Vorlonagent

Fortunately for Tedd, EGS tends to file down the sharper corners of life. Reconciliation is a recurring theme in EGS, RE Justin and Melissa.

Ed Verres is not a man to gloat or make a big deal about "being right". His worst sin is viewing Tedd in hetereonormative terms when Tedd doesn't fit in the heteronormative box. He's otherwise been very willing to let Tedd find his way. Verres has never tried to force Tedd act in a certain way to make himself feel more comfortable or interfered in Tedd's research even though he disagrees with Tedd's motives and goals. I think the anticipation leading up to any Tedd-Ed talk will be worse than the actual conversation.

I usually hear it pronounced "treh-boo-sheh" but I sometimes intentionally mispronounce it "treh-bucket"

And skewed by Sarah's perception of what a "car engine" looks like, which could easily be a gritty tangle of steel and rubber tubes.

Completely agreed. Sarah would by default pull back a half-car cutaway but could choose to put a front end on it. The front end would be whatever she imagined, not the car's real front-end, even if Sarah had a photographic memory and know exactly what the entire car looked like. Sarah's no mechanic. There could still be mice running on wheels under the hood.

It's Sarah's spell that occurs in her own mind. If the half-car is stuck, Sarah should be able to un-stick it.

Pandora makes the point that what's keeping the enchantments going is how badly the two girls want to be disguised/hidden. Other things than magical energy can keep an enchantment going. Tedd's research supports this as well. The giant boar ate to support its enchantment, but expectations, desire and emotion can apparently do it too. Which makes sense since emotional state can allow someone to be Marked or even Awaken.

Yep. I wouldn't say "looks too much like" because that implies an artist mistake. I think it's just an artifact of pose, clothes and Dan's "less is more" style. "I'd substitute "looks a whole lot like Susan." That's what Pandora meant by the disguise spell being the "linchpin" It goes and all the others go with it..

Panel 2, yes. My insta-pattern-match subsystem comes back with "Susan". Panels 1 and 3 come back "Rhoda"

McCain is not new to the Senate. He has a track record. I'm going to decide what I think of him from that. I already gave you the only justification I could think of for the shutdown. For any more rationale more than that, you'll have to talk to the Trump Administration. I'll admit the ban made a lot more sense when I thought that Obama had no vetting process in place.

I dunno. I'm not sure the scan part of Sarah's ability does retain information outside it's scan radius. Otherwise it would be in the simulation to begin with, right? Sarah could pull the car out but her imagination might have to supply the details for what the other half is like.

Looks like I'm wrong about US vetting procedures. To be honest I expected something closer to West Germany's "open the floodgates, sort it out later" approach. Amid the forest of liberal stuff I wasn't going to trust I found a year-plus old article on the Heritage Foundation's website which more or less confirmed what you were saying. Were I Trump I might still shut the machinery down for a few months to vet the vetters. We've seen how multiple government agencies have put politics ahead of professionalism trying to undermine Trump. I'd want to insure that the people charged with the vetting process would continue to do an as-good or better job for Trump as Obama. No. All respect to McCain for his military service but these days he's one of the few liberal Republicans left. I'm less familiar with Graham but a quick bit of googling suggests he is similar.

I'd say yes. John Bolton is an exceptional thinker...in my opinion. And just as you might take issue with the 'evidence" my people might cite so might I might find fault with your group's. Fair's fair after all. This is not to say Trump's EO is perfect,. It isn't. Just that I'm unconvinced by the usual suspects saying usual-suspect sorts of things. The last time the Usual Suspects were this down on a conservative's action, it was Iraq in 2006. From the Left we got a nonstop and endless-repeat about how there nothing could save Iraq and it was all hopeless and we should just get out. As with now they had very good, very organized reasons for thinking so and plenty of evidence. The usual Suspects loved the Vietnam metaphor for Iraq. Then GW Bush implemented The Surge to great catcalling and predictions of failure. But it succeeded and succeeded so well that al Queda in Iraq was forced to flee the country for the Taliban-held parts of Pakistan. So forgive me for not putting much stock in the signatories of the Statement you quoted, when they're just parroting the Party Line.

I look at the statement and I just see the Democrat Party line dressed up in some credentials. Who are the republicans on this list? The only names I recognize are all Democrats whose opposition to Trump's EO is expected and thus dismissable as partisanship, plus maybe one Republican elite who don't like Trump or getting a RINO to sign on. I find the assertion that " The overwhelming majority of attacks have been committed by U.S. citizens " to be highly disingenuous, as if it was a white Christian shouting "Allah ackbar" while shooting US soldiers at Fort Hood or it was a couple of truckers who objected to the last "national Draw Mohammed Day" with guns. You can dilute the few true terrorist attacks by finessing what one defines as a "terrorist attack" to make islamic groups the minority. Edit: Look at it from my POV: If I quoted a bunch of Conservative luminaries at you to prove a point against a Democrat, you'd rightly rolleye back at me and say "come on. One Democrat and a bunch of Republicans are supposed to change my mind? Really?" And you'd be right. I'm saying the same thing. To cut any slack with me, you'd need an "Only Nixon could go to China" sort of Republican. If, for example, John Bolton's name were on the list of signatories, that'd make me sit up and take notice.

