RDU Neil

I really can't disagree more with this. The "values" discussion about some abstract notions that represent America is pointless. There are specific social outcomes that represent fundamental beliefs about the nature of humanity and the role of society vs. the individual that are at stake, and political policy outcomes are where the rubber hits the road on beliefs and values. What are you actually trying to get done? How are you actually trying to move social activities? How do you have a statistically significant affect on the social order that makes up your community, county, state, country... the world?
 
I've read your post several times, and while I get the sense of what you are against, I'm not sure at all what you are for? Some philosophical purity of concept? The parties may be pursuing their short term goals, but those pursuits affect the everyday lives of people across the world, and if supporting one over the other has significant ability to get closer to outcomes you desire, and oppose outcomes you loathe, then that is what you work towards. 
.
I'm not even sure what it means " to play an infinite game aimed at maximizing personal liberty and opportunity and prosperity for every single American." What does that look like? How do you play that? What do you do, and how is it different than trying to get policy enacted? 
As far as I've ever experienced, the only people who espouse some kind of platonic ideal of pure "values" (whatever that is) are people who have traditionally been privileged enough to be at the top of the social order, where their "values" are just assumed to be correct and universal, thus morally superior to anyone who chooses to value anything else. 

I really can't disagree more with this. The "values" discussion about some abstract notions that represent America is pointless. There are specific social outcomes that represent fundamental beliefs about the nature of humanity and the role of society vs. the individual that are at stake, and political policy outcomes are where the rubber hits the road on beliefs and values. What are you actually trying to get done? How are you actually trying to move social activities? How do you have a statistically significant affect on the social order that makes up your community, county, state, country... the world?
 
I've read your post several times, and while I get the sense of what you are against, I'm not sure at all what you are for? Some philosophical purity of concept? The parties may be pursuing their short term goals, but those pursuits affect the everyday lives of people across the world, and if supporting one over the other has significant ability to get closer to outcomes you desire, and oppose outcomes you loathe, then that is what you work towards. 
.
I'm not even sure what it means " to play an infinite game aimed at maximizing personal liberty and opportunity and prosperity for every single American." What does that look like? How do you play that? What do you do, and how is it different than trying to get policy enacted? 
As far as I've ever experienced, the only people who espouse some kind of platonic ideal of pure "values" (whatever that is) are people who have traditionally been privileged enough to be at the top of the social order, where their "values" are just assumed to be correct and universal, thus morally superior to anyone who chooses to value anything else. 

I really can't disagree more with this. The "values" discussion about some abstract notions that represent America is pointless. There are specific social outcomes that represent fundamental beliefs about the nature of humanity and the role of society vs. the individual that are at stake, and political policy outcomes are where the rubber hits the road on beliefs and values. What are you actually trying to get done? How are you actually trying to move social activities? How do you have a statistically significant affect on the social order that makes up your community, county, state, country... the world?
 
I've read your post several times, and while I get the sense of what you are against, I'm not sure at all what you are for? Some philosophical purity of concept? The parties may be pursuing their short term goals, but those pursuits affect the everyday lives of people across the world, and if supporting one over the other has significant ability to get closer to outcomes you desire, and oppose outcomes you loathe, then that is what you work towards. 
.
I'm not even sure what it means " to play an infinite game aimed at maximizing personal liberty and opportunity and prosperity for every single American." What does that look like? How do you play that? What do you do, and how is it different than trying to get policy enacted? 
As far as I've ever experienced, the only people who espouse some kind of platonic ideal of pure "values" (whatever that is) are people who have traditionally been privileged enough to be at the top of the social order, where their "values" are just assumed to be correct and universal, thus morally superior to anyone who chooses to value anything else. 

You know, I completely agree with Vondy that thinking about the long term is very important, and that preventing fires is better than putting out fires, metaphorically speaking. The problem is that we are currently on fire. The Republicans are running actual Nazi candidates in some places, FFS.
 
