Vondy

That doesn't mean we then paint those same people with a broad brush. Also, I think an intelligent person who is familiar with what those people are on record with, can intuit when their counsel is forcing him to rethink, backtrack, and stand there ironically saying "I really meant this other thing all along!" Obviously, based on his hair-trigger and vulgarian bombast Trump ends up backtracking based on trusted counsel instead of avoiding the minefields altogether. Most of his wounds are 100% self-inflicted, but a lot of what he says is, to the meanest understanding, intended to be tactical. For instance, Trump went from (position one) wanting us out of NATO to (position two) grappling for leverage over NATO with threats to (position three) saying how important NATO is. Listen to what Mattis says about NATO in that video. Trumps lands on his position. Same thing with Russia. Trump says Putin is coming until his Dan Coats makes a wry quip amounting to "Oh Really?" on national television. Suddenly the trip is on hold. Listen to what Mattis, Pompeo, and Coats are saying about our Russia policies, not Trump. My point is: Trump is a bombastic, off-the-cuff, erratic, drama-seeking, reality star pretending to be President. He's an amateur and a liability not just for America, but the entire free world. He sells everything in big, unrealistic, manic terms. He is the poster boy for "unreliable narrator." Its sophomoric stuff - the kind of trash talk you expect on a football field. Its not presidential. But, what makes me really sad, is that it works. Our media keeps falling for it and going off on his designated tangents instead of focusing on what his other hand is doing. Important information goes unreported or left without depth and context. Don't get me wrong. I'm not a trumpvershterer, but I do understand the man. He's constantly grappling for leverage in negotiations and seeking to dominate the news cycle. The latter, which is sphincter-clenchingly cringe-worthy, is something he really excels at. The former, however, works way better in business than politics. If you want to know what our policies actually are, what we are actually doing, and what the actual thinking is behind it you don't listen to Trump or the media. You dig for your own facts, read between the lines, and listen to key people around Trump. Which is why I posted the video. Does he always listen to them? I sincerely doubt it. He has too much ego. Does he undermine them? I bet he does on occasion. But there are a handful of people who do seem to be influencing him behind the scenes and are probably the reason we aren't doing everything wrong. My prayer is that he's too busy preening in the mirror and fund-raising and campaigning until 2020 to seriously disrupt the work and plans of his smarter cabinet members. Is that a long shot? Maybe. But, if it weren't, I wouldn't be using the word "prayer" to begin with, would I?

Those are all the kinds of things I expect career generals trying to bolster their troops bravado and courage before going into a combat theater, or combat itself, to say. They do not disturb me. What would disturb me was, when he was wearing those stars, he didn't have warlike ferocity and bravado. Context and role do matter. Intelligent and educated people, of which he is both, are able to adapt their decision making to the role they fill and I believe, if you actually watch the video and listen to what he has to say you will find he is talking like a civilian leader who is concerned about the world beyond the military's foxhole due to the responsibilities he now carries.

This is such a basic soft skill (socially) that my mind boggles at the notion while at the same time finding myself teaching younger co-workers how to be professional in the office. Gaming is just like having a work meeting and the same expectations apply: be on time, wear clean clothes, smell nice, put your phone on vibrate and leave it in your pocket, chat with the people who are in the room with you before and after the meeting. You make contacts and build teams and trust that way. NO PHONES AT THE TABLE. FULL STOP. Its discourteous and says "I'd rather be doing something else" than participate in your boring game. Call it out and don't budge. Its bad behavior stemming from dopamine addiction. If their kids or SO or work must be able to call them in event of emergency they can set a unique ring tone and leave it in their pocket forsaking all others. If they are there to play they owe every person at the table their undivided attention and active partcipation.

As opposed to simply extending the last W budget with a rider every year? Will wonders never cease? We also, for the first time in a decade, have a written strategic pisture document to guide that buget. There are days when I wonder if James Mattis is the sanest and most pro-diplomacy leader in our government...

Pretty much, yeah. Workers of the world, unite!

Friendliness and good faith subsume respect and require honor.

The thing is, I don't think our traditional definitions of "Right" and "Left" remain useful. " The GOP has embraced the administrative state, blank check spending, and conservative social authoritarianism. From a high-level view,, I don't see our present "right" as being meaningfully different than the radical progressive "left." Sure, the specific policies and sensibilities differ, but both are all too willing to trample on liberty to legislate their morality while bankrupting us.

So, I've been thinking about it. I believe in: Small and limited government.. Robust protections for individual liberty. Equal opportunity but not equal outcomes or officially sanctioned favoritism. Fiscal responsibility and balancing the budget. A muscular yet more carefully considered defense. Free markets and commons with intelligent but circumspect regulation. Friendliness and good faith across the aisle. If that makes me a philosophical conservative and political dinosaur, so be it.

