still limits on what you're allowed to do in war, but simply killing people is generally considered legal. Even targeting specific people providing aid and comfort to the enemy is not forbidden under the rules of war.
The other question is...should this be legal?
Well, I think the fact that declaring war on non-state organizations gives government latitude so wide that it becomes legal to engage in targeted killing of one of its own citizens is a pretty powerful reason to believe that it shouldn't be legal. An easy way to change the law to make it illegal would be to pass a resolution delcaring that AUMF against Al Qaeda null and void. Then this whole thing would revert to a matter of law enforcement, and not "national security".
The thing is, to prevent future Congresses from being able to declare war on non-state entities would require an amendment to the Constitution -- right now it just says Congress has the power to declare war, full stop. It doesn't say that they can't declare war on whatever entity they choose.
But I think people out there wanting to claim that it already is illegal simply haven't been paying attention.
politics

technically it isn't war because terrorists are not afforded the same rights as active participants in war... via the Geneva Convention for example
the burden of proof, and right to trial... are paramount in these times... when things are at their darkest, that's when upholding these value is MOST important (to point the finger at your opponent and say they aren't playing by the rules is quite CHILDISH, especially when you've went through such lengths to formalize the opinion in your citizens that the reason the enemy attacks is because they hate your freedoms/way of life
the problem with classifying people as terrorists and then assassinating them without any due process is that the "arguement" is made in the court of public opinion... usually by the media networks who are biased and lacking of journalistic integrity... if that's all you need to justify killing people, the arguement can QUICKLY/EASILY be made about ANYONE
the ONLY real, understandable reason I can contemplate would be putting these individuals to trial and making the proceedings available to the public would reveal many skeletons the US has in it's closet... but the validity and morality of this are another debate
as a religious text I don't believe in says (paraphrased)... how you treat the lowest of me, is how you treat all of me... this doesn't just equate to the poor/downtrodden... but to the most vile and unrepentant
holding your morality/standards to be so high compared to someone else means very little when you sacrifice them (irrespective of whether or not it is convenient or easy to do so)

You misunderstand.
It isn't war because America, or NATO or the west has declared war against the terrorists. That's not where this started. Your naive belief in that is what's tainting your understanding of this.
The Islamic Jihadists have openly declared and been waging war on us since long before the events of 9/11. The 'us' I refer to in this is not merely America, or the west, but anyone and everyone who is not themselves an Islamic fundamentalist as well.
You can fumble around all you want over reasons and 'proofs' that America is not really at war with the jihadists, but the reality is that THEY are at war with America. It is the very identity they have taken for themselves for pity sake. We've only been able to ignore it for so long because 90% of the casualties in this war have been middle eastern moderate muslims. Your ilk seem to want to claim sympathy for religious differences by allowing the status quo to continue were muslims get to continue to bear the full brunt of the jihadist war against us both. It's twisted and I detest it.


I never mentioned anything to the beginnings of hostilities.. you are making assumptions there. And with the government (multiple administrations) labelling these actions as the "WAR ON TERROR", by definition, they declared it war (even if they choose to not adhere to the rules of war)... the fact that they then went through the trouble (primarily for interrogation purposes) declared terrorists not covered by the Geneva Convention, and thus having no rights as war participants is what I was pointing out.

It's nitpicking, and childish to resort to a "who declared war on who" because if you want to get down to it, you are plainly ignoring western powers foreign diplomacy/intervention over the last 50+ years. There is many reasons why these fundamentalists are hostile... if "your way of life" actually makes the list, its not your love of fast food, miniskirts and women's rights... its how your way of life is subsidized through intervention in terms of their leadership, whether it be through installation of puppet/friendly regimes (no matter how oppressive/brutal) or through regime change or through economic hardships placed on nations who's leaders don't fall in line... let alone other issues such as Israel.

It's this police state mentality which garnered the West such a lovely reputation in the middle east... and as much as you'd love to point out it's for stability in the region, or so democracy can make inroads, or whatever other propaganda you happen to believe in... the truth is it has ALWAYS been about oil and oil money... not even in the interests of the western power's citizenry as much as for the oil lobbies.

Democracy and freedom are only ok as long as they fall in line with Western (particularly American) interest. If they were being honest it would be outfront there, plain as day the MAJOR issue there is ENERGY (and the money to be made from it).

So as much as you believe it is WESTERN nation's responsibility to solve problems (forcebly and usually without consent of those involved) in this manner, its EXACTLY this type of thinking that got us here. And if you honestly think we've only started meddling in the Middle East, you are naive (perhaps blind is a better word).