I don't care much for the Democrats. They're too hawkish, too much in the pocket of big business, and too afraid to push for significant fixes. The republicans, on the other hand, are actively opposing everything Vondy says he's for. Anyone who values "maximizing personal liberty and opportunity and prosperity for every single American" needs to be opposing the Republicans wherever they can. Help us put this fire out, and then we can talk about fire prevention.

I appreciate you making a thoughtful reply.
 
I still disagree with your premise.You speak of the Democrats running as not-Trump, but the democrats have a solid platform. They talk about that platform. And the media ignores it in favor of the spectacle of Trump. I'm sure there are some Democrats running as simply not-Trump, but what's your basis for asserting this categorically? 
 
Here is Texas, Beto O'Rourke is running against Ted Cruz for US Senator. He is visiting every county in Texas, and talking about issues in every one. Does he talk about how he opposes many of the policies of this administration? Of course he does. But he talks about what he would do differently. Is there something he should be doing differently?
 
How would you have the Democrats modify their behavior? What specifically are they doing that you object to? That you see the same as what the Republicans are doing? 
 
The rhetoric from the two sides does not even approach symmetrical.  If you disagree, please give examples of how you think they're both the same, rather than simply asserting that they are.

The right continually produces bizarre and vile conspiracy theories against the left. It may be the cranks who start them, but they get promoted by voices high in the Republican party. Show me the equivalent of pizzagate from the left.
 
And now I feel like you're going to say I'm once again saying "my guys[1] good, their guys bad" but I have no idea what you are proposing instead. You say they're the same. I see few similarities. 
 
If it's not the rhetoric, and it's not the policies, what is it that's the same between the parties? I conceded that they are both too beholden to corporate interests, but I don't feel like that's what you're talking about.
 
And frankly, some of us don't have the luxury of rising above mere policy disputes. Our lives are literally on the line.
 
This administration is striving to make it legal for anyone, including medical personnel, to refuse me service because of who I am. They believe that, no matter the oath a doctor took, it's okay for that doctor to let me bleed out, because he has "religious" objections to my existence.  They are trying to change rules so that I can be denied insurance coverage because of who I am. The Republicans are fighting attempts to remove "gay panic" as a defense for murder. It's not about them being "mean," it's about them taking concrete steps that are going to kill people like me, and, in the case of global warming, potentially everyone on the planet.
 
So please, tell me what the Democrats could do differently that would show that they aren't just laying the same finite game that you say both sides are playing.
 
[1] The democrats aren't my guys. They're a center-right party that is simply less objectionable than the other choice.
 
 
 

I decided to wait to respond to this and think about what to say. The reason is: you and I aren't having the same conversation. We also, very clearly, have different cultural and political priorities. I am not talking about policy goals. Those are trivial. I could not care less. I'm talking about something higher up the mountain than that. I'm talking about political values. 
 
When I said our traditional definitions of left and right were no longer useful because both parties were, above the finite policy level, pursuing mirrored (and selfish) tracks, you immediately started making partisan arguments and saying "well that guy is worse than my guy." So what? Again, I could not care less. We aren't even having the same conversation.
 
You are playing a finite game based on interests and short-term political gains and beating the other side rather than an infinite game based on values. That is also what both parties are doing, too. And, its bad game theory. A finite player who takes on an infinite player invariably loses. They run out of resources and quit the game. 
 
You want to debate me? Change your game. Become an infinite player. If you don't, pursuing this is a waste of my time. I don't care if the republicans started it or the democrats started it. I don't care if the republicans are really really mean while the democrats are merely really really petty. Who cares? Pointing the person who started it doesn't change the result. 
 
If the dems are so smart and moral and wise, why are they playing the same finite game? When you make your decisions based on finite interests you are not predictable and, from a cultural, diplomatic, economic, and military perspective that has serious negative consequences. Namely, you destroy the well of trust required to make cooperation possible. 
 
If you play the interests game friendliness and goodwill, respect and honor, go by the wayside. One party may win, but the entire nation loses in the long run because cooperation - E PLURBIUS UNUM - becomes impossible. How do we survive? We come together and cooperate. How do we prosper? We come together and cooperate. If the parties aren't doing that, why do you think taking a side will save you?
 
