Michael Hopcroft

In what universe is Houston a small market? It's the 6th largest metropolitan area in the US after New York,  Los Angeles, Chicago, Dallas and Philadelphia.

Yes. I've posted it here before. I didn't want to repost and be "that guy that won't keep trotting out his pet theory".  But since you asked . . . 
 
Don't look directly at the Deficit.  The US Budget is a large unwieldy thing that does not lend itself to sharp changes. (it takes time to put a new tax in place or drop an old one, or to start spending on a new program or eliminate spending on an old one). No, we look at the first derivative of the deficit with respect to time. I use the budget numbers from Whitehouse.gov and both the Constant 2009 dollars and % GDP numbers.
 
(I've really gotta translate this into graphs. indulge me)
 
All numbers are the median change in the noted value, in billions of 2009 or percent of gdp, in one year.
 
All, Deficit Constant 2.45
United, Deficit Constant -23.8
Opposed, Deficit Constant -0.6
D Only Deficit Constant -18.25
R Only Deficit Constant -36.9
 
All, Deficit GDP 0.15
United, Deficit GDP -0.2
Opposed, Deficit GDP 0.1
D Only Deficit GDP -0.2
R Only Deficit GDP -0.6
 
All Outlays Constant 33.45
United Outlays Constant 77.1
Opposed Outlays Constant 20.2
D Only Outlays Constant 62
R Only Outlays Constant 103.9
 
All Outlays GDP -0.1
United Outlays GDP 0.2
Opposed Outlays GDP -0.25
D Only Outlays GDP 0.25
R Only Outlays GDP 0.2
 
All Receipts Constant 44.2
United Receipts Constant 26.4
Opposed Receipts Constant 55.05
D Only Receipts Constant 32.1
R Only Receipts Constant -15.45
 
All Receipts GDP 0
United Receipts GDP -0.05
Opposed Receipts GDP 0.2
D Only Receipts GDP 0
R Only Receipts GDP -0.25
 
Again, I should really make some nice graphs.  Anyway, lets look at the median numbers. Republican controlled governments raise outlays at 103.9 billion dollars per year and lower receipts (read: taxes) at 15.5 billion per year. Democratic controlled governments raise outlays at 62 billion a year and raise receipts at 30 billion.
 
(okay, so I was wrong that Republicans cut budgets more than Democrats. I misremembered)
 
But look at the Divided governments! A median divided government only increases deficits by 0.6 billion per year. That blows away both the Dems at  18.3 and Repubs at 36.9.  A divided government has a much better chance of actually shrinking the deficit. As a percentage of GDP, Divided governments actually DO shrink deficits.

The GOP will now put forth their Care Reconciliation Action Plan, followed by Strong Health Improvement Tactics.
 
If those don't fly, they'll try Family Universal Care for Kids, Youths, and Oldsters United.

你好
 

 
 
Playlist of English (mostly) language covers:
 

I've seen the British comedy/satire Yes, Minister show up a lot on my Youtube queue lately. I've found this clip, for some reason, really compelling in lighnt of what's going on in the USA.
 


 
Sir Humphrey Appleby (Nigel Hawthorne), the chief aide to the Minister of Administrative Affairs (who later became PM) is usually portrayed as an appalling cynic. But in this scene he makes a surprisingly impassioned defense of the idea that government should be done by people who know what they're doing -- in his case, a professional civil service. As the scene goes on he becomes more impassioned and more demanding until near the end he is in a state of righteous fury. And as the scene goes on the studio audience, who usually find Sir Humphrey's cynicism comedy gold, get audibly more and more uncomfortable as the scene hits closer and closer to home.
 
"If the right people don't have power, the wrong people will." A prescient warning not just for Britain but for the Americans as well. We are currently governed (after a fashion) by demagogues who play to Americans' basest instincts. They are worse than cynics -- they are True Believers who genuinely think they are saving the nation from itself.

I've seen the British comedy/satire Yes, Minister show up a lot on my Youtube queue lately. I've found this clip, for some reason, really compelling in lighnt of what's going on in the USA.
 


 
Sir Humphrey Appleby (Nigel Hawthorne), the chief aide to the Minister of Administrative Affairs (who later became PM) is usually portrayed as an appalling cynic. But in this scene he makes a surprisingly impassioned defense of the idea that government should be done by people who know what they're doing -- in his case, a professional civil service. As the scene goes on he becomes more impassioned and more demanding until near the end he is in a state of righteous fury. And as the scene goes on the studio audience, who usually find Sir Humphrey's cynicism comedy gold, get audibly more and more uncomfortable as the scene hits closer and closer to home.
 
"If the right people don't have power, the wrong people will." A prescient warning not just for Britain but for the Americans as well. We are currently governed (after a fashion) by demagogues who play to Americans' basest instincts. They are worse than cynics -- they are True Believers who genuinely think they are saving the nation from itself.

I've seen the British comedy/satire Yes, Minister show up a lot on my Youtube queue lately. I've found this clip, for some reason, really compelling in lighnt of what's going on in the USA.
 


