Thursday, October 23, 2014

The Underlying Reality That All Americans Need To Understand Before We Can Fix What Is Truly Broken

For a great many people, this article by Mike Lofgren is likely the single most enlightening and informative thing you will read all year. Re-posted in its entirety, with my highlights in red:

Barbara Stanwyck: "We're both rotten!"
Fred MacMurray: "Yeah - only you're a little more rotten." -"Double Indemnity" (1944)

Those lines of dialogue from a classic film noir sum up the state of the two political parties in contemporary America. Both parties are rotten - how could they not be, given the complete infestation of the political system by corporate money on a scale that now requires a presidential candidate to raise upwards of a billion dollars to be competitive in the general election? Both parties are captives to corporate loot. The main reason the Democrats' health care bill will be a budget buster once it fully phases in is the Democrats' rank capitulation to corporate interests - no single-payer system, in order to mollify the insurers; and no negotiation of drug prices, a craven surrender to Big Pharma.

But both parties are not rotten in quite the same way. The Democrats have their share of machine politicians, careerists, corporate bagmen, egomaniacs and kooks. Nothing, however, quite matches the modern GOP.

To those millions of Americans who have finally begun paying attention to politics and watched with exasperation the tragicomedy of the debt ceiling extension, it may have come as a shock that the Republican Party is so full of lunatics. To be sure, the party, like any political party on earth, has always had its share of crackpots, like Robert K. Dornan or William E. Dannemeyer. But the crackpot outliers of two decades ago have become the vital center today: Steve King, Michele Bachman (now a leading presidential candidate as well), Paul Broun, Patrick McHenry, Virginia Foxx, Louie Gohmert, Allen West. The Congressional directory now reads like a casebook of lunacy.

It was this cast of characters and the pernicious ideas they represent that impelled me to end a nearly 30-year career as a professional staff member on Capitol Hill. A couple of months ago, I retired; but I could see as early as last November that the Republican Party would use the debt limit vote, an otherwise routine legislative procedure that has been used 87 times since the end of World War II, in order to concoct an entirely artificial fiscal crisis. Then, they would use that fiscal crisis to get what they wanted, by literally holding the US and global economies as hostages.

The debt ceiling extension is not the only example of this sort of political terrorism. Republicans were willing to lay off 4,000 Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) employees, 70,000 private construction workers and let FAA safety inspectors work without pay, in fact, forcing them to pay for their own work-related travel - how prudent is that? - in order to strong arm some union-busting provisions into the FAA reauthorization.

Everyone knows that in a hostage situation, the reckless and amoral actor has the negotiating upper hand over the cautious and responsible actor because the latter is actually concerned about the life of the hostage, while the former does not care. This fact, which ought to be obvious, has nevertheless caused confusion among the professional pundit class, which is mostly still stuck in the Bob Dole era in terms of its orientation. For instance, Ezra Klein wrote of his puzzlement over the fact that while House Republicans essentially won the debt ceiling fight, enough of them were sufficiently dissatisfied that they might still scuttle the deal. Of course they might - the attitude of many freshman Republicans to national default was "bring it on!"

It should have been evident to clear-eyed observers that the Republican Party is becoming less and less like a traditional political party in a representative democracy and becoming more like an apocalyptic cult, or one of the intensely ideological authoritarian parties of 20th century Europe. This trend has several implications, none of them pleasant.

In his "Manual of Parliamentary Practice," Thomas Jefferson wrote that it is less important that every rule and custom of a legislature be absolutely justifiable in a theoretical sense, than that they should be generally acknowledged and honored by all parties. These include unwritten rules, customs and courtesies that lubricate the legislative machinery and keep governance a relatively civilized procedure. The US Senate has more complex procedural rules than any other legislative body in the world; many of these rules are contradictory, and on any given day, the Senate parliamentarian may issue a ruling that contradicts earlier rulings on analogous cases.

The only thing that can keep the Senate functioning is collegiality and good faith. During periods of political consensus, for instance, the World War II and early post-war eras, the Senate was a "high functioning" institution: filibusters were rare and the body was legislatively productive. Now, one can no more picture the current Senate producing the original Medicare Act than the old Supreme Soviet having legislated the Bill of Rights.

Far from being a rarity, virtually every bill, every nominee for Senate confirmation and every routine procedural motion is now subject to a Republican filibuster. Under the circumstances, it is no wonder that Washington is gridlocked: legislating has now become war minus the shooting, something one could have observed 80 years ago in the Reichstag of the Weimar Republic. As Hannah Arendt observed, a disciplined minority of totalitarians can use the instruments of democratic government to undermine democracy itself.

John P. Judis sums up the modern GOP this way:
"Over the last four decades, the Republican Party has transformed from a loyal opposition into an insurrectionary party that flouts the law when it is in the majority and threatens disorder when it is the minority. It is the party of Watergate and Iran-Contra, but also of the government shutdown in 1995 and the impeachment trial of 1999. If there is an earlier American precedent for today's Republican Party, it is the antebellum Southern Democrats of John Calhoun who threatened to nullify, or disregard, federal legislation they objected to and who later led the fight to secede from the union over slavery."

A couple of years ago, a Republican committee staff director told me candidly (and proudly) what the method was to all this obstruction and disruption. Should Republicans succeed in obstructing the Senate from doing its job, it would further lower Congress's generic favorability rating among the American people. By sabotaging the reputation of an institution of government, the party that is programmatically against government would come out the relative winner.

A deeply cynical tactic, to be sure, but a psychologically insightful one that plays on the weaknesses both of the voting public and the news media. There are tens of millions of low-information voters who hardly know which party controls which branch of government, let alone which party is pursuing a particular legislative tactic. These voters' confusion over who did what allows them to form the conclusion that "they are all crooks," and that "government is no good," further leading them to think, "a plague on both your houses" and "the parties are like two kids in a school yard." This ill-informed public cynicism, in its turn, further intensifies the long-term decline in public trust in government that has been taking place since the early 1960s - a distrust that has been stoked by Republican rhetoric at every turn ("Government is the problem," declared Ronald Reagan in 1980).

The media are also complicit in this phenomenon. Ever since the bifurcation of electronic media into a more or less respectable "hard news" segment and a rabidly ideological talk radio and cable TV political propaganda arm, the "respectable" media have been terrified of any criticism for perceived bias. Hence, they hew to the practice of false evenhandedness. Paul Krugman has skewered this tactic as being the "centrist cop-out." "I joked long ago," he says, "that if one party declared that the earth was flat, the headlines would read 'Views Differ on Shape of Planet.'"