For me, America is not a finite game. It is not about the interests of individual parties and groups. It is not about specific pet policy decisions for special interest groups (or voting blocs). I will not play your game. For me, America is about life, liberty, and the freedom to pursue one's security and happiness. I know my political values. I stated them. You responded with partisan policy complaints. That is the root of the problem this nation is facing.
 
I have zero patience for either party. Neither represent me or my political values. Neither represent the values our nation was founded on. They represent a hungry and intrusive administrative state. Both are pursuing their own short-term finite partisan interests. When they play to win on that level the people lose. I want a party that is running on the values its for rather than the people and policies it is against.
 
The GOP ran on "Not Obama. Not Clinton." They won. Now the Dems are running on "Not Trump." Maybe they'll win. But, that is valueless finite drivel. And that is the problem with Washington. They have lost sight of our most basic and traditional of values. The ones found in the Declaration of Independence and Constitution. The aspirational glue that forms the WE in "We The People." And, so has the media. And so have stridently partisan voters.
 
I choose to play an infinite game aimed at maximizing personal liberty and opportunity and prosperity for every single American. Its infinite because its value based.
 
Democrats good! Republicans bad!
Republicans good! Democrats bad!
 
Utter tosh. Petty finite interest driven nonsense. Both are playing against the very values this nation was founded to aspire towards.  You can choose to play that game if you want. I won't be joining you.

A nitpick: The original Schumacher Batman was Batman Forever with Val Kilmer. Michael Keaton's Batman was directed by Tim Burton.

I would say, even at the height of my gaming, it was really a once a week occurrence for the RPG thing. Yes, sometimes more, and we had our long weekends of multiple games when we pulled people in from far away... but I didn't play multiple regular sessions every week. Our group had one weekly game night.
 
That said, even then, when I basically ran a large meta-campaign that lasted for 25 solid years, and five more sporadically, I could only do that by changing things up. Make a big world, with players having multiple PCs, so moving between small arcs of certain characters kept things fresh. "Ok, on we are playing the Vanguard, ,high-powered global heroes" vs. "Ok... let's play Mavericks for a while... NYC based, mid-level heroes on the edge of the law"  vs. "Now it's Malta Professionals, metahuman and cybernetic mercs working for whoever pays in Euro-African theater" etc.  The games had different feels and scopes and PC interactions... but at the same time, inhabited the same world, and got to see larger plots from different angles... maybe one group would set something in motion that another group might have to deal with... so the players really got to become part of the larger world.
 
That really helped me both, stay focused enough to continue moving a large campaign forward, but varied enough to not get stale or bogged down. It also allowed players to GM their own storylines at times. I found that really empowering, as I could then riff off some small thing they introduced, some technological MacGuffin stolen from a lab, whatever, and wind it into my larger plot, and it helped everyone feel like they were contributing to building the world. That level of interaction made it easier to GM, as it wasn't just people waiting to be entertained and I had to do all the prep.

A classic for an adventuring group is working as agents of an organisation.
Knightly order; temple (3 in one: clerics, monk, and paladins), thieves' guild, mages' guild, ordinary craft guild (why not?) These also have built in quest givers. Quest givers is easier for new players who will, probably, have trouble working out what they want to do, or even knowing what they can do.
 
There's escaped prisoners. Naked and on the run is always good for a laugh.
 
The game I'm about to kick off has the PCs as survivors of a destroyed army.
 
As for character design. Keep it simple. Limit the player choices. Try and have a bunch of templates ready to use. One thing I found when I first started with HERO, and everyone else I know who plays HERO had the same initial feeling, is that the freedom of choice is so great that one doesn't know where to start. Templates give players a springboard for their own ideas.
 
But also inspire player choices. Give them a little world background. Cloud castles and dragon dogfights. Or an ancient city that has long been the centre of a world wide trade network whose basements and catacombs stretch down into the depths of the earth. Something to get the creative juices flowing.
 
