If only inhabitants of fantasy worlds could vote here…

For the Horde! I mean, for OBAMA!

In real life, it's the mental midgets who support McCain.

Lady Tauren FTW

What's with the plethora of WoW related items, PZ? The college crowd is bemoaning that the middle of the quarter is such a terrible time for an expansion...

I've been looking at this map every day and this is the best it's ever been for Obama: Probabilities: Obama 91 McCain 9

The dwarves just empathize with McCain because they know what it is like not to be able to grab at things above a certain height.

this is funny.

The words 'McCaine' and 'intellect' beside each other?
If there ever was an oxymoron, or antonym . . .
- Well, maybe Palin and . . .

I wonder if the McCain campaign is going to somehow manage to twist this into another out-of-touch attack... "Those who are against humanity, are for Obama!"

but i guess with less than 24 hours to go, i won't be seeing that ad :-p

If you spend much time playing, it wouldn't surprise you that Alliance have more idiots than the Horde.

Velithe, 70 Bloodelf Rogue.

Shame on you, naughty PZ.

We dwarf women, famed for our ample bosoms, and voluptuous beards, do not take kindly to having our soaring, over five feet tall persons dismissed as shorty folk.

SC at 2

Yes, mental in every sense of the word, I think.

However, there could be an interesting psychological study into the characters chosen by various groups, as I imagine this is largely a factor of the players worldview, and their own self-image. We might imagine that Republicans or Christians might choose more "human-like" players since they have a more rigid (read; "unrealistically simple") view of "good" and "bad". Dems may be more likely to choose more fantastical creatures as they may well be simply more imaginative overall (seeing things as how they should be, and often proposing more radical solutions to problems than right wingers do).

Still, just a hypothesis really.....

"We dwarf women, famed for our ample bosoms, and voluptuous beards, do not take kindly to having our soaring, over five feet tall persons dismissed as shorty folk."

I MIGHT actually wet myself laughing.

Don't knock all the short people! Gnomes still favored Obama!

My overly-thoughtful reaction was to rationalize that the Horde consists of a very diverse group of races, each with their own agendas and stories, working together for a common goal against a common enemy. Whereas the Alliance is made up basically of all the classically attractive fantasy races which the humans decided to befriend. So maybe Horde players are more tolerant of/into diversity, whereas Alliance players have that more black and white view of the world and can only see themselves as the "good guys" and everyone else as "other."

Also, @bmeissner, Alliance doesn't necessarily have more idiots (across all servers). They just have way more players, so of course they're bound to have more idiots. But I'm not sure the percentage of Alliance idiots is much higher than the percentage of Horde idiots, as someone who regularly plays both factions.

Posted by: Patricia | November 4, 2008 1:51 AM

Shame on you, naughty PZ.

We dwarf women, famed for our ample bosoms, and voluptuous beards, do not take kindly to having our soaring, over five feet tall persons dismissed as shorty folk.

Ohdearme, I have read too much Pratchett, Dwarfs have to undress in order to determine if they are male or female. And dwarfs consider it bad form to admit if they are female.

Careful - we're touchy.

She could be one of the ... new ones.
You know. These people, who ...
They talk about ...
They ...

They have no shame.

Ha'ak

Of course the horde is for Obama. It's only a few decades ago the orcs were under an evil ideology hellbent on the destruction of the entire world (of warcraft). They are probably the biggest fans of atheism in WoW.

All we have to do now is make sure short people aren't allowed to vote in the presidential election.

You mean instigate apart-height?

I'd like to claim that as my own original work but I can't. I don't know if many of you in the US have ever seen the brilliant UK series The Goodies, but it comes from an episode where they parody South Africa but make segregation height-based rather than race-based.

62%?
The "world vote" actually puts Obama a little higher at 87%.

If the world could vote.
http://www.iftheworldcouldvote.com/results

It's simple : Christians feel too much holy to be members of the Horde!