Inside-the-Beltway wise guy Chris Cillizza merely proves Krugman right in his Washington Post analysis of "winners and losers" in the debt ceiling impasse. He wrote that the institution of Congress was a big loser in the fracas, which is, of course, correct, but then he opined: "Lawmakers - bless their hearts - seem entirely unaware of just how bad they looked during this fight and will almost certainly spend the next few weeks (or months) congratulating themselves on their tremendous magnanimity." Note how the pundit's ironic deprecation falls like the rain on the just and unjust alike, on those who precipitated the needless crisis and those who despaired of it. He seems oblivious that one side - or a sizable faction of one side - has deliberately attempted to damage the reputation of Congress to achieve its political objectives.

This constant drizzle of "there the two parties go again!" stories out of the news bureaus, combined with the hazy confusion of low-information voters, means that the long-term Republican strategy of undermining confidence in our democratic institutions has reaped electoral dividends. The United States has nearly the lowest voter participation among Western democracies; this, again, is a consequence of the decline of trust in government institutions - if government is a racket and both parties are the same, why vote? And if the uninvolved middle declines to vote, it increases the electoral clout of a minority that is constantly being whipped into a lather by three hours daily of Rush Limbaugh or Fox News. There were only 44 million Republican voters in the 2010 mid-term elections, but they effectively canceled the political results of the election of President Obama by 69 million voters.

This tactic of inducing public distrust of government is not only cynical, it is schizophrenic. For people who profess to revere the Constitution, it is strange that they so caustically denigrate the very federal government that is the material expression of the principles embodied in that document. This is not to say that there is not some theoretical limit to the size or intrusiveness of government; I would be the first to say there are such limits, both fiscal and Constitutional. But most Republican officeholders seem strangely uninterested in the effective repeal of Fourth Amendment protections by the Patriot Act, the weakening of habeas corpus and self-incrimination protections in the public hysteria following 9/11 or the unpalatable fact that the United States has the largest incarcerated population of any country on earth. If anything, they would probably opt for more incarcerated persons, as imprisonment is a profit center for the prison privatization industry, which is itself a growth center for political contributions to these same politicians.[1] Instead, they prefer to rail against those government programs that actually help people. And when a program is too popular to attack directly, like Medicare or Social Security, they prefer to undermine it by feigning an agonized concern about the deficit. That concern, as we shall see, is largely fictitious.

Undermining Americans' belief in their own institutions of self-government remains a prime GOP electoral strategy. But if this technique falls short of producing Karl Rove's dream of 30 years of unchallengeable one-party rule (as all such techniques always fall short of achieving the angry and embittered true believer's New Jerusalem), there are other even less savory techniques upon which to fall back. Ever since Republicans captured the majority in a number of state legislatures last November, they have systematically attempted to make it more difficult to vote: by onerous voter ID requirements (in Wisconsin, Republicans have legislated photo IDs while simultaneously shutting Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) offices in Democratic constituencies while at the same time lengthening the hours of operation of DMV offices in GOP constituencies); by narrowing registration periods; and by residency requirements that may disenfranchise university students.

This legislative assault is moving in a diametrically opposed direction to 200 years of American history, when the arrow of progress pointed toward more political participation by more citizens. Republicans are among the most shrill in self-righteously lecturing other countries about the wonders of democracy; exporting democracy (albeit at the barrel of a gun) to the Middle East was a signature policy of the Bush administration. But domestically, they don't want those people voting.

You can probably guess who those people are. Above all, anyone not likely to vote Republican. As Sarah Palin would imply, the people who are not Real Americans. Racial minorities. Immigrants. Muslims. Gays. Intellectuals. Basically, anyone who doesn't look, think, or talk like the GOP base. This must account, at least to some degree, for their extraordinarily vitriolic hatred of President Obama. I have joked in the past that the main administration policy that Republicans object to is Obama's policy of being black.[2] Among the GOP base, there is constant harping about somebody else, some "other," who is deliberately, assiduously and with malice aforethought subverting the Good, the True and the Beautiful: Subversives. Commies. Socialists. Ragheads. Secular humanists. Blacks. Fags. Feminazis. The list may change with the political needs of the moment, but they always seem to need a scapegoat to hate and fear.

It is not clear to me how many GOP officeholders believe this reactionary and paranoid claptrap. I would bet that most do not. But they cynically feed the worst instincts of their fearful and angry low-information political base with a nod and a wink. During the disgraceful circus of the "birther" issue, Republican politicians subtly stoked the fires of paranoia by being suggestively equivocal - "I take the president at his word" - while never unambiguously slapping down the myth. John Huntsman was the first major GOP figure forthrightly to refute the birther calumny - albeit after release of the birth certificate.

I do not mean to place too much emphasis on racial animus in the GOP. While it surely exists, it is also a fact that Republicans think that no Democratic president could conceivably be legitimate. Republicans also regarded Bill Clinton as somehow, in some manner, twice fraudulently elected (well do I remember the elaborate conspiracy theories that Republicans traded among themselves). Had it been Hillary Clinton, rather than Barack Obama, who had been elected in 2008, I am certain we would now be hearing, in lieu of the birther myths, conspiracy theories about Vince Foster's alleged murder.

The reader may think that I am attributing Svengali-like powers to GOP operatives able to manipulate a zombie base to do their bidding. It is more complicated than that. Historical circumstances produced the raw material: the deindustrialization and financialization of America since about 1970 has spawned an increasingly downscale white middle class - without job security (or even without jobs), with pensions and health benefits evaporating and with their principal asset deflating in the collapse of the housing bubble. Their fears are not imaginary; their standard of living is shrinking.

What do the Democrats offer these people? Essentially nothing. Democratic Leadership Council-style "centrist" Democrats were among the biggest promoters of disastrous trade deals in the 1990s that outsourced jobs abroad: NAFTA, World Trade Organization, permanent most-favored-nation status for China. At the same time, the identity politics/lifestyle wing of the Democratic Party was seen as a too illegal immigrant-friendly by downscaled and outsourced whites.[3]

While Democrats temporized, or even dismissed the fears of the white working class as racist or nativist, Republicans went to work. To be sure, the business wing of the Republican Party consists of the most energetic outsourcers, wage cutters and hirers of sub-minimum wage immigrant labor to be found anywhere on the globe. But the faux-populist wing of the party, knowing the mental compartmentalization that occurs in most low-information voters, played on the fears of that same white working class to focus their anger on scapegoats that do no damage to corporations' bottom lines: instead of raising the minimum wage, let's build a wall on the Southern border (then hire a defense contractor to incompetently manage it). Instead of predatory bankers, it's evil Muslims. Or evil gays. Or evil abortionists.