Or, if you  haven't gotten as far as that, throw out a bunch of classic game types (thieves in the big city, knights on errantry, junior wizards at wizard school.)
 
Keep throwing out ideas and getting feedback until you have something that has the whole group excited. Obviously choosing a game style/setting also has the effect of limiting character choice, until it doesn't. Wizard school will have a lot of people playing wizards. Until someone wants to play a unionising house elf, or a groundskeeper who is a high school drop out. You get where I'm going.
 
For magic - I'm going to suggest that whatever you choose for a magic system, have the list of available magic spells already drawn up. If the choice of character archetype is daunting, the choice of what magic to choose is just overawing. (Actually this is an advantage of magic school - the players have a very limited set of spells to choose from at the start and you decide what new spells they get and when. Should let you  spread out the work over time.)
 
I like the idea of a magic END reserve with limited REC. For a high magic game it's a good way to put a limit on mages and thus allow non-mages to compete.
 
High fantasy magic is hard to do in HERO if you use the published grimoires. The spells are just too expensive. For a low fantasy feel they work fine.
 
General advice.
Everyone tells me that tracking END is hard. I don't see why. People have no trouble tracking hit points in DnD. This aint much different. To speed up play I suggest you get the players to do all the END tracking AFTER their turn.
 
eg:
GM: Character X is up.
Player X: I kick in the door with 15 STR, throw a fireball, and make a PRE attack. That's, erm, lemme see how much END...
GM: Worry about that later. Roll your STR damage to get the door open then make an attack roll. <things are resolved>
GM: Cool! Do your END now. Next character is Y.
 
I'd shy away from Multipowers and especially VPPs. The latter because they are literally power designing at the game table. MPS are conceptually  confusing to new players.
 
Fantasy Hero Basic.pdf
I can't help it, I'm going to upload my own fantasy hero homebrew. It's 6th ed. It's geared toward low fantasy. The most relevant parts for you are at the front in the character design section which has a bunch of mix and match templates for simple characters. The magic section could also be worth a read. None of it is yet play tested. I suspect that any spell that uses an adjustment power is too powerful as written and will probably need to be toned down a couple of Damage Classes. I also include some basic weapons and armour lists you might find useful. Otherwise it's a simplification of the main HERO rules.
 
 
 

Storn gifted me with this poster that features the major PCs from my 30 year campaign. Always an honor to have a friend and fellow gamer who can draw great stuff for a campaign! This poster just scream George Perez-esque, and is getting framed for the Geek Cave.
 
 

I believe in a large, robust and active government, because the government is us, the people, having a say and influence over the economic forces that otherwise harm the majority for the benefit of the extreme minority.
I believe no individual is more important than the social contract that binds us, that provides the stability necessary for advancement.
I believe equal opportunity requires limitations on those who have traditionally held privilege.
I believe fiscal responsibility involves a level of wealth redistribution that reduces the gap between the most wealthy and most poor, and incentivizes a bulging middle class. This includes highly funded public education through university levels.
I believe in a level of defense that is not beholden to, nor for the benefit of the military industrial complex.
I believe in active, dynamic regulation of the markets, because "free markets" never exist... they are either controlled by a wide body of government, or controlled by the economic interests who benefit the most from them.
I believe that good faith in the face of unbridled greed and corruption is foolish and treasonous. Strong defense starts with defending the majority from the minority that would enslave them.
 

If they are truly new to Hero, and new to RPGs, character creation can be tough.
 
1) Ask them if they could describe the kind of fantasy character they want to play... you can build it for them... and show them how their character concepts are represented in the rules.
2) This helps them jump right in and see how their ideas are able to be translated into characters.
3) You get to shape their interpretations of Hero, so they inevitably build to your biases... always important for a GM to have players who fit a style.
4) You can teach them by saying, "After a couple sessions, we can talk about what you like, and don't about the characters, and we can tweak them so you learn how to make characters.
5) Or they can make a new character after they've seen how the game plays, from the ground up.
6) I think it would be a good idea to allow the players ideas about their characters to shape the world. If one of them wants to be all Avatar: Last Airbender... then now your world has elemental clans in it, or some such. If another wants to play a noble house, second daughter who loves to duel, then now a certain part of society is heavily shaped by dueling culture. Make their interests part of the game, and they'll be happy to learn the system.
 