I'm going to say the unthinkable and impolitic thing: poppycock. Its not as simple as one side holding up progress. What is going on in America today, Mr. Canada, is not a simple black and white equation. There are people on all sides of our race relations doing the right and wrong things. See my other post, which should be above this one. I know far better than you assume how it feels to be disenfranchised, isolated, and robbed of opportunity. I also know learned winning and losing tactics from my own failure. My failure was, ultimately, on me. I know how it feels not to trust the mainstream. I know how it feels when you erroneously assume everyone in the majority doesn't understand or is against you. I know how that leads to self-defeating psychological patterns and doing the exact opposite of what needs to be done. You can be completely right and make all the wrong decisions. You will either do the work or you won't. You will either paint with a broad brush or you won't. You will either reach out to those who are open to you or you won't. You will choose resilience or you won't. You will pick winning tactics or you won't. Its up to you, not them. Trust is a choice. It can be a hard choice. It can be a leap of faith. But it is a choice. And its the only choice that leads to any chance of success. And, even if you have zero trust, what choice do you really have if you want there to be progress on the issue at hand? I don't care if we don't really trust one another. What the hell are we supposed to do? Nothing? Bitch about it? A great many white people in America fully acknowledge the history and are well-aware of what the problems are. I understand resentment and mistrust, but no matter how legitimate those feelings are, they won't solve the problem. A great many black people are not so brittle as to be unable to try or take a leap of faith. Acrimony, recrimination, and finger pointing may feel satisfying, but they don't move us forward. Those only create alienation, antipathy, and breed resentment and mistrust in kind. The problems are real. They won't ever be fixed if we keep doing what we are doing. Do you want it fixed or not? I'll let you in on a secret: most of the black people I talk to are a lot more stronger, smarter, and open to crossing lines than the media, our leaders, or activists want to let them be. Many of them are also tired of being condescended to and treated as weak or victims. I was at Monticello this past weekend. In the tour the (white) docent was doubling-down on the fact that Jefferson was a slave holder despite having authored the declaration of dependence and prefaced every single reference to any work done with "by enslaved workers." We probably heard that term 50 times during the tour. Now, leaving over-emphasis aside, there was a black family on that tour and you could tell they were uncomfortable with how neurotic and self-conscious and emphatic the upper middle class white woman was being about the issue. The father asked a lot of questions. Not a one of those questions was about slavery. Not one. He was there to learn about Jefferson the man. He asked about influences on the declaration, his relationship with Madison, items in the house, and questions about things were done, or worked. He was the one who pointed out that Jefferson believed slavery was a great evil that was ruinous to white character and would destroy the republic if not dealt with. He, not the docent, referred to the words of the declaration as aspirational. Afterwards my mother and I were commenting that it would have made more sense for the docent to address it once, in no uncertain and unvarnished terms at the beginning of the tour (because it very much should be called out) and then cover a broader array of interesting information about the man. The mother from the black family overheard us and opened up. She said, "We all know Mr. Jefferson owned slaves. We came so our children would see that he gave them so much more than that." Guess what happened? We had a wonderful conversation about race, slavery, America, and our shared values. The docent failed those parents by overdoing it. I would argue that the media, activists, and leaders are also failing not only them, but my family too, in the exact same way. Maybe the answer is, having acknowledged it, to not be so damned neurotic about it. We have work to do. The ninny's should step aside and let us do it.

On this same track, I can trace my white-bread american lineage back to the 1630's, but as an adult I converted to Hassidic Judaism and immigrated to Israel before returning to my birth identity, region, ways, and community after twenty years. I know what it means to be in both the majority and minority. I had the disconcerting experience of suddenly being treated like an outsider in America, and then had that exponentially increased as a non-native speaking immigrant in Israel, as well as being a convert in a community that constantly questioned my right to be there. I was, quite literally, a double-outsider. In America I was a "weird hassidic Jew" to the gentiles and a convert who had to be watched like a hawk and had to constantly re-prove his dedication to many in my adopted community. In Israel I was an "Amerikani" and a convert who was always suspect, despite the fact that I learned more deeply and broadly than everyone around me, and was more punctilious. You are right about the constant deleterious effects of repeated indignity, being treated as if you don't belong, and the lost opportunity that comes from being excluded from being an "insider." On the other hand, I've had a lot of years of self-reflection over how that affected me on a psychological level. It can breed deep seeded and pervasive resentment, anger, and a desire to respond in kind. However, that tends to be counter-productive and self-defeating. Resilience makes a ton of difference. You have to ask yourself why is it that some minorities and immigrants succeed while so many others fail. Its because, despite all that, they choose to be tough, choose to work hard, choose to do what it takes despite the increased (and 100% unfair) challenges they face. They also choose not to blame every member of the majority they meet, which allows them to make connections, build bridges, and find opportunities. The constant bombardment of "you aren't one of us" and "you are less than us" did make me throw in the towel. It was soul crushing. I don't deny it felt completely insurmountable. At the same time, I lost track of the large number of people in the majorities I dealt with who did not behave that way. It is all to easy when you are dealing with indifference and insensitivity to forget the great people in the majority group who have helped you, or who are right there in front of you and open to you. If you want to succeed despite it all you have to look past the feelings that don't serve you. I'm not saying this as a "white guy." I'm saying this as a man who recognizes the self-defeating mental patterns he fell into that made his own success in the Jewish and Israeli world, and as an outwardly and visibly religious Jew in America, impossible. It was, in the end, my fault.