How do they manage to do this? Because Democrats ceded the field. Above all, they do not understand language. Their initiatives are posed in impenetrable policy-speak: the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. The what? - can anyone even remember it? No wonder the pejorative "Obamacare" won out. Contrast that with the Republicans' Patriot Act. You're a patriot, aren't you? Does anyone at the GED level have a clue what a Stimulus Bill is supposed to be? Why didn't the White House call it the Jobs Bill and keep pounding on that theme?

You know that Social Security and Medicare are in jeopardy when even Democrats refer to them as entitlements. "Entitlement" has a negative sound in colloquial English: somebody who is "entitled" selfishly claims something he doesn't really deserve. Why not call them "earned benefits," which is what they are because we all contribute payroll taxes to fund them? That would never occur to the Democrats. Republicans don't make that mistake; they are relentlessly on message: it is never the "estate tax," it is the "death tax." Heaven forbid that the Walton family should give up one penny of its $86-billion fortune. All of that lucre is necessary to ensure that unions be kept out of Wal-Mart, that women employees not be promoted and that politicians be kept on a short leash.

It was not always thus. It would have been hard to find an uneducated farmer during the depression of the 1890s who did not have a very accurate idea about exactly which economic interests were shafting him. An unemployed worker in a breadline in 1932 would have felt little gratitude to the Rockefellers or the Mellons. But that is not the case in the present economic crisis. After a riot of unbridled greed such as the world has not seen since the conquistadors' looting expeditions and after an unprecedented broad and rapid transfer of wealth upward by Wall Street and its corporate satellites, where is the popular anger directed, at least as depicted in the media? At "Washington spending" - which has increased primarily to provide unemployment compensation, food stamps and Medicaid to those economically damaged by the previous decade's corporate saturnalia. Or the popular rage is harmlessly diverted against pseudo-issues: death panels, birtherism, gay marriage, abortion, and so on, none of which stands to dent the corporate bottom line in the slightest.

Thus far, I have concentrated on Republican tactics, rather than Republican beliefs, but the tactics themselves are important indicators of an absolutist, authoritarian mindset that is increasingly hostile to the democratic values of reason, compromise and conciliation. Rather, this mindset seeks polarizing division (Karl Rove has been very explicit that this is his principal campaign strategy), conflict and the crushing of opposition.

As for what they really believe, the Republican Party of 2011 believes in three principal tenets I have laid out below. The rest of their platform one may safely dismiss as window dressing:

1. The GOP cares solely and exclusively about its rich contributors. The party has built a whole catechism on the protection and further enrichment of America's plutocracy. Their caterwauling about deficit and debt is so much eyewash to con the public. Whatever else President Obama has accomplished (and many of his purported accomplishments are highly suspect), his $4-trillion deficit reduction package did perform the useful service of smoking out Republican hypocrisy. The GOP refused, because it could not abide so much as a one-tenth of one percent increase on the tax rates of the Walton family or the Koch brothers, much less a repeal of the carried interest rule that permits billionaire hedge fund managers to pay income tax at a lower effective rate than cops or nurses. Republicans finally settled on a deal that had far less deficit reduction - and even less spending reduction! - than Obama's offer, because of their iron resolution to protect at all costs our society's overclass.

Republicans have attempted to camouflage their amorous solicitude for billionaires with a fog of misleading rhetoric. John Boehner is fond of saying, "we won't raise anyone's taxes," as if the take-home pay of an Olive Garden waitress were inextricably bound up with whether Warren Buffett pays his capital gains as ordinary income or at a lower rate. Another chestnut is that millionaires and billionaires are "job creators." US corporations have just had their most profitable quarters in history; Apple, for one, is sitting on $76 billion in cash, more than the GDP of most countries. So, where are the jobs?

Another smokescreen is the "small business" meme, since standing up for Mom's and Pop's corner store is politically more attractive than to be seen shilling for a megacorporation. Raising taxes on the wealthy will kill small business' ability to hire; that is the GOP dirge every time Bernie Sanders or some Democrat offers an amendment to increase taxes on incomes above $1 million. But the number of small businesses that have a net annual income over a million dollars is de minimis, if not by definition impossible (as they would no longer be small businesses). And as data from the Center for Economic and Policy Research have shown, small businesses account for only 7.2 percent of total US employment, a significantly smaller share of total employment than in most Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) countries.

Likewise, Republicans have assiduously spread the myth that Americans are conspicuously overtaxed. But compared to other OECD countries, the effective rates of US taxation are among the lowest. In particular, they point to the top corporate income rate of 35 percent as being confiscatory Bolshevism. But again, the effective rate is much lower. Did GE pay 35 percent on 2010 profits of $14 billion? No, it paid zero.

When pressed, Republicans make up misleading statistics to "prove" that the America's fiscal burden is being borne by the rich and the rest of us are just freeloaders who don't appreciate that fact. "Half of Americans don't pay taxes" is a perennial meme. But what they leave out is that that statement refers to federal income taxes. There are millions of people who don't pay income taxes, but do contribute payroll taxes - among the most regressive forms of taxation. But according to GOP fiscal theology, payroll taxes don't count. Somehow, they have convinced themselves that since payroll taxes go into trust funds, they're not real taxes. Likewise, state and local sales taxes apparently don't count, although their effect on a poor person buying necessities like foodstuffs is far more regressive than on a millionaire.

All of these half truths and outright lies have seeped into popular culture via the corporate-owned business press. Just listen to CNBC for a few hours and you will hear most of them in one form or another. More important politically, Republicans' myths about taxation have been internalized by millions of economically downscale "values voters," who may have been attracted to the GOP for other reasons (which I will explain later), but who now accept this misinformation as dogma.

And when misinformation isn't enough to sustain popular support for the GOP's agenda, concealment is needed. One fairly innocuous provision in the Dodd-Frank financial reform bill requires public companies to make a more transparent disclosure of CEO compensation, including bonuses. Note that it would not limit the compensation, only require full disclosure. Republicans are hell-bent on repealing this provision. Of course; it would not serve Wall Street interests if the public took an unhealthy interest in the disparity of their own incomes as against that of a bank CEO. As Spencer Bachus, the Republican chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, says, "In Washington, the view is that the banks are to be regulated and my view is that Washington and the regulators are there to serve the banks."