Just my opinion, but game play and character dynamics first... system and process second.

For bringing a group together, if they’re wanting to play younger people, they could be cousins coming of age at roughly the same time. Or perhaps the offspring of a group of former adventurers.
 
 They could be coming together for an anniversary service commemorating some great victory or defeat, a funeral, or some family event. Their travels on the road could be the first adventure and their shared background would provide plot hooks for the future.
 
Perhaps inherenting personal rivalries, enmity from some organizations and gratitude from others. People could show up looking for help from the original heroes and have to settle for the kids.

Ideas for a Group:
A group that finished a multi-year stint in some country's military (army, King's/Queen's highway guard, etc) .  They are like a foreign legion which would allow for different races/builds.  The reason for the military gig was to get them the first level of citizen rights in the country.  Something like 'Latin Rights' in the Roman Empire.  See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin_Rights
 
What Christopher and RDU Neil said above.  Espeically RDU Neil's numbers 4 and 5.  I did that when bringing new people to fantasy hero.  Only one or two people really want to drastically change their character on me.  I still let it happen and they kept all of their current experience points.
 
We kept the spells/powers to already published things (Fantasy Hero, HERO System Grimoire, etc) in the beginning to make things easier.  As above, if they wanted to tweak things later, it was easier to do it after they had some game sessions to see how things worked.
 
Not sure if it really helped, but I manually created sections in their character sheets that listed weapons (with STR bonuses), sectional armor, spells, etc to make things easier for them.  It was some work for me.  But once set up, was easily maintained.  I also ripped out all point values.  I did not want to worry them about all of the points.  They seemed to like the character sheets.  I attached some examples.
 
 
 
Glaive.HTML
Ghoral.HTML
Jarlyn.HTML
Kross.HTML

You must have nearly died... a lot.

If they are truly new to Hero, and new to RPGs, character creation can be tough.
 
1) Ask them if they could describe the kind of fantasy character they want to play... you can build it for them... and show them how their character concepts are represented in the rules.
2) This helps them jump right in and see how their ideas are able to be translated into characters.
3) You get to shape their interpretations of Hero, so they inevitably build to your biases... always important for a GM to have players who fit a style.
4) You can teach them by saying, "After a couple sessions, we can talk about what you like, and don't about the characters, and we can tweak them so you learn how to make characters.
5) Or they can make a new character after they've seen how the game plays, from the ground up.
6) I think it would be a good idea to allow the players ideas about their characters to shape the world. If one of them wants to be all Avatar: Last Airbender... then now your world has elemental clans in it, or some such. If another wants to play a noble house, second daughter who loves to duel, then now a certain part of society is heavily shaped by dueling culture. Make their interests part of the game, and they'll be happy to learn the system.
 
Just my opinion, but game play and character dynamics first... system and process second.

I believe in a large, robust and active government, because the government is us, the people, having a say and influence over the economic forces that otherwise harm the majority for the benefit of the extreme minority.
I believe no individual is more important than the social contract that binds us, that provides the stability necessary for advancement.
I believe equal opportunity requires limitations on those who have traditionally held privilege.
I believe fiscal responsibility involves a level of wealth redistribution that reduces the gap between the most wealthy and most poor, and incentivizes a bulging middle class. This includes highly funded public education through university levels.
I believe in a level of defense that is not beholden to, nor for the benefit of the military industrial complex.
I believe in active, dynamic regulation of the markets, because "free markets" never exist... they are either controlled by a wide body of government, or controlled by the economic interests who benefit the most from them.
I believe that good faith in the face of unbridled greed and corruption is foolish and treasonous. Strong defense starts with defending the majority from the minority that would enslave them.
 