Just kidding, I don't like orcs either.

Gnome rogues for Obama!

LMAO!!!

The funny thing is this actually reflects my personal experience in the game. I got characters on both the Horde and the Alliance. For whatever reason, whenever politics comes up in the trade chat (I gave up long ago trying to get people to use the trade chat for trade) on the Horde side the liberals tend to be dominant will the opposite was the case on the Alliance side.

Also, I would like to note that in battlegrounds each side's organization is completely the ANTITHETICAL of what their names imply. The Horde function generally as a team, relying on one another and having everyone play their part. The Alliance side tends to be a team of disorganized Rambos, everyone off doing their own thing. A libertarian wet dream. The Allys generally get their asses kicked. It doesn't surprise me one bit that the winning side is favoring Obama.

Furthermore, Retribution Paladins need to be nerfed.

But these people aren't going to turn up and vote - they'll be too busy playing World of Warcraft.

It was only a matter of time until someone ran such an item.

No doubt that who (or what) you choose to portray yourself as says something about your personal preferences, at least to some degree. Now, what does it say about me, when I play a Dwarf Hunter AND a Tauren Druid ?

If you spend much time playing, it wouldn't surprise you that Alliance have more idiots than the Horde.

Velithe, 70 Bloodelf Rogue.

Actually, ever since Burning Crusade, there seems to be a steady influx of the Ally idiots into the Horde herd. I'd say that Alliance just has way more people, and thus, a greater raw number of idiots.

But this idea of mine doesn't explain Kansas.

Asherah, 70 Human Mage

Janine you slut, unlacing through a generous beard, over an ample bosom takes time.

Then if you add a can of Squirty Cream - it just all goes henshit!

Good night sweetheart - it's the witching hour here.

"Now, what does it say about me, when I play a Dwarf Hunter AND a Tauren Druid ?"

Erm. You're a short person with bullish stubbornness?
Or you'd like to be more horny?

Heh. Frankly, I think it just means that you're comfortable exploring your inner personalities and freaky facets. I've tons of alts, so I'll go with the "I'm just a more tolerant, curious person!" schtick. ;)

(Can't believe this hasn't been done already)

If you doubt it is possible that McCain will win, how is it there are PYGMIES + DWARFS??!?!

If only inhabitants of fantasy worlds could vote here...

Vote? Hell, a whole campaign full of them is on the verge of losing their bid for the US presidency.

Alliance is the default side, basically. It's where people start. And a lot of people stay there.

If you want to keep exploring the game and finding new things, however, you eventually go horde.

Lets hope the WoWers will be able to tear themselves away from the game long enough to actually go out and vote.

My college sent out an email to the entire community (faculty, staff, and students) that they will be running a shuttle from campus to the polling site starting at 7AM until the polls close.

Vote early and vote often!!!

-DU-

#18 - Considering the game is built on the fantasy of drawing powers from god-like beings to battle against other god-like beings, I would say that, no, atheism is not part of them game.

#24 - Yes, because all gamers are addicts. Ass.

#24 - Yes, because all gamers are addicts. Ass.

Which is fortunate, because, since all gamers are also male, they might otherwise be more likely to vote for McCain, since Obama generally polls better with women. *echoed eyeroll*

This is interesting. I wonder how many other correlations can be found across other groups of people.

CB^3 @24: Like any self-respecting asocial loner hermit I voted by mail last week.

Inky @28: Or maybe I'm a bearded bull ?

:

McCain is a Gnome Warlock ?
Think about it.

Maugrim (#29) FTW!!

Yeah, I reckon the "good guy" races are more popular with conservative players. Not surprising that McCain does better with the Alliance.

Good luck over there. Fingers crossed.

Not sure if the joke has been made but...

...with dwarves being the only group that favored McCain. There's a joke lurking in there, I'm sure...I just can't think what it would be.

Well it does ring true that only people that live under a rock would vote for him...