 
Sir Humphrey Appleby (Nigel Hawthorne), the chief aide to the Minister of Administrative Affairs (who later became PM) is usually portrayed as an appalling cynic. But in this scene he makes a surprisingly impassioned defense of the idea that government should be done by people who know what they're doing -- in his case, a professional civil service. As the scene goes on he becomes more impassioned and more demanding until near the end he is in a state of righteous fury. And as the scene goes on the studio audience, who usually find Sir Humphrey's cynicism comedy gold, get audibly more and more uncomfortable as the scene hits closer and closer to home.
 
"If the right people don't have power, the wrong people will." A prescient warning not just for Britain but for the Americans as well. We are currently governed (after a fashion) by demagogues who play to Americans' basest instincts. They are worse than cynics -- they are True Believers who genuinely think they are saving the nation from itself.

Isn't that the premise of Marvel's JLA pastiche Squadron Supreme -- the world's premier superteam taking control of the planet and getting things they hadn't bargained for?

At least when Hero tried their version of the stunt, they had enough sense not to put a person behind the book.

If someone you care about asks you to hold their beer, the proper answer is "No"!

I still remember the last time Paramount/Viacom tried to use Trek as the centerpiece to launch a network, this time in the waning days of broadcast. Promotional adverts said that Voyager would be powerful enough to launch a new network -- UPN -- and give the new net time to develop its own shows and identity. WB was starting out at about the same time, and Fox was still fairly new.
 
I think we remembered what happened. Voyager drew some ratings, but not nearly enough to justify the expense, and the network failed to develop a single other show that anyone wanted to watch (the closest they came was an adaptation of Dilbert that landed with an enormous thud.) Voyager lasted seven years but was on fumes almost from the beginning, and bringing the Borg into the show on retrospect was as much a desperation move as anything else. When it ended, Paramount followed it up with Enterprise, which was universally despised by the Trek faithful. Soon WB and UPN merged, to create a hopefully stronger network -- but by then the destruction of the broadcast network model was complete, replaced by dozens of specialty channels on cable and satellite. The idea of trying to be all things to everybody is beginning to approach oblivion, and the advertising model may soon be going with it. I suspect that a very large portion of TV now is watched on services like Netflix, Amazon, and Hulu, with niche services occupying the areas the big players don't do well.
 
CBS is trying to lock the door to a barn that has burnt to the ground, with the smell of charred horsemeat and burning horse manure everywhere.

I still remember the last time Paramount/Viacom tried to use Trek as the centerpiece to launch a network, this time in the waning days of broadcast. Promotional adverts said that Voyager would be powerful enough to launch a new network -- UPN -- and give the new net time to develop its own shows and identity. WB was starting out at about the same time, and Fox was still fairly new.
 
I think we remembered what happened. Voyager drew some ratings, but not nearly enough to justify the expense, and the network failed to develop a single other show that anyone wanted to watch (the closest they came was an adaptation of Dilbert that landed with an enormous thud.) Voyager lasted seven years but was on fumes almost from the beginning, and bringing the Borg into the show on retrospect was as much a desperation move as anything else. When it ended, Paramount followed it up with Enterprise, which was universally despised by the Trek faithful. Soon WB and UPN merged, to create a hopefully stronger network -- but by then the destruction of the broadcast network model was complete, replaced by dozens of specialty channels on cable and satellite. The idea of trying to be all things to everybody is beginning to approach oblivion, and the advertising model may soon be going with it. I suspect that a very large portion of TV now is watched on services like Netflix, Amazon, and Hulu, with niche services occupying the areas the big players don't do well.
 
CBS is trying to lock the door to a barn that has burnt to the ground, with the smell of charred horsemeat and burning horse manure everywhere.

I still remember the last time Paramount/Viacom tried to use Trek as the centerpiece to launch a network, this time in the waning days of broadcast. Promotional adverts said that Voyager would be powerful enough to launch a new network -- UPN -- and give the new net time to develop its own shows and identity. WB was starting out at about the same time, and Fox was still fairly new.
 
I think we remembered what happened. Voyager drew some ratings, but not nearly enough to justify the expense, and the network failed to develop a single other show that anyone wanted to watch (the closest they came was an adaptation of Dilbert that landed with an enormous thud.) Voyager lasted seven years but was on fumes almost from the beginning, and bringing the Borg into the show on retrospect was as much a desperation move as anything else. When it ended, Paramount followed it up with Enterprise, which was universally despised by the Trek faithful. Soon WB and UPN merged, to create a hopefully stronger network -- but by then the destruction of the broadcast network model was complete, replaced by dozens of specialty channels on cable and satellite. The idea of trying to be all things to everybody is beginning to approach oblivion, and the advertising model may soon be going with it. I suspect that a very large portion of TV now is watched on services like Netflix, Amazon, and Hulu, with niche services occupying the areas the big players don't do well.
 