2. They worship at the altar of Mars.  While the me-too Democrats have set a horrible example of keeping up with the Joneses with respect to waging wars, they can never match GOP stalwarts such as John McCain or Lindsey Graham in their sheer, libidinous enthusiasm for invading other countries. McCain wanted to mix it up with Russia - a nuclear-armed state - during the latter's conflict with Georgia in 2008 (remember? - "we are all Georgians now," a slogan that did not, fortunately, catch on), while Graham has been persistently agitating for attacks on Iran and intervention in Syria. And these are not fringe elements of the party; they are the leading "defense experts," who always get tapped for the Sunday talk shows. About a month before Republicans began holding a gun to the head of the credit markets to get trillions of dollars of cuts, these same Republicans passed a defense appropriations bill that increased spending by $17 billion over the prior year's defense appropriation. To borrow Chris Hedges' formulation, war is the force that gives meaning to their lives.

A cynic might conclude that this militaristic enthusiasm is no more complicated than the fact that Pentagon contractors spread a lot of bribery money around Capitol Hill. That is true, but there is more to it than that. It is not necessarily even the fact that members of Congress feel they are protecting constituents' jobs. The wildly uneven concentration of defense contracts and military bases nationally means that some areas, like Washington, DC, and San Diego, are heavily dependent on Department of Defense (DOD) spending. But there are many more areas of the country whose net balance is negative: the citizenry pays more in taxes to support the Pentagon than it receives back in local contracts.

And the economic justification for Pentagon spending is even more fallacious when one considers that the $700 billion annual DOD budget creates comparatively few jobs. The days of Rosie the Riveter are long gone; most weapons projects now require very little touch labor. Instead, a disproportionate share is siphoned off into high-cost research and development (from which the civilian economy benefits little); exorbitant management expenditures, overhead and out-and-out padding; and, of course, the money that flows back into the coffers of political campaigns. A million dollars appropriated for highway construction would create two to three times as many jobs as a million dollars appropriated for Pentagon weapons procurement, so the jobs argument is ultimately specious.

Take away the cash nexus and there still remains a psychological predisposition toward war and militarism on the part of the GOP. This undoubtedly arises from a neurotic need to demonstrate toughness and dovetails perfectly with the belligerent tough-guy pose one constantly hears on right-wing talk radio. Militarism springs from the same psychological deficit that requires an endless series of enemies, both foreign and domestic.

The results of the last decade of unbridled militarism and the Democrats' cowardly refusal to reverse it[4], have been disastrous both strategically and fiscally. It has made the United States less prosperous, less secure and less free. Unfortunately, the militarism and the promiscuous intervention it gives rise to are only likely to abate when the Treasury is exhausted, just as it happened to the Dutch Republic and the British Empire.

3. Give me that old time religion. Pandering to fundamentalism is a full-time vocation in the GOP. Beginning in the 1970s, religious cranks ceased simply to be a minor public nuisance in this country and grew into the major element of the Republican rank and file. Pat Robertson's strong showing in the 1988 Iowa Caucus signaled the gradual merger of politics and religion in the party. The results are all around us: if the American people poll more like Iranians or Nigerians than Europeans or Canadians on questions of evolution versus creationism, scriptural inerrancy, the existence of angels and demons, and so forth, that result is due to the rise of the religious right, its insertion into the public sphere by the Republican Party and the consequent normalizing of formerly reactionary or quaint beliefs. Also around us is a prevailing anti-intellectualism and hostility to science; it is this group that defines "low-information voter" - or, perhaps, "misinformation voter."
The Constitution to the contrary notwithstanding, there is now a de facto religious test for the presidency: major candidates are encouraged (or coerced) to "share their feelings" about their "faith" in a revelatory speech; or, some televangelist like Rick Warren dragoons the candidates (as he did with Obama and McCain in 2008) to debate the finer points of Christology, with Warren himself, of course, as the arbiter. Politicized religion is also the sheet anchor of the culture wars. But how did the whole toxic stew of GOP beliefs - economic royalism, militarism and culture wars cum fundamentalism - come completely to displace an erstwhile civilized Eisenhower Republicanism?

It is my view that the rise of politicized religious fundamentalism (which is a subset of the decline of rational problem solving in America) may have been the key ingredient of the takeover of the Republican Party. For politicized religion provides a substrate of beliefs that rationalizes - at least in the minds of followers - all three of the GOP's main tenets.

Televangelists have long espoused the health-and-wealth/name-it-and-claim it gospel. If you are wealthy, it is a sign of God's favor. If not, too bad! But don't forget to tithe in any case. This rationale may explain why some economically downscale whites defend the prerogatives of billionaires.
The GOP's fascination with war is also connected with the fundamentalist mindset. The Old Testament abounds in tales of slaughter - God ordering the killing of the Midianite male infants and enslavement of the balance of the population, the divinely-inspired genocide of the Canaanites, the slaying of various miscreants with the jawbone of an ass - and since American religious fundamentalist seem to prefer the Old Testament to the New (particularly that portion of the New Testament known as the Sermon on the Mount), it is but a short step to approving war as a divinely inspired mission. This sort of thinking has led, inexorably, to such phenomena as Jerry Falwell once writing that God is Pro-War.

It is the apocalyptic frame of reference of fundamentalists, their belief in an imminent Armageddon, that psychologically conditions them to steer this country into conflict, not only on foreign fields (some evangelicals thought Saddam was the Antichrist and therefore a suitable target for cruise missiles), but also in the realm of domestic political controversy. It is hardly surprising that the most adamant proponent of the view that there was no debt ceiling problem was Michele Bachmann, the darling of the fundamentalist right. What does it matter, anyway, if the country defaults? - we shall presently abide in the bosom of the Lord.

Some liberal writers have opined that the different socio-economic perspectives separating the "business" wing of the GOP and the religious right make it an unstable coalition that could crack. I am not so sure. There is no fundamental disagreement on which direction the two factions want to take the country, merely how far in that direction they want to take it. The plutocrats would drag us back to the Gilded Age, the theocrats to the Salem witch trials. In any case, those consummate plutocrats, the Koch brothers, are pumping large sums of money into Michele Bachman's presidential campaign, so one ought not make too much of a potential plutocrat-theocrat split.