No it isn't. Once you start talking about a "strong Welfare state", you go far beyond just talking about ACA to Euro-style cradle-to-grave entitlements. I am speaking based on my personal experience on unemployment, yes. And I agree one need not be lazy to run out their unemployment benefits as most statistically do before finding another job. I was on unemployment twice in the 2000s and I ran it out both times and then ran up debt to survive. I have never gotten the hang of changing jobs and don't think I ever will. But at the same time, humans tend do the best when we are paying our own way. When we are capable of taking responsibility for ourselves and caring for ourselves. Being disabled, you have no choice but accept some degree of dependency. Even in your case, you still pursue a career. You still take as much responsibility for your life as you realistically can. What has become clearer to me is one thing society needs to do and doesn't do enough to let the individual flourish, is get out of the damned way. Our government-driven permitized, over-taxed, over-regulated world makes it hardest first on people with good ideas who want to try to make something of them. With churches there's often plenty to choose from. Don't like one, you can usually find another you like better. Government is a monopoly. You can jump from state to state but there are usually long waiting periods before the state regards you as a "citizen" and eligible for services. It's even harder to trade national governments. Canadian entitlement law is structured to *discourage* Americans from moving from the US to Canada. People are expensive. Canada can't afford a huge wave of dependents coming up through its southern border. My main point is dependency is a very soul-corrosive position to be in. Its destructiveness is proportional to the degree of dependency. What light does your own experience shed on this? If in some fantasy world where you were suddenly not disabled tomorrow, would you still accept dependency on others that your disability forces you to accept now? Set aside US "rugged individualism" and the social pressure it exerts on you to say "no". How comfortable would you be with people doing things for you that you could now do for yourself? Agreed, at least in cases of traditional government responsibilities. Some money does need to be pulled out of the economy for those things only government can do. I'd argue that taxation for such purposes be considered a necessary evil. I thought about the "it's not really 'taking money out of the economy' if it gets spent again" argument. On the surface it sounded very compelling. I decided it didn't hold up under scrutiny. See what you think. Thought experiment: I own a business where "only" 60% of every dollar I earn goes back out as non-tax expenses. I have 40% profit I can invest in growing the business, my personal enrichment, whatever. Now add taxes that work out to 20% of my business' income, which cuts my profits by 50%. Even if government turns around and invests every dime of the money it collected from me back into buying goods or services from my business, 80% of my income generated by government spending evaporates into expenses and taxes, so my profits still drop from 40% to 24%. Sure I'm doing more business, but I'm still making less than if government never taxed my business to begin with. With less money to invest on my business, the slower my business grows. Do this economy-wide, the slower the economy grows. Government, therefore, has a responsibility to tax the least it can get away with and still do the things we need it to do. And to keep the list of things it does short and concise as possible. I'm not saying you should or shouldn't have gotten disability. What I am saying is the redistribution is not zero-sum. There is a net economic cost to taxing and spending. It should also be noted that high business profits are not an absolute good above all other things. We still need an economy people can live with, not just one that generates maximum profits at any given moment. We want to be sure that the business treats its employees and its world decently. Therefore government regulation, like taxes, are also an at-times necessary evil, but as with taxes you want government's interference to be as minimal as needed (but no less), and for the same reason. Reduced profitability means reduced economy. You don't do it lightly and must do it when needed. I would strongly disagree with, say, using the EPA as a club to beat businesses over the head with in order to try to bring about some imagined utopian transformation of the US economy. That doesn't work out well for anybody. ...All of this is the long way around saying that when money is taken out of the economy for social services, we want to look at the expenditure really hard. As giving and compassionate as we would all love to be, government compassion always carries the steepest cost, both in terms recipient initiative and collective wealth. Pointing this out is one of the many ways why economics is called "the dismal science" Holes in Keynes are best explained with this rap battle from the early 2000s Some things are worth paying for, but we are under obligation to carefully consider which ones we choose government to fulfill since government spend, especially government spend, comes at a cost. The economy is also about ambition and fulfillment. I want to fulfill my dreams and get paid for it. The economy is not just a money-printing service for the have-nots. It's about reaching for the stars. Too much taxation, too much government regulation destroys the magic. There's a story I heard years ago about a reporter n Cuba whose taxi driver was a doctor. When asked why he was driving a cab, the driver replied, "If driving a cab pays the same as being a doctor, I might as well drive a cab."

I forgot about that...

Ever the detective, there's a good chance Diane knows that Rhoda and Catalina are an item.