But these are not symmetrical positions. There is clear evidence that the republican policies are disenfranchising thousands, and likely tens of thousands, of minority voters. There is no evidence that the lack of those policies are causing tens, lets alone hundreds or thousands of cases of voter fraud.
 
 
You can promise that all you like, but their own actions and words say otherwise. The emails that have come out in the various lawsuits around the republican efforts document republicans specifically targeting black voters. The voter registration purges going on across the country in red states at least appear to be disproportionately affecting minority voters. The claims of voter fraud that get made to justify their policies are shown again and again to be baseless.  A bunch of republican voters may believe that voter fraud is a problem, and that their politicians are trying to fix it, but they are wrong.  
 
 
I admit that Republicans have done things in the name of religious freedom. But as far as I can see, that's just lip service. They have done nothing in actual service of religious freedom. A corporation is not a person and has no religion, so can not have religious objections to anything. If the owners don't want to comply with law, they shouldn't be in business. 
 
And why should discriminating against homosexuals be any different than discriminating against any other group. There are still churches that preach against the mixing of the races. Should a business run by a member of that church be able to discriminate against blacks? Should a business be able to refuse to hire a Mormon, or a catholic, if it's run by a Southern Baptist? Because those make just as much sense.
 
 
 
That's certainly something that's alleged, and should be looked into. But even if it is found to be true, that doesn't mean you scrap the whole idea of helping traditionally underrepresented minorities.
 
And in my original, I left out the biggest difference of all between the parties right now, at least in terms of long term effects.
 
The Democrats want to address global warming. 
The  Republicans claim that it doesn't exist, or that if it does, it has nothing to do with the actions of humanity, and there's nothing we can do about it.
 
Global warming is an existential threat to human civilization, and possibly human existence. By denying it, the Republicans are threatening the human race. I know it sounds melodramatic, but every day the Republicans stay in power, the more likely human civilization faces an early end. Okay, well, that may not be true. They may have already delayed action long enough that it's too late, and there's nothing we can do. So, there's that.
 
 
 
 

Ultimately, this is on Gunn, IMO. He wanted to be provocative with his "jokes"? Then he can live with the consequences. Also, he had more free reign with GOTG2 and it was nowhere near the quality of the first, so there's a chance a GOTG without him could be better.

Storn gifted me with this poster that features the major PCs from my 30 year campaign. Always an honor to have a friend and fellow gamer who can draw great stuff for a campaign! This poster just scream George Perez-esque, and is getting framed for the Geek Cave.
 
 

Who do you include in "the radical progressive 'left'"? Especially, what "morality" do you see them trying to impose on others?
 
Because I don't see what passes for the left (i.e., the Democratic Party) in this country as being anywhere near to the GOP, in policies, tactics, or outcomes.
 
The Democrats want to make sure every eligible person can vote.
The republicans are doing their best to disenfranchise as many minorities as possible. 
 
The Democrats are trying to prevent discrimination, whether based on religion, ethnicity, sexual orientation or gender identity.
The GOP is trying to enshrine discrimination into the law.
 
The Democrats are trying to maintain a social safety net for all.
The GOP is trying to tear it down.
 
The Democrats are trying to make sure everyone has access to adequate healthcare.
The GOP is fighting this tooth and nail.
 
The Democrats are trying to secure our elections from interference by foreign entities.
The GOP is stopping them.
 
I agree that both parties are too beholden to corporate interests. I agree that many politicians in both parties are often more worried about their own reelection than their the good of their constituents, but the GOP is standing by while the current administration, at the direction of the President, sells this country off to the highest bidder. They pretend to investigate his possible connection to the interference with the 2016 elections, while keeping the Democrats from calling relevant witnesses. They take money from the NRA, which, has become essentially a front for funneling money from Russian oligarchs to political campaigns here. There is not an ounce of integrity left in the national Republican Party.
 
So, are the Democrats perfect? Not even close. But to group them as even close to the current incarnation of the Republican Party is not supportable.
 