Thus, the modern GOP; it hardly seems conceivable that a Republican could have written the following:

"Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes you can do these things. Among them are H. L. Hunt (you possibly know his background), a few other Texas oil millionaires and an occasional politician or business man from other areas. Their number is negligible and they are stupid." (That was President Eisenhower, writing to his brother Edgar in 1954.)

It is this broad and ever-widening gulf between the traditional Republicanism of an Eisenhower and the quasi-totalitarian cult of a Michele Bachmann that impelled my departure from Capitol Hill. It is not in my pragmatic nature to make a heroic gesture of self-immolation, or to make lurid revelations of personal martyrdom in the manner of David Brock. And I will leave a more detailed dissection of failed Republican economic policies to my fellow apostate Bruce Bartlett.

I left because I was appalled at the headlong rush of Republicans, like Gadarene swine, to embrace policies that are deeply damaging to this country's future; and contemptuous of the feckless, craven incompetence of Democrats in their half-hearted attempts to stop them. And, in truth, I left as an act of rational self-interest. Having gutted private-sector pensions and health benefits as a result of their embrace of outsourcing, union busting and "shareholder value," the GOP now thinks it is only fair that public-sector workers give up their pensions and benefits, too. Hence the intensification of the GOP's decades-long campaign of scorn against government workers. Under the circumstances, it is simply safer to be a current retiree rather than a prospective one.

If you think Paul Ryan and his Ayn Rand-worshipping colleagues aren't after your Social Security and Medicare, I am here to disabuse you of your naiveté.[5] They will move heaven and earth to force through tax cuts that will so starve the government of revenue that they will be "forced" to make "hard choices" - and that doesn't mean repealing those very same tax cuts, it means cutting the benefits for which you worked.

During the week that this piece was written, the debt ceiling fiasco reached its conclusion. The economy was already weak, but the GOP's disgraceful game of chicken roiled the markets even further. Foreigners could hardly believe it: Americans' own crazy political actions were destabilizing the safe-haven status of the dollar. Accordingly, during that same week, over one trillion dollars worth of assets evaporated on financial markets. Russia and China have stepped up their advocating that the dollar be replaced as the global reserve currency - a move as consequential and disastrous for US interests as any that can be imagined.

If Republicans have perfected a new form of politics that is successful electorally at the same time that it unleashes major policy disasters, it means twilight both for the democratic process and America's status as the world's leading power.


[1] I am not exaggerating for effect. A law passed in 2010 by the Arizona legislature mandating arrest and incarceration of suspected illegal aliens was actually drafted by the American Legislative Exchange Council, a conservative business front group that drafts "model" legislation on behalf of its corporate sponsors. The draft legislation in question was written for the private prison lobby, which sensed a growth opportunity in imprisoning more people.

[2] I am not a supporter of Obama and object to a number of his foreign and domestic policies. But when he took office amid the greatest financial collapse in 80 years, I wanted him to succeed, so that the country I served did not fail. But already in 2009, Mitch McConnell, the Senate Republican leader, declared that his greatest legislative priority was - jobs for Americans? Rescuing the financial system? Solving the housing collapse? - no, none of those things. His top priority was to ensure that Obama should be a one-term president. Evidently Senator McConnell hates Obama more than he loves his country. Note that the mainstream media have lately been hailing McConnell as "the adult in the room," presumably because he is less visibly unstable than the Tea Party freshmen

[3] This is not a venue for immigrant bashing. It remains a fact that outsourcing jobs overseas, while insourcing sub-minimum wage immigrant labor, will exert downward pressure on US wages. The consequence will be popular anger, and failure to address that anger will result in a downward wage spiral and a breech of the social compact, not to mention a rise in nativism and other reactionary impulses. It does no good to claim that these economic consequences are an inevitable result of globalization; Germany has somehow managed to maintain a high-wage economy and a vigorous industrial base.

[4] The cowardice is not merely political. During the past ten years, I have observed that Democrats are actually growing afraid of Republicans. In a quirky and flawed, but insightful, little book, "Democracy and Populism: Fear and Hatred," John Lukacs concludes that the left fears, the right hates.

[5] The GOP cult of Ayn Rand is both revealing and mystifying. On the one hand, Rand's tough guy, every-man-for-himself posturing is a natural fit because it puts a philosophical gloss on the latent sociopathy so prevalent among the hard right. On the other, Rand exclaimed at every opportunity that she was a militant atheist who felt nothing but contempt for Christianity. Apparently, the ignorance of most fundamentalist "values voters" means that GOP candidates who enthuse over Rand at the same time they thump their Bibles never have to explain this stark contradiction. And I imagine a Democratic officeholder would have a harder time explaining why he named his offspring "Marx" than a GOP incumbent would in rationalizing naming his kid "Rand."

Wednesday, October 22, 2014

Game Reviews: The entire Halo series

Well, technically only the "major" entries in the series. The spinoffs (ODST, Halo Wars, Spartan Assault) never really appealed to me all that much.

I will throw in a couple caveats: first, I've only played the single-player campaigns for these five games. I'm not much of an online gamer, and even if I were, I don't have Xbox Live Gold anyway. Admittedly, that may change - I'm such a big fan of this series, and their multiplayer components are so extensive and well-developed, that I think I may actually bite the bullet and give online play a shot. (I much prefer in-person split-screen gaming, but unfortunately I don't have many options in that regard these days - unless I'm playing Nintendo).

Second, I have no problem admitting that I play Halo campaigns on the "easy" difficulty setting, and I like them that way. But hear me out. Like I said in my original review for Halo CEA, if you look at it from the perspective of the Halo "story universe", where Master Chief is an unstoppable, badass killing machine who never dies, what better way to replicate that feeling than easy mode? Of course, the game is less strategic, and it's a cakewalk for a veteran FPS gamer like me - but I'm okay with the game being a cakewalk, because that just makes Master Chief seem like even more of a badass. Even the best Halo players in the world will die every so often on the harder settings, and I've always found trial-and-error games to be more annoying than fun-in-a-challenging-way.

Just look at the descriptions of "easy" mode vs "legendary" mode in Halo 4, which are roughly the same across all five games:
Legenday: "Tremble as teeming hordes of invincible alien monsters punish the slightest error with instant death... again and again."

Easy: "Laugh as helpless victims flee in terror from their inevitable slaughter."
Er, hell yes I'll take option B. I have no problem at all playing on "stress-free" mode. Spartans are supposed to know no fear, after all.