Posted by: Wowbagger @ 19 "...You mean instigate apart-height?"

Goodies ... goody goody yum yum. Oh I remember it well! After the revolution, the Prime Mini-ster and the entire mini-stry was composed of retired jockeys. My favourite episode though was Goodies Live. Slightly even more off topic, my maternal grandmother's maiden name was Goody. I found it hilarious when I discovered this while doing my family tree.

Wonderful, from WoW to The Goodies in one easy step! Well, as long as your legs are long enough (strides off into the distance).

Just listening to ClassicFM (a radio channel on the east side of the Pond) - "Now, we all know Obama is going to win, so you don't need to stay up all night worrying to watch the results" (or WTTE).

I don't know of anyone over here who thinks that McCain is a good idea (let alone Palin!).

(And Bring Back the Goodies!!)

I was sad, but not suprised, to see Alliance Priests as the most conservative of them all.

Aquinas, 70 Night-Elf Priest

I don't know of anyone over here who thinks that McCain is a good idea (let alone Palin!).

I don't, but I think he's a better idea than Obama (on grounds of economic policy alone).

And I do know some British conservatives who still support McCain - blogger Donal Blaney, for one. Prior to the Palin pick many British people favoured McCain, but Palin really isn't the kind of candidate who appeals in the slightest to non-Americans.

Tonight, it's going to be a landslide victory for Obama ;

1- Min. 6% gap. on popular vote
2- Min. 350 electoral votes for Obama
3- the big surprise would be if Obama could win states such as Georgia, Indiana, Missouri, Montana, North Dakota, and even Arizona ! Then he could break the 400 electoral votes mark.

Tonight, Americans are going to show the world that they have decided to turn the page on the Bush era in a grandiose way.

To CBBB @24:

They may not be playing on Tuesday as much as normal: extended server maintenance day from 3 AM to 11 AM PST (that's 6 AM to 2 PM EST).

And on my day off too.

Applebottom, 70 Night-Elf Rogue

I'm one of those who doesn't like to count chickens until they're hatched so I'm keeping the Wowbagger Happy Dance on hold until the result is incontrovertible.

Sure, it doesn't affect me directly (being in Australia and all) but I know how much better it'll be for the world - as long as the Democrats do what needs to be done. I think the pressure needs to be kept on them so they don't get complacent and let things slide.

Walton wrote:

but I think he's a better idea than Obama (on grounds of economic policy alone).

Doesn't he plan to just keep on doing what the Republicans have been doing the last eight years? That doesn't appear to have worked all that well - unless you're an oil company, Halliburton, or some other big name in the military-industrialist complex.

I do hope we're going to see the end of war profiteering - arguably the most repugnant way to make money. I won't hold my breath, though.

Wowbanger @ 46: I'm one of those who doesn't like to count chickens until they're hatched

You're right.

McCain should have chosen Leeroy Jenkins as his running mate.
At least he has chicken.

I hadn't thought of that.

Wowbagger,

oh but you don't understand, if you are Walton or one of these right wing pundits, you can pretend that the unique cause of the economic crisis are the subprime mortgages, and of course, it's all Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac's fault (hence the democrat's fault).

It's like this, if one calculates the reduction in asset worth between the real estate market and the stock market, we're talking an estimated $ 15 trillion minimum !

Now see, according to these so called rightwing economic experts, all of this devaluation is due to the $ 300 bill. subprime mortgages market, or less than 2% (of which only a small share was carried by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac).

But of course, Walton will say nothing about the shadow banking system, hedge funds, derivatives, CDSs, etc... which was completely deregulated and caused by far the biggest chunk of the financial crisis. This they conveniently chose to ignore.

And what to say about "perfect competition" and the invisible hand theory, when you know that roughly it costs max. $12 to produce a barrel of oil, but speculation and cartels end up yielding the crazy prices / profits we have seen so far ? That theory doesn't seem to have worked that well, has it ? Exxon Mobil made $40 bill profits last year alone.