 
 

I believe in a large, robust and active government, because the government is us, the people, having a say and influence over the economic forces that otherwise harm the majority for the benefit of the extreme minority.
I believe no individual is more important than the social contract that binds us, that provides the stability necessary for advancement.
I believe equal opportunity requires limitations on those who have traditionally held privilege.
I believe fiscal responsibility involves a level of wealth redistribution that reduces the gap between the most wealthy and most poor, and incentivizes a bulging middle class. This includes highly funded public education through university levels.
I believe in a level of defense that is not beholden to, nor for the benefit of the military industrial complex.
I believe in active, dynamic regulation of the markets, because "free markets" never exist... they are either controlled by a wide body of government, or controlled by the economic interests who benefit the most from them.
I believe that good faith in the face of unbridled greed and corruption is foolish and treasonous. Strong defense starts with defending the majority from the minority that would enslave them.
 

I believe in a large, robust and active government, because the government is us, the people, having a say and influence over the economic forces that otherwise harm the majority for the benefit of the extreme minority.
I believe no individual is more important than the social contract that binds us, that provides the stability necessary for advancement.
I believe equal opportunity requires limitations on those who have traditionally held privilege.
I believe fiscal responsibility involves a level of wealth redistribution that reduces the gap between the most wealthy and most poor, and incentivizes a bulging middle class. This includes highly funded public education through university levels.
I believe in a level of defense that is not beholden to, nor for the benefit of the military industrial complex.
I believe in active, dynamic regulation of the markets, because "free markets" never exist... they are either controlled by a wide body of government, or controlled by the economic interests who benefit the most from them.
I believe that good faith in the face of unbridled greed and corruption is foolish and treasonous. Strong defense starts with defending the majority from the minority that would enslave them.
 

*Breaks out his musical number*
 
I should be ecstatic for a process democratic in world where the common man has very little power.
  But the truth of my situation in this part of my nation means the outlook for my views winning remains quite dour.
Today I aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaam a Democrat.
.A sacrificial Lamb- a small blue dot in a sea of red. Some might tell me I shouldn't have gotten out of bed, I think that someone's in my head, yet still I am voting democrat!
Today I am, working up the stream salmon like, taking up a cross wind hike. Possibly getting glared at by a red hat wearer with a name like Mike. Today I am a Demooocrat! 
Of course it's not like I am losing , it's the primaries we are choosing- I'm picking those will likely lose in fall!
It's not the party I adore, but I've held my nose before, and they seem saner than the other guys.
And every little lad or lady running might be shady, and on either side they've got their pack of lies.
But in comparing bad to worse, inside this doggerel verse
there's really no competition here for me
The nation has lurched so deeply to the right that I think if he were alive Reagan would be laughed out of his own party
So I'll try nudge things left, of hope I'm not bereft, of any sort of civic minded might
into the crimson coated mob I try to do my job, that makes me long for the sex appeal of game of thrones
I will make my selection for who will lead us into election, and watch the results come in at night
And hope to hell I am not alone!
Today I am, a donkey at a packaderm watering hole
trying to sip my share
hoping I don't get stepped on
hoping someone else here cares
for the issues that matter to me, as I float blue dot in this scarlet sea
for today I democraaaaaaaaaaat!

Finally got around to this last week. Loved it. Just loads of fun.
 
A really good caper movie. I'll distinguish a caper movie from a heist movie by saying that (in this caper movie at least) the heroes didn't start the stealing of things, they were trying to get their property back. Shenanigans ensued.
 
Loved the whole cast, but special props to supporting characters Luiz and Agent Woo. They both cracked me up.
 
And yeah, I gotta say that the drama was effective because it came from natural places for the characters. Even the brand new characters we'd not seen before such as Ghost and Foster gave us good, believable motives. The action sequences then flowed nicely out this dramatic conflict.
 
I also saw it in close proximity to Incredibles 2. I liked both but preferred Antman & Wasp.
When watching Incredibles there was the cutest goings on in the theatre. Every time Jack Jack didn't something awesome I could a little  voice, I'm guessing it belongs to someone about 2-3 years old, burst out in hysterical giggles. So cute.