Perhaps we are all in this together and need to stop pointing fingers, pull together, roll up our sleeves, and fix it. I understand there are race issues in America, but the balkanized identity politics and blame game is getting us nowhere. Its for weak-minded children who don't want to grow up, take responsibility, and do what can be done.

Best way to avoid awkward conversations in an airport bar: Take our a pen and start drawing a pyramid on a napkin. "Do you have $250 and a driving desire to build networks?" Or, "Are you married?" "Yes, twice. Never divorced. I'm flying from one to see the other right now. How about you?"

All of my characters tend to be street-smart, old-fashioned tough, and competent investigators. There have been intentional exceptions, but that's the norm. I've always been into hard-boiled pulps and noir cinema more than other genres. In a superhero game I prefer a flying brick or super-soldier with useful skills. In a modern game I prefer a two-fisted private eye (e.g., Spade) or criminal anti-hero (e.g., Parker). I've played a lot of cops and feds, too, but those were in games that focused on "police procedural" or "weird and classified investigations." In a fantasy game, I prefer a sword-wielding wizard. The first character I ever played was a Basic D&D elf who could, by design, do both. Our early AD&D games allowed elven wizards to use "elvish weapons" and wear "elfin chain." Over time that morphed into, "just let the wizard have a sword and mail." We never found it unbalancing. They still had worse to hit scores, attack sequences, melee damage output, and hit points than the fighters. My oldest and most enduring fantasy character is a 20th level (1st Ed!) wizard with mostly divination and mind-affecting magic. He lives in a semi-permanent room in a rowdy inn / brothel and lives and thinks more like a debauched and libertine Sam Spade than Gandalf. He always does the right thing in the end, but he is often drawn into capers, political intrigue, and the seamy side of "the great city." He is a competent swordsman. His friends and ladies call him "Ritz." For Champions, its Anthem, a flying brick who is the leader of a federal superhero team that works under the aegis of a joint task force akin to the Fringe Division from Fringe. In our game there is no PRIMUS. Instead, the avengers, iron guard, etc, are all Marshall's. Stronghold is run by the Bureau of Prisons, etc.

That fits into a single year?

4th edition Dark Champions and its attendant supplements were indisputably intended for street-level superheroes. It nonetheless included a large amount of useful information about real world law enforcement, organized crime, and firearms as those are major elements in such a game. As a result, it could easily be used for non-superheroic modern action games. 5th edition Dark Champions was produced with the active decision to expand the scope to include all manner of modern action stories. Both books are very well done, but I prefer the 4th edition version. I would prefer a strongly thematic Dark Champions with CU tie-ins and a completely separate Action Hero.

I prefer equal opportunity misanthropy. Everybody sucks. It avoids hypocrisy and keeps things consistent. ?

Two weeks ago I was at Blue Sky Hobbies in Bremerton and overheard a Hero game being run at the back table upstairs. I don't know if its a regular thing and it was clearly not the game for me. My tastes and yours may vary, however, so why not give them a call and ask about it?

"Enlightened statesmen will not always be at the helm." --James Madison. Trump just had a Neville Chamberlain moment. I presume his meeting with Putin will amount to peace in our time....

Valerian and the City of a Thousand Planets. It was a visual feast and had some intriguing ideas for aliens and future-tech. Yet, this is 100% a popcorn film. Enjoyable if you sit back and just take it as a spectacle, but the plot is way thin, the dialog is boilerplate, and the acting is unremarkable (neither inspired nor cringe-worthy). There is stuff to steal of a space opera game, if one were looking.

Angry, Angry Space Triangles. Its like Hungry Hungry Hippos, but better.

I prefer fewer [mechanical] options and firmly believe it leads to better characters. If you focus on rules to differentiate characters you aren't focusing on their actual character. I have played in single-class / single-species parties composed of highly memorable and distinct characters. The focus wasn't on how to build the character, but how to play them. Their backgrounds, personalities, aesthetics, and exploits made them who they were. Those kinds of parties are also much easier to root in their milieu and create compelling stories for.

One thing I think Wizard's finally figured out was rulebook/option bloat. For official games, you can only use the Player's Handbook + one other book when designing a character. I think this would be a good policy for Pathfinder, which has serious option bloat, too. You could even apply this rule at the "table level" rather than the individual "player level." There would, of course, be pros and cons, to doing so.

Not a TV character, but I ran a game in which Project Icarus from the film Suspect Zero was real and the player hero's were a classified unit of FBI agents who worked with the "remote viewers" amidst a deep state civil war that had a balkanized host of competing black projects and interest groups that drew liberally on down-the-rabbit-hole conspiracy theories from the real world and fiction.

It is not proper to sell one's dice.

Timely. I'm in the process of scheduling motorcycle lessons and researching bikes. I'm not a Harley guy, but a muscular cruiser? Hell yes!