Extremism will only be defeated by the environment in the Middle East being such that it can't take root and grow. This will never be accomplished by force or political buggery.

You should stop playing cowboy's and indians, come back to reality, and start detesting the real issues at play here... not FOX TV political rhetoric.

All of the above doesn't even touch on the original point I made that if you are a US Citizen, you should be viewing the assasination of a US Citizen, at your government's sayso, without their providing ample reason (or any really) as to why he could not have been captured, with some foreboding... let alone the US government's denile of his family trying to get him legal representation etc...

If you want to hold yourself up as a shining beacon for the world to follow... when the going gets tough, better not falter or backup and do a complete 180, or all the preening and puffing you did early... it shines in a different light

What do they call that when 1 person (or entity) gets to decide what the laws are, at any given point in time, irrelevant as to what they may have been just a few moments earlier?

Monday, August 15. 2011

Nero in the White House
By Mychal Massie

Three significant historical events have been eclipsed by Obama: 1) Jimmy Carter will no longer be looked upon as the worst president in American history; 2) Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton will no longer be recognized as the greatest liars in presidential history; 3) Clinton's stain on Monica's dress, and what that did to the White House in general and the office of the president specifically, will forever pale in comparison to the stain and stench of Obama.

I need not spend much time on the failure of Obama as president. His tenure has been a failure on every measurable level. So much so, in fact, that some of the staunchest, most respected liberal Democrats and Democratic supporters have not only openly criticized him – some even more harshly than this essayist – but they have called for him to step down.

Richard Nixon's words "I am not a crook," punctuated with his involvement in Watergate, and Bill Clinton's finger-wagging as he told one of the most pathetic lies in presidential history, in the aftermath of Obama, will be viewed as mere prevarications.

Mr. Nixon and Clinton lied to save their backsides. Although, I would argue there are no plausible explanations for doing what they did, I could entertain arguments pursuant to understanding their rationales for lying. But in the case of Obama, he lies because he is a liar. He doesn't only lie to cover his misdeeds – he lies to get his way. He lies to belittle others and to make himself look presentable at their expense. He lies about his faith, his associations, his mother, his father and his wife. He lies and bullies to keep his background secret. His lying is congenital and compounded by socio-psychological factors of his life.

Never in my life, inside or outside of politics, have I witnessed such dishonesty in a political leader. He is the most mendacious political figure I have ever witnessed. Even by the low standards of his presidential predecessors, his narcissistic, contumacious arrogance is unequalled. Using Obama as the bar, Nero would have to be elevated to sainthood.

As the stock markets were crashing, taking with them the remaining life saving of untold tens of thousands, Obama was hosting his own birthday celebration, which was an event of epicurean splendidness. The shamelessness of the event was that it was not a state dinner to welcome foreign dignitaries, nor was it to honor an American accomplishment – it was to honor the Pharaoh, Barack Hussein Obama. The event's sole purpose was for the Pharaoh to have his loyal subjects swill wine, indulge in gluttony and behavior unfit to take place on the property of taxpayers, as they suffer. It was of a magnitude comparable to that of Tyco CEO Dennis Kozlowski's $2 million birthday extravaganza for its pure lack of respect for the people.

Permit me to digress momentarily. The U.S. Capitol and the White House were built with the intent of bringing awe and respect to America and her people. They were also built with the intent of being the greatest of equalizers. I can tell you, having personally been to both, there is a moment of awe and humility associated with being in the presence of the history of those buildings. They are to be honored and inscribed into our national psyche, not treated as a Saturday night house party at Chicago's Cabrini-Green.

The people of America own that home Obama and his wife continue to debase with their pan-ghetto behavior. It is clear that Obama and family view themselves as royalty, but they're not. They are employees of "we the people," who are suffering because of his failed policies. What message does this behavior send to those who today are suffering as never before?

What message does it send to all Americans who are struggling? Has anyone stopped to think what the stock market downturn forebodes for those 80 million baby boomers who will be retiring in the next period of years? Is there a snowball's chance in the Sahara that every news program on the air would applaud this behavior if it were George W. Bush? To that point, do you remember the media thrashing Bush took for having a barbecue at the White House?

Like Nero – who was only slightly less debaucherous than Caligula – with wine on his lips Obama treated "we the people" the way Caligula treated those over whom he lorded.

Many in America wanted to be proud when the first person of color was elected president, but instead, they have been witness to a congenital liar, a woman who has been ashamed of America her entire life, failed policies, intimidation and a commonality hitherto not witnessed in political leaders. He and his wife view their life at our expense as an entitlement – while America's people go homeless, hungry and unemployed.