CBS is trying to lock the door to a barn that has burnt to the ground, with the smell of charred horsemeat and burning horse manure everywhere.

I still remember the last time Paramount/Viacom tried to use Trek as the centerpiece to launch a network, this time in the waning days of broadcast. Promotional adverts said that Voyager would be powerful enough to launch a new network -- UPN -- and give the new net time to develop its own shows and identity. WB was starting out at about the same time, and Fox was still fairly new.
 
I think we remembered what happened. Voyager drew some ratings, but not nearly enough to justify the expense, and the network failed to develop a single other show that anyone wanted to watch (the closest they came was an adaptation of Dilbert that landed with an enormous thud.) Voyager lasted seven years but was on fumes almost from the beginning, and bringing the Borg into the show on retrospect was as much a desperation move as anything else. When it ended, Paramount followed it up with Enterprise, which was universally despised by the Trek faithful. Soon WB and UPN merged, to create a hopefully stronger network -- but by then the destruction of the broadcast network model was complete, replaced by dozens of specialty channels on cable and satellite. The idea of trying to be all things to everybody is beginning to approach oblivion, and the advertising model may soon be going with it. I suspect that a very large portion of TV now is watched on services like Netflix, Amazon, and Hulu, with niche services occupying the areas the big players don't do well.
 
CBS is trying to lock the door to a barn that has burnt to the ground, with the smell of charred horsemeat and burning horse manure everywhere.

Q: The only gear on this car is Neutral? Why?
 
A: We're talkin' rainbows! We're talkin' puppies! Only the rainbows catch fire and the puppies shoot lasers out of their eyes....

I wonder if the one country closest to the libertarian ideal might be -- Russia,
 
Russia may be a dictatorship, but it's a dictatorship that favors business to high degrees. There are few regulations on finance or the environment, which has enabled some people and companies to become richer than they would have with an effective watchdog curbing their excesses. After the fall of Communism, many formerly state-run businesses were sold off to private enterprise. So companies like Gazprom have become very rich on infrastructure and facilities they had no part in building. 
 
In short, Russia is a great place to be if you want to make boatloads of money. Not so great if you want society to make even a pretense of fairness or responsibility, but surely an elite group becoming extremely wealthy makes up for that.

They simply believe they are the "alpha wolves", despite obvious evidence to the contrary. The systems the reactionaries admire all failed, and they failed for reasons that have not changed since they were tried.
 
I sometimes wonder what Gary Gygax's opinions were on the subject because a lot of the D&D paradigm assumes that society is based on the attitudes of those who wield power within in. 9th level characters in AD&D first edition, for example, were described as having accumulated wealth and political power as well as combat prowess. This was as a matter of course, and supposedly it did not interfere with them adventuring as their "fiefs" would essentially run themselves and the followers they attract by virtue of their level would be fanatically loyal no matter how you treated them. I imagine that in most actual games this was ignored and adventurers just went on adventuring. If the King is of a good alignment, so is his kingdom, and that is also true for an evil King.
 
Of course, everyone fantasizes about being a monarch on a throne at one point or another. It's a large part of the appeal of this hobby. It's when we develop notions that we really deserve ultimate power that we run into trouble, especially when we believe we belong to a nation/ethnicity/religion that is so inherently superior to all others that it's a gross injustice we're not in charge, I'm seeing that a lot now.

More like the age of far-<fill-in-the-blank> terrorism, but sad regardless. We deserve better from our society.

James Lee Stanley. Most of you have probably never heard of him, but I've been a fan since I first saw him in 1986, and just got to see him live again last week. Dude has like 25 albums; seriously, you should check them out. (Simpatico is my personal favorite.)
 
Here's a funny song: Digitalis, preceded by his hysterical story of how he came to write a Carlos Santana-esque "Latin Boogie" despite speaking no Spanish:
 


 
Here's a serious number: 

Packing the kids to Frozone's house, then going to Bali for a week for some much needed R&R.
 
Of course, being superheroes they don't get as much relaxation as they thought they would.

In college, I was at a cast dinner for a play I was in at a Chinese restaurant and small peppers were making the rounds. Guys were showing how macho they were by eating them straight.
 
I had no pretense to being macho, so I took one and swallowed it whole with a swig of water.

In college, I was at a cast dinner for a play I was in at a Chinese restaurant and small peppers were making the rounds. Guys were showing how macho they were by eating them straight.
 
I had no pretense to being macho, so I took one and swallowed it whole with a swig of water.

I've done it. At many sci-fi and fantasy cons, there are panels where the participants are given notebooks and told to write the first paragraph of a story. The notebooks are then passed around and the story is continued by the next person, while you get to continue the story started by the person who just handed you their notebook. This continues until everyone has contributed to all of the notebooks, or when the time is up. This leads to some pretty mixed-up stuff as the tale takes unexpected directions.

If only this were a party.
 
However, a group of GMs trying to see how crazy they could go writing a round-robin adventure story a paragraph at a time could be amusing.  With or without alcohol.