The effects shouldn't be too bad. The barrier should just be impenetrable, or alternately one other facet of the simulation that Sarah could manipulate. The worst that could lurk beyond the barrier would be aspects of Sarah's own mind,

The problem with a strong welfare state is government largesse is addicting both to its recipients and politicians controlling it. It destroys recipient drive and self-esteem about proportional to how dependent the recipient is on government. This is before we talk about how people are expensive and government money is money that is removed from the economy, weakening and slowing it. Talk of a guaranteed minimum income only makes these issues worse. The question of what to do with people who honestly cannot afford the care they need is a very thorny one considering the serious negatives attached to government intervention. I have no answer, but the best you'll ever get me to say of the welfare state is some aspects of it may be a necessary evil.

Hopefully for the better...

These two are pros at using dressing rooms for other things than dressing. They'll be fine.

"Turtle mode" is a concern. Obama, operating under the common belief among the US Left that the US is always the problem has pulled back off the world stage quite a bit, and the world is not better for it. I doubt Trump will pull further back. But Trump also is not likely to allow himself to be guided by the UN or the globalists in Europe either. We're going to choose, and if necessary construct from nothing, our own path. It will likely shake some status quos but will be better than what's been on offer. I'm guarded but optimistic about the US improving its own condition. The US economic outlook is brighter now than it's been in over 8 years. Trump has already approved pipelines Obama opposed or let languish, and that should help you gals and guys in Canada out as well.

Agreed, you didn't. "Doing nothing" was a part of my refuting your "feed the enemy propaganda machine" argument. We can do nothing. We can be nice, cute and cuddly as can be--And arab islamic kids will still grow up in crappy conditions and they'll still told Israel and the US are why. Islamic terrorism is indeed a global problem, but in tending to self-defense the US is largely on its own. Our borders, our nation, our responsibility. Other nations can act like Germany and open the floodgates. That's fine for them. We're doing what makes sense to us, which with the Trump Admin, means shutting the gates till we figure out a good way to filter out the bad guys. As questionable as Trump's actions are, they're still far better than playing "global citizen" and ignoring the problem as Obama did. That's a long term solution that's going to take generations to really see fruit. People are trying to kill us now and we need to deal with that now. In the ideal world we do both. We defend ourselves AND we do what we can to change the causes. The problem with changing the causes for terrorism is they are under the control of sovereign nations that see a poorly-educated and easily manipulated populace as a good way to maintain power. What do we do when they don't want to change?

I don't put much stock in "fueling the enemy propaganda machine" as a reason not to do anything. Radical Islam is never going to run out of angry young men who want to kill infidels in the name of Allah. The conditions they grow up in are why they're angry and that's far more under the control of their local governments, who in turn ally with Islamic clergy to put out propaganda deflecting the anger at easy scapegoats: Israel, the US and western civilization in general. It doesn't matter what we do or don't do. Kids raised in crappy circumstances are still going to grow up angry and get a mindful of violent jihad from clergy and government. In short, we're going to get blamed no matter what we do or even if we do nothing. We may as well be blamed for doing the things we need to do to defend ourselves. I agree with you about Yates. There's nothing wrong with having ideological (she might say "moral") issues with Trump's order. That's fine, even expected. She is under no compulsion to serve a Presidency that she so strongly disagrees with. The question from there is how to handle the situation with class and professionalism. The traditional answer is to resign in protest. Yates' chosen method was was as unprofessional as it was public. That's why it looks like a propaganda exercise disguised as a solemn protest to me. RE the details of Trump's order, I completely agree. I think Trump targeted too narrowly. You'd think at least Saudi Arabia and Pakistan (to say nothing of Iran) would be on his shortlist of countries. A broad interpretation of Trump's order would still bar a Syrian refugee from the UK, but not a Syriuan who had naturalized to be a UK citizen. The counterpoint is this is just a stopgap. It's not intended as a permanent solution.

HUGE BIG EDIT. I'm rewriting my rely to make it simpler. At this point either Trump or Yates has abused their office. :I suppose "both" is possible, but I'm going to try and make either-or fly. Yates called Trump out by publicly stating she would not defend his executive order. She needs a damn good reason to depart the normal conventions of her job which is to smooth the way for Trumps real AG. Going public does not do that, hence the need for a damn good reason. If Yates has cause to go public then Trump has abused his office in the form of an illegal or unconstitutional executive order. If he hasn't overreached, Yates' job is to stay out of sight. While there are plenty of people who contend Trump's order is unconstitutional they're armchair lawyers with a partisan axe to grind. Even Yates has admitted there is a case to be made for Trump's order. Right there we have enough evidence to think that Trump's order is not so grievous a thing as to warrant Yates going public. Which means Yates abused her office. Which means Trump has every reason to fire her. I believe Yates was acting out of ideology, using the respect give to "Attorney General" to make Trump and his order look more dictatorial than it actually is. "If the acting AG doesn't like Trump's order, it must be bad". Trump firing her throws fuel on the fire. "Wow Trump's such a dictator that he's firing anyone that won't go along with his unconstitutional orders". Other people are welcome to their POVs. This is mine.