See, it's easy, if you want to completely deny reality, you can say whatever you want.

If only inhabitants of fantasy worlds could vote here... - PZ

But surely most "libertarians" are Americans?

I'm trying not to be overconfident. I've pretty well had hope beaten out of me over the years, but--I'm 56; these fuckers have stolen half my life, 3/4 of my adult life almost. I want them dead. And not painlessly either! I don't think I can survive another disappointment like 2004 (and I almost had a stroke in 2000!)

I keep flashing back on the sketch on Fridays (ABCs answer to SNL, if anybody remembers it) the Friday before election day 1980. It was a spoof of The Exorcist called Election Night. "When the polls cloooose...the HOOOORRRROR BEGINS!" Truer words were never spoken!

Is anybody but me worried that Bush will simply refuse to relinquish power? Enough of the military would probably go along with it, and he's essentially been governing by Executive Decree for 8 years now....

Tagentally on topic...
http://somehedgehog.livejournal.com/245807.html

Patricia,

We dwarf women, famed for our ample bosoms, and voluptuous beards,

LOL! Why am I not thinking facial hair?

Excellent! A post that makes me feel like less of a nerd! Thanks, PZ!

(Oh, I kid the gamers!)

Real, live spelling-pronunciation in the wild. It's not a WIV-VERN, it's a WHY vern.

Posted by: Walton | November 4, 2008 4:33 AM

I don't, but I think he's a better idea than Obama (on grounds of economic policy alone).

This is an example of an assertion that cries out for valid supporting arguments. In all means of measure, Obama has outperformed McCain in his response to this economic crisis:

1. He showed restraint and patience before laying out a plan, while McCain "suspended" his campaign to race back to Washington to ensure the passage of the bailout - which resulted in its defeat the first time around.

2. He has surrounded himself with advisors far superior to McCain's, such as Robert Reich and Robert Rubin who were key advisors to Clinton during his Presidency. (And I shouldn't have to point out that our economy was pretty good in those days.) To be fair, repealing the Glass-Stegall Act was the one blemish during that time period that contributed to our current situation, but that fact actually hurts McCain, because the main proponent of that action in Congress was Phil Gramm, McCain's now infamous advisor who displayed his arrogance with his "nation of whiners" and "mental recession" comments to the media.

3. Even a cursory examination of the two candidates' economic plans as related on their websites reveals the fact that McCain's plan is lacking in the area of outlining exactly how his specific initiatives will help middle class Americans, whereas Obama's plan clearly lays out the benefits to that group. This is even more ironic considering the fact that McCain constantly rails on Obama for being heavy on rhetoric yet light on substance.

Walton, don't take any of this as being conveyed in a condescending tone, because I certainly don't mean it that way. As I've told you before, I was a staunch Republican not too long ago, and there are still a few points, albeit not many of them, on which I agree with the conservative consensus. But in light of both their plans (as far as the candidates have expressed them) and their actions in response to the economic crisis, I just cannot see how you could honestly deduce that McCain would be a better overall choice to guide the recovery of our economy. Remember - McCain has not only been in Congress for well over two decades, he has been a prominent and senior member for many of those years, serving in powerful positions on many different committees, to include being the Chairman of the Senate Commerce Committee.

Honestly, even aside from the economic issues, do you not see a major liability in having a President who is so very prone to committing major gaffes in full public view? (Not to mention the fact that he chose as his VP nomineee an individual who is woefully underprepared for the office she seeks.) He has already made a great deal of these mistakes already in his campaign, which begs the question: How many more will we see should he win four years in the White House?

To me, this election involves many different vital issues, but it mainly centers around one task that will surely become the new administration's foremost mandate - to restore the American image, both domestically and abroad, that has been destroyed over the course of the past eight years. Knowing that, it seems very unwise to choose a candidate that has aligned so closely with the administration responsible for demolishing that image, as proven by his voting record. McCain himself has said it best in his attacks on Obama that words are words, but a candidate's record is what really matters.