So here are all five Halo games, in the order I played them:

Halo: Combat Evolved (Anniversary Edition)

I've actually already reviewed this game once, back in June. And everything I said still remains true: it's a modernized, high-def remake of the first ever Halo game, it absolutely nails the story, graphics, and gameplay, and Master Chief is surprisingly likable for a stoic android.

It's still my favorite game of the series, because it's the modern, updated remake to the game that completely revolutionized the first-person-shooter genre. I'm such a huge fan of the Halo series (because of the 2001 original!), that this game's status as my favorite of the five was enough to keep it in my top 5 games of all time (that is, until it lost the #5 spot to Red Dead Redemption last month). The nostalgia I get from remembering some of the Halo LAN parties in my dorm hall at OSU is on par with quite a few Nintendo games.

Overall: 10/10

Halo 2

Since this never came out on the Xbox 360, and since I don't have an Xbox One to play the "Master Chief Collection" version, and since my version of the Xbox didn't come with the software on its hard drive to play old-school Xbox games, I actually had to take the hard drive from a friend's broken Xbox, open up the casing to remove the bare hard drive itself, and plug that drive, with the correct software, into my Xbox 360, in order to play this game.

Sadly, for all that effort, Halo 2 is by far my least favorite of the Halo games. Which isn't to say it's a bad game, per se. But the 10-year-old graphics and constant feeling of "WHERE THE HELL AM I SUPPOSED TO GO?" made this more of a "meh" than a "HOLY CRAP" in my book. The story, although it's a cliffhanger and not quite on par with the first game, isn't bad. But I think this game's strongest suit is its music - the orchestrated pieces are almost as catchy as Nintendo tunes. Marty O'Donnell is one hell of a composer. Had the music not been such a great accompaniment for the gameplay and story, I might actually have given this game a 6/10. Although to be fair, the game's online multiplayer components did border on revolutionary back when it first came out.

Overall: 7/10

Halo 3

I liked this entry far more than Halo 2. The music was just as epic, but the graphics were better (this was the first Halo game for the Xbox 360), the story had fewer rough spots, I didn't spend nearly as much time completely lost. Halo 3's biggest drawbacks are that its controls are more noticeably different than the other games in the series - it tried to adopt the "Gears of War"-style reloading, which uses the controller's bumper to reload rather than the X button. It's the only Halo game to do this, which made it kind of a pain to switch to and from. But again, the whole package was very solid (that's what she said?), and not only was this game the middle child in terms of release dates, I'd put it right in the middle in terms of quality, too. A pretty satisfying ending for the first Halo trilogy, I'd say.

Overall: 9/10

Halo 4

This game, the first made by 343 Studios instead of Bungie, added the ability to sprint by clicking the left stick. And I love it so much, it's hard to go back to the older games :p

Halo 4 isn't a perfect game, but it has a hell of a lot going for it. The graphics are, in my opinion, not only better than every other game in the series, but FAR better. People have said that this entry "feels like a Metroid Prime game", which is both a hell of a compliment and mostly true. The levels are certainly for more creative than, for example, Call of Duty or Vanquish.

As far as the story goes, the struggle to save Cortana was REALLY well done, and it showed more of Master Chief's human side than the other games - which is punctuated by the game's first cutscene, essentially accusing him of being an emotionless killing machine. Chief is stoic throughout the series, sure, but still far more likable (not to mention dryly hilarious) than, for example, Marcus Fenix from Gears of War.

Unfortunately, this is the game where the story as a whole starts to suffer from the same problem as the Metal Gear Solid series: it tries to be so grand and epic that it starts to collapse under its own weight. I have to roll my eyes at the "revelation" that the human race was actually capable of interstellar travel about 112,000 years ago. And add to that the fact that this is the first Halo game without Marty O'Donnell composing the score....and you can tell. To the game's discredit, the music just doesn't sound Halo-y anymore - although to be fair, music for the last level in this game is among the best in the series.

All that said, Halo 4 is my second-favorite game in the series, largely because of the Chief/Cortana interaction, the ":-O" graphics, and the vaguely Metroidish feel that much of the game has (which isn't terribly surprising, considering that some of Metroid Prime's designers at Retro Studios actually left to join 343 Studios to work on this game).

Overall: 10/10

Halo: Reach

For anyone who doesn't know, this game is actually a prequel to the other four. The next-to-last level takes place literally moments before the first game begins, which is kind of a neat twist. And speaking of twists, you don't play as Master Chief for this one: you play as a different, almost-but-not-quite-as-badass Spartan soldier instead.

The story, music, graphics, and gameplay are all very good, even if none of them are overwhelmingly so.  The game is about the tragic fall of a major human colony, a planet named "Reach", in the war against the Covenant, and the Spartan team doing everything it can to prevent it; and against that backdrop, it does have more large-scale, quasi-Star-Wars-esque battles than any of the other games.

Reach has the saddest story of the five games, which isn't necessarily a knock against it. In fact, the most impressive part of this game is its very last mission, which is almost as tragic as unique as the ending of Brothers: A Tale of Two Sons (and that is absolutely a compliment). It might be my second-least-favorite Halo game, but that still puts it of MILES ahead of games like Call of Duty: Generic Warfare.

Overall: 8/10

Monday, October 20, 2014

Speaking as a liberal, this is the absolute worst kind of liberal:

Who the fuck are they kidding with this crap? This is one of the worst videos I've ever seen on, and that's saying something. Elliot is clearly an astoundingly shitty, arrogant professor who confirms every single one of the worst stereotypes that people have about liberals, especially the whiny preachy 'social justice warrior' types who think people should feel guilty for being born white or male or whatnot. I can only assume that she gets away with crap like this because she's tenured, because this kind of pretentious bullying is better suited to an opinion show on Fox News than a college classroom.

Friday, October 17, 2014

Game Reviews: Vanquish, Limbo, Brothers, Banjo-Kazooie 3, Red Dead Redemption




This one really wasn't on my list of games to play until a couple friends recommended it. It's a very arcade-esque third-person shooter by Sega. The storyline was very anime, but also very forgettable and generic. You play as a soldier in a powerful exeskeleton suit (you know, because Sega was going for something new and original). To be fair, the twitch-based shooting mechanics and cover mechanics were both very highly polished and pretty fun. But the level design was almost as generic as the story - it suffered from the same problem as Call of Duty ("Go here. Shoot this. Go here. Shoot this. Go here. Shoot this. End of game.") The voice acting was god-awfully cheesy too (although that kind of added to the anime feel). If this had been a Metal Gear game starring Raiden with the same gameplay, I might have been more invested in it. But even if I wouldn't necessarily consider it anything special, it also wasn't a bad game, by any stretch.

Overall: 6/10


I've been wanting to play this indie game for quite a while now. It's a relatively simplistic 2D puzzle-solving platformer, but the fantastically creepy atmosphere and black-and-white horror aesthetics were amazingly effective - they're really what makes this game so memorable (and it is!). Steph and I played this one together, so we could take turns at solving the puzzles - and the game certainly does have its challenging spots, even if it is only about 3-4 hours long. It's not hard at all to see why this game got such glowing reviews. It's nightmarish, but enticing, and the ending is simple, but satisfying. Overall, it's solid, artistic, and fantastically unique - exactly the kind of thing that makes modern indie games so great.

Overall: 8/10

Brothers: A Tale of Two Sons

This game, though it's adventure rather than horror, shares much in common with Limbo: it's a highly-polished indie game, and essentially one really long 3-to-4-hour level with plenty of clever puzzles to solve. You play as two brothers (duh?) trying to save their father who is ill. The controls are simple, but effective: the left stick controls the older brother, the right stick controls the younger brother, and the triggers work as "action" buttons - and that's it. Another of the many interesting pieces of this game is that although there is voice "dialogue", the characters don't actually speak a real language: it's up to the player to interpret what they're saying through context, gestures, and emotion - it's a subtle effect, but ultimately a likable and creative one.

This game certainly has its creepy moments, although it's not as brutal as Limbo (at least not in that manner). The most brutal thing about this game is its ending, which has no qualms about punching you in the gut two or three times. But that emotional impact is why this game got rave reviews, and why a couple of game journalists have called Brothers "the future of gaming" and even their "all-time favorite game". I wouldn't go quite that far, but I can certainly understand where they're coming from.

Overall: 8/10

Banjo-Kazooie: Nuts & Bolts

Yeah, nothing creepy or emotional about this one (unless you count nostalgia, as I was a HUGE fan of the first two Banjo-Kazooie games on the N64 as a kid). This one is a lot more like a Dreamworks CGI movie. I was hesitant about playing it at first, because while the first two games were solid 3D platformers in the same vein as Super Mario 64, this one is more about exploring and beating various challenges by the use of player-created vehicles, made from parts that snap together much like Legos in the real world (and I do love my Legos :p ).

In fact, other than the much-improved HD graphics, I really didn't like this game at all for the first couple hours. But once I nailed down the vehicle-building mechanics (which do take considerable practice), it dawned on me just how astonishingly creative and deep the game is, far more so than its two predecessors. But it still draws on a lot of what made the first two games so memorable, like exploration and memorable characters - one of the game's five massively huge levels is actually a giant museum dedicated to the first two Banjo-Kazooie games, and I LOVED it, because it was so unique and nostalgic.

But let me take a moment to explain what wound up being my favorite thing about this game. After I unlocked all the optional parts and weapons that can be used in vehicle creation, I promptly and gleefully threw them all together to create this monstrocity, which I dubbed "Banjo's Super-Batmobile":

If civil war descended upon Spiral Mountain, this WEAPON OF WAR is what Banjo would use to end it. This tank is bloody unstoppable. I armed it with almost every weapon and gadget the game offers - homing rockets, lasers, flamethrowers, grenades, surface-to-air missiles, mines, cloaking device, armor plating, defensive forcefield, auto-repair robots, stereo system......I hope Captain Kirk never picks a fight with Banjo and Kazooie, because this thing could bring down the bloody Enterprise. If you look up Youtube videos of the game's final boss fight, it typically takes about 10-12 minutes to complete, and I beat it in under 3 with this tank, cackling maniacally the entire time. Seriously, driving around as lovable, goofy, lazy Banjo strapped into this HELLBORN DEATHMACHINE OF JUSTICE is so much hilarious fun it was almost enough to award this game a perfect 10 in spite of its learning curve and occasional graphical snafu.

Grant Kirkhope, one of the game's main designers, as said that he wishes he could put Banjo-Kazooie 4 on the Wii U (which is near impossible, since Rare is now owned exlusively by Microsoft). I would LOVE to see Banjo-Kazooie 4 - so much so that it would be one of the few things that could entice me to buy an Xbox One - and I hope it's a hybrid between the classic platforming of the first two games and the ingenious vehicle-based puzzles of this one.

Overall: 9/10

Red Dead Redemption

I'm not even sure where to begin. If I were okay with giving this game an 11 out of 10.....I'd probably give it a 12. I've spent the better part of the past month completing every single challenge and piece of story in this game's massive open world....and I loved every minute of it.

For starters, the graphics are hands-down the best I've seen in any game outside of next-gen PS4/XBO titles. Rockstar packed uniqueness and detail into every single nook and cranny of the game, and the landscape - including gorgeous sunsets and thunderstorms - is absolutely jaw-dropping.

The voice acting and story are on par with the graphics, as well. You play as John Marston, an ex-outlaw turned family man who gets strong-armed into hunting down his old gang by an unscrupulous government agent who has abducted his wife and son - it has all the makings of a classic western film, including every cliché in the book, but still manages to be fresh and captivating - and the ending is easily on par with Brothers in terms of willingness to punch you in the gut, although it does wind up being pretty gratifying.

Among the game's many, many, many cool features are the "fame" and "honor" meters. Marston starts off the game as a nobody, but as tales of his travels spread, you gain fame, and become more widely recognized in all of the game's different towns, until you reach the status of "legendary". But even cooler, you start the game as a "drifter", and have the option to evolve Marston over the course of the game into either a hero, by doing good deeds for the people you meet, or a desperado, by doing evil deeds like robbing trains and stagecoaches, or by kidnapping women, hogtying them, and leaving them on train tracks (I'm not kidding, that's actually an option). Which in turn affects a wide range of events in the game, such as whether people greet you warmly and ask for help, or shy away from you in fear or even send bounty hunters and posses after you. Rockstar thought of bloody everything.