When you look at both candidates' voting records on those issues that are pertinent to the situation we now find ourselves in as a nation (the war in Iraq, the deregulation frenzy that led to our current economic freefall, the importance of prudent and comprehensive diplomacy in dealing with the rest of the world, etc...), it is clear that Senator Obama comes across as reasonable and prudent, while McCain has been reactionary (re: his assertion that he would fire the SEC Chairman even though a President does not have that power), inconsistent (re: his assertion that the "fundamentals of our economy are strong" while soon after claiming that the economy is "cratering"), and at times even volatile (re: his knee-jerk, belligerent rhetoric towards Russia in response to the Georgian crisis...not to mention his obvious conflict of interest in that case, evidenced by the fact that one of his top foreign affairs advisors, Randy Scheunemann, was a lobbyist working on behalf of Georgia while also advising McCain).

I'm honestly interested to hear why you think McCain would be a better choice for the economy, much less any other issue facing the next President.

All this does is demonstrate that liberals enjoy being evil (or are more likely to have multiple WoW accounts), I haven't decided which.

In other news: Dwarves cry foul on the basis of voter fraud and disenfranchisement. (Unable to reach the levers)

Posted by: Lurkbot | November 4, 2008 5:40 AM

Is anybody but me worried that Bush will simply refuse to relinquish power? Enough of the military would probably go along with it, and he's essentially been governing by Executive Decree for 8 years now....

While I certainly do share the same apprehension concerning the prospect of Bush and the GOP doing anything and everything within their means to hold onto the reins of power, I can assure you that he would not be able to count on the military to do his dirty work for him. He may get some of the higher level General officers to be sympathetic to his desires, but he'd be insane to think that he could successfully order the military to do anything as unconstitutional as enforcing his retention of the Oval Office. Even considering how far this administration has regressed our national ideals and identity, I believe we are safely past the days in which a politician can successfully use our nation's military to wrest control away from the people by force, a la Julius Caesar. (As always, I could be wrong on this, but I can tell you from firsthand experience that the Army is definitely not the overwhelmingly Republican-friendly organization that the likes of Bush and Rove would have you believe it is. While there definitely are political ideologues within the Army's ranks, especially at the high command level, the majority of us signed up to defend our national principles, not subvert them for the benefit of a political party.)

In the event that Bush would be dumb enough to try such a thing (and believe me, I definitely don't put it past him and his ilk), I believe he would not only be rebuffed by soldiers and civilians alike, but he would also be committing a crime of such magnitude that not even his Rovian political machine could prevent him from being brought up on charges of treason. Because using our nation's military on our own citizens is the very definition of treason, and no amount of spin or political maneuvering would be able to save him from an action like that.

In light of these WoW poll results, is it any wonder that the Federal Government recently advanced the idea that WoW is the perfect arena for terrorists to plan attacks, and then used that assertion to suggest that these online spaces need to be subject to monitoring by the government?

Hey, after all this exaggerated bullshit about ACORN possibly "destroying the fabric of democracy," I'm not putting anything past the bastards...

Is anybody but me worried that Bush will simply refuse to relinquish power? Enough of the military would probably go along with it, and he's essentially been governing by Executive Decree for 8 years now....

Well, Bush could always declare a state of national emergency in the case of for instance a US/ Israël /iran war under the NSPD 51 directive that he has signed into law in may 2007 ;
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/05/20070509-12.html

But honestly, I don't think this is going to happen anymore, the guy is tired, he wants his retirement, go and enjoy his ranch and forget about power.

We dwarf women, famed for our ample bosoms, and voluptuous beards - Patricia

Do you tuck the voluptuous beard down the cleavage, or fork the beard and train each half to curl seductively round one of the nipples? (I'm assuming dwarfs do only have two nipples.)

Just idly speculating...

The most frightning thing about this NSPD 51 is that Bush managed to pass it into law which basically gives him the possibility of a coup d'etat by national emergency, which doesn't seem very constitutional to me, and this seems to have never been challenged by anybody so far ...

Strange country you have there....

Is anybody but me worried that Bush will simply refuse to relinquish power? Enough of the military would probably go along with it, and he's essentially been governing by Executive Decree for 8 years now... - Lurkbot

No. Apart from the reasons given by brokenSoldier and negentropyeater, even the neocons around Bush would not support such a move, for pragmatic rather than moral reasons. They will concentrate on covering up their crimes, laying as many booby-traps for Obama as possible (on top of the huge obstacle of the financial crisis, which is bound to generate a serious recession at best - Obama will need to be both brilliant and lucky not to be a one-term President), and on fighting with other factions (theocrats, "libertarians", pragmatists) over who gets to control the Rethuglican Party.

Obama will need to be both brilliant and lucky not to be a one-term President

Bet you he makes two terms !

Don't know why, but something tells me he's going to be remembered as one of America's greatest presidents.

Ah well, I really like the guy...

Didn't Ron Paul win the WoW republican primary?

We all know the Gnomes have rigged the voting machines anyway. I also heard that the Arathi Highlands have re-zoned to include SouthShore in their voting tally!!!

As a nominally independant undead, I was keen to support the further torture of Guantanamo *cough* POW's *cough*, alas the world changes and I'm a rotting skeleton.

Torquemada Undead Warlock 70, Aszune.

#45 Applebottom, 70 Night-Elf Rogue

Applebottom!!

Soz u must di by fire.

I second Feynmaniac; My main is a 70 Dwarf Pally on Greymane (part of one of the best dang pvp battlegroups in the serververse, if you don't mind me saying) and whenever politics comes up on the alliance side there are, invariably, many more libertarian responses that either conventional republican or democrat ones. Having said that, those from the right who do respond tend to be more fanatical that either the libbies or the democrats. And, as Feyn said, in pvp the alliance players 70% of the time just runs around trying to play the hero instead of grouping up and doing what they need to win (except in Alterac Valley).

The odd thing is that, in world pvp, those roles are reversed. I guess Allie team players mostly do quests and instances whereas Horde team players mostly do pvp.

Nerdette: Actually, the light was originally an atheistic idea which, with the BC expansion, was retconned to include a more theistic element through the Naaru. In the Warcraft I, II, and pre-BC lore, and to some extent in the Diablo lore as well, paladins could only draw power from the Light by being notably good people dedicated to helping others. The idea was that, by being a thoroughly good and selfless person, individuals would naturally gain an ability to channel the creative and positive forces of the universe, and that the order of the Silver Hand was simply a gathering of these individuals dedicating to beating back the Horde invasion. This is really a simplification, and there's allot more on the issue that could be said, but I doubt that it would be a subject of great interest on a science blog.

brokensoldier: I think the episode to which you refer is more a case of newly hired, non-Arabian or Urdu-speaking CIA "security" analysts trying to justify their continued employment than an instance of the gov trying to inject regulation into WoW, but I could be wrong.

Hmm, for some reason I seem to be writing that in the place of than today. Sorry for any confusion.

negentropyeater@63,
Well, I didn't say he wouldn't be both brilliant and lucky! He had to be a brilliant campaigner to get to where he is, and he was certainly lucky that the crash happened when it did and not a year later. (Plenty of people foresaw something of the kind happening, but no-one can predict just when or how such turning points will occur in complex systems.)

Short people aren't allowed to vote?! But we Frodologists, worshipers of Frodo, have our ranks peopled by hobbits and hobbit-wannabees! We plan to vote for McCain en masse. We feel it will be easier to convert to a Frodologist state from a Republican Christian state than from a Democratic sensible one.

Horde prefers Obama? One possible explanation...

Players who prefer Horde characters (M = 27.5, SD = 8.0) tend to be slightly younger than players who prefer Alliance characters (M = 28.7, SD = 8.6).

Players who prefer the Horde score significantly higher on the Advancement, Competition, and Mechanics motivations than players who prefer the Alliance. In other words, players who prefer the Horde tend to be more achievement-driven, more likely to enjoy provoking and challenging each other, and more likely to be min-maxers.

Not sure what this would mean in terms of effect on voting, honestly. I suspect the youth has more to do with it.

On the other hand, players who prefer the Alliance tend to score higher on the Role-Playing and Customization motivations than those players who prefer the Horde

Ah, more role-playing, makes sense. Dwarves in particular are often portrayed in fantasy as conservative, and I wouldn't be surprised if those playing dwarves were more likely to have a conservative mindset.

whenever politics comes up on the alliance side there are, invariably, many more libertarian responses that either conventional republican or democrat ones.

Makes sense. Fantasy worlds are, after all, the natural habitat of "libertarians".

Favorite line?

"McCain would be a dwarf warrior... he's short and he holds a lot of agro"

LOL

Nick Gotts:

But surely most "libertarians" are Americans?

Most certainly. Many libertarians were republicans until a few weeks ago. Once they saw the likely outcome of the election, they turned and ran from the republican party, and now claim they were never members, and are in no way responsible for the flawed, not-free-market-enough policies of Bushco. The easy comparison is with nazis post-WWII, but making any kind of nazi analogy in an online post is considered bad form, and I would never do that.

We [hobbits] plan to vote for McCain en masse. FrodoSaves

In that case, I reckon McCain's got it in the Bag End!

In my experence, the only ones who vote for McCain, are somewhat of a dumbass to begin with; remember the Alliance is populated by kids.

But surely most "libertarians" are Americans?

Of course. And not just because the particular word isn't used much outside the USA.

"But these people aren't going to turn up and vote - they'll be too busy playing World of Warcraft."

The servers are normally down on Tuesdays for maintenance. They can get out to vote until they come back online.

The easy comparison is with nazis post-WWII - Epikt

Naw - after all, the "ex"-Nazi's didn't for the most part complain that Hitler had been too soft on the Jews and leftists, and not aggressive enough in his foreign policy! Though this does remind me of the joke about Hitler being discovered alive by a group of devoted Nazis in 1950, hiding out in Paraguay. They try to persuade him to attempt a comeback, for a long while he's reluctant, but in the end says:

"Vell alright, alright! But zis time, no more mister nice guy!"

Julian - True, but it doesn't stop at the Light. The dragon aspects, the Earth Mother, even that giant eyeball, C'Thun and the peacock, Hakkar. Theist aspects in terms of paladins may have been absent, but there are plenty of other sources.

To brokenSoldier at #55:

You make a fair point about Obama's temperament and intellect, and I do have a lot of respect for him as a person. He was certainly the best choice out of the leading Democrat candidates (I'm glad the nominee wasn't Hillary or Edwards, for instance).

I'd also be the first to concede that McCain isn't perfect. He's picked one of the most incompetent running mates in GOP history, and he has at times talked absolute nonsense while pandering to the party base. I'm under no illusion that he's the ideal candidate. (FWIW, he was a much better candidate in 2000.)

But I'll explain the reason for my preference. We live in dangerous economic times; in a recession, the temptation for governments, under pressure from industries, corporations and labour unions, is always to use protectionism, state support and other anti-free market measures in order to "protect jobs". As most reputable economists agree, free international trade is an incredibly important goal; more tariffs, subsidies and protectionist policies would constitute a dangerous step backwards. I am concerned by Obama's use of protectionist rhetoric in the Democratic primaries; backed by a solidly Democratic Congress (which seems virtually certain), he may well cave to union pressure and move away from free trade in favour of protectionist policies. Likewise, he may well give way to the clamouring voices mistakenly asserting that "deregulation" and "greed" (rather than failed government and monetary policies) are the cause of the present financial crisis, and hamper the American financial markets with more red tape and state control, thereby making America less competitive globally. And he seems amenable to the idea of raising America's (already punishingly high) levels of corporation tax, which, again, would drive business overseas and hamper the economy.

Don't get me wrong. Given Obama's undoubted intellect and impressive educational background, I'm sure he fully appreciates the benefits of free trade and the free market in principle - but I am concerned that, in the worst-case scenario, he might, as a politician, cave to popular protectionist sentiment and to special interests.

Even so, if this were Obama v Palin, I'd be a reluctant Obama supporter. Whatever his failings on substantive policy, Obama is not an idiot, nor is he unaware of how to deal with crises. With Palin, we simply don't know how she'd react to, say, a major international incident; she hasn't been in the public eye for long enough, and her public statements thus far indicate that she is either pandering to anti-intellectual sentiment (which would be bad in itself) or, worse, that she is actually unaware of vast swathes of economic and foreign policy, and proud of her own ignorance. So I've been hugely disappointed by McCain's choice of running mate, as well as some of his policy shifts.

I've got a dwarf and I'm about to head out to vote for Obama. Of course she's a female dwarf rogue, which is apparently about the rarest thing you can be, so I'm probably out of the dwarven mainstream. Maybe all those NRA-member hunters skew the results?

But surely most "libertarians" are Americans?... Of course. And not just because the particular word isn't used much outside the USA.

I'm not sure this is true. Here in the UK, though our "Libertarian Party" was only established last year and is still very small, there are an increasing number of MPs and activists within the mainstream Conservative Party who identify expressly as libertarians. At my university, a majority of the Conservative Party activists I know are, I would say, broadly libertarian in outlook. It's a growing movement, which is increasingly supplanting the more traditional, socially-conservative right wing in UK politics (the "Tory Taliban", as they're sometimes labelled).

I imagine (though I'm not sure) that the term is used a lot less in mainland Europe, since "liberal" on the Continent tends to connotate free-market libertarian, rather than leftist, beliefs. (The FDP in Germany are described as "liberal", for instance.)

The only reason we even use the cumbersome word "libertarian" at all is because the word "liberal" has been hijacked, in the US and to a lesser extent in the UK, by the left. Those of us who are liberals in the nineteenth-century sense, standing in the tradition of J.S. Mill and believing in both personal and economic liberty and limited government, have to use a term to identify ourselves. "Conservative" doesn't cut it, because the word "conservative" doesn't actually signify a specific ideology; rather, it denotes a position relative to the traditional political and social culture in one's context. Thus the conservatives of the nineteenth century were those who wanted to retain monarchy and aristocratic rule, while those who advocated for limited government were called liberals; and similarly, a hard-line Stalinist in the late Soviet Union could easily be labelled "conservative". I am a "conservative" in the same sense that Reagan and Thatcher were conservatives; but my core ideology, being that of individual freedom and limited government, is a libertarian one.

That's the result of a long atheist culture on Horde side.
Not long ago paladins weren't even allowed amidst horde ranks, I've seen a lot of paladin (hearth)stonings back in the old days.
We do have shamans tho, and they do pretend to walk on water but let's face it: they are just a bunch of hippies.

About the dwarves, what can you expect from them? They are usually paladins or priests. And if a dorf ain't some religious extremist then he is a hunter meaning that he'll vote for Palin faster than you can say "Moose!"

@ brokensoldier:

Thanks for your reassurances; you obviously know more about today's armed forces than I do. I was just worried that since some have reported that Nixon was considering something of the kind, Dubya would be even more likely to.

And I've spent the last 8 years going:"Man, I thought I hated Nixon, but what wouldn't you give to have Nixon back right now?"

@ Walton:

"(T)he clamouring voices mistakenly asserting that "deregulation" and "greed" (rather than failed government and monetary policies) are the cause of the present financial crisis" are 100% correct