Aside from the story, the side quests, and the optional bounty hunting, there is also a wealth of minigames available. Some of these are one-shots, like horse racing, while others involve actual "cowboy" actions, like herding cattle and breaking wild horse, and still others that are actual games that are (relatively) period-accurate, such as horseshoe-throwing, arm-wrestling, five-finger fillet, and blackjack. One game was something I'd never heard of before now, called Liar's Dice - kind of a cross between Yahtzee and poker. Speaking of which, the game included a fully fleshed-out Texas Hold 'Em minigame that you can play at almost any saloon in the game (saloons at which you can drink whiskey, get drunk, and start bar fights, as well). It's an old-timey poker simulation of sorts, and TONS of fun. By the time I finished the game, I was at about 45 hours - 8 of which were spent just playing poker for fun (and money). The game keeps track of almost every statistic you could possibly think of.

The actual mechanics of the game are as solid and polished as the rest of it, even if they are FAR more complex than Brothers and Limbo. But a few hours into the game, everything from riding my horse to hunting deer and wolves to hunting for treasure to winning duels to diving for cover in a gunfight to using the slow-motion "dead eye" mode to quick-draw and shoot half a dozen bandits trying to rob me all in one fell swoop was a piece of cake. A piece of delicious, delicious cake. No lie.

It's not hard, at all, to see why this game won so many "Game of the Year" awards, or why IGN rated it as a 10/10 "Masterpiece" - because that's what it is. Games like this are why I keep saying Rockstar is the only game company on the planet that can go toe-to-toe with Nintendo (tongue-twister?) in terms of quality. Red Dead Redemption is now my 5th favorite game of all-time, beating out the Anniversary edition of Halo, and just behind Smash Bros, Zelda: Twilight Princess, Arkham City, and Super Mario RPG. It's that. Damn. Good.

It's been quite awhile since I liked a game enough to go full "completionist" on it, to go after 100% of everything the game had to offer (excluding multiplayer, which this game has).

And you know a game is good when the first thing you want to do after beating it is start over from the beginning again. I'll have to try the "outlaw" path next time....

Overall: 10/10

Monday, October 6, 2014

Yeah, this birthday definitely didn't suck.

In fact, I'd say it was the best one I've had in a long time : )


So, my last two birthdays were complete disasters, for reasons I don't want to get into. Tempting as it was to spend this one locked in my apartment alone with pizza, beer, and my Xbox, I took the opposite approach instead: So, the universe wants me to keep having crappy birthdays, huh? Well FUCK YOU, UNIVERSE!

I made a few changes to my approach this year: first, the list of people I invited should I put this.....pared down based on demonstrated reliability. In other words, it was Steph, my parents, and my sister, end of list. Second, I planned the whole thing (both weekends) in minute detail, several weeks in advance; and third, I built flexibility into the plan, to handle any last-minute curveballs that could screw it up.

And it

( •_• )

(  •_•)>⌐■-■

(⌐■_■)   worked.

Steph came over on Friday afternoon, and I got my first birthday gifts: a "donut cake" and a new grill, complete with charcoal and tools (in Ninja Turtles wrapping paper, no less!)

The next day, per my plan, Steph and I went to OKC Riversport Adventures at the Boathouse District not far from Bricktown, to ride the epic zipline across the Oklahoma River. To my surprise, there was some sort of Olympic-style international kayaking tournament going on there at the same time, complete with teams from several countries, a large audience, and an announcer with a British accent. Unexpected, but cool - and it didn't interfere with the zipline ride at all.

After that, we stopped for lunch at Akropolis in Midwest City (they make awesome gyros). And after lunch, we went to play laser tag at Laser Quest in northwest OKC. I'm a huge fan of laser tag, but we hadn't been to this one before - I have a slight preference for HeyDay laser tag down closer to Norman, but Laser Quest was still a crapload of fun.

Game 1:
C: 4th out of 34
S: 6th out of 34

Game 2:
C: 5th out of 38
S: 11th out of 38

We went home and I grabbed a quick nap and whatnot. After I woke up, we had stuffed-crust pizza, along with Disaronno, raspberry wine, and Redd's Apple Ale (♫ These are a few of my favorite things... ♫) We also played with Legos and painted random stuff while watching my all-time favorite movie, Inherit the Wind.

Then we / I stayed up until about 4:30am playing Metroid Prime and Red Dead Redemption. So I guess my birthday wound up involving pizza, beer, and Xbox anyway, but in a good way :p

The next day, we went to Stillwater and had sushi with my friend Dani, who bought me an epic Batman shirt at the Scottish festival that was in Oklahoma recently (see photos).

I had to work on my actual birthday, but I went out to lunch (at Akropolis again!) with several of my coworkers. And I recevied lots of birthday wishes via Facebook, of course : )

The following Friday, my parents and sister came to OKC (Steph arrived shortly before they did). So I got the rest of my presents, and my usual carrot cake + peanut butter cup ice cream : )

The other presents were bloody epic, too. Knowing that my birthday gift to myself was a Wii U, my parents got me Mario Kart 8(!!!). My sister's gift, however, made my jaw hit the ground: she bought me a ticket for 15 minutes of playtime with a baby tiger at an Interactive Zoological Park here in Oklahoma. HOLY. FREAKING. CRAP.

I also showed my family the finer points of Red Dead Redmeption (poker, for example). I'll have the review for that unbelievably awesome game up in the next couple weeks or so.

After lunch the next day, we went back to Laser Quest for more laser tag, this time with the whole family playing. It was awesome - my parents had never played real laser tag before!

Game 1:
C: 2nd out of 35 (damn straight!)
D: 8th out of 35
S: 16th out of 35
J: 25th out of 35
G: 31st out of 35

Game 2:
C: 4th out of 31
D: 7th out of 31
S: 10th out of 31
J: 18th out of 31
G: 31st out of 31

We stopped at Sonic on the way home (I got a blackberry Coke Zero, and the carhop said my Mustang was awesome). Then I hit the gym for an epic workout, and came home for a shower. For dinner, we went to HuHot Mongolian Grill in Quail Springs Mall. (I love the CRAP out of that restaurant.)

When we got home, we all created our Mii characters on my Wii U. We also played Apples to Apples, otherwise known as the family-friendly version of Cards Against Humanity.

Steph had to leave early, since she had work at noon. My parents and sister and I had lunch at The Garage, the burger chain that just had a place open up near Midwest City. SO good (with lots of healthy options, no less). After playing some Mario Kart, they all headed back home in the afternoon.

I'm 28 now. Meh? I'm pretty much still a college student, except with no homework or finals and lots of disposable income. Woohoo!

Thanks to everyone who made this birthday kick exponentially more ass than the last two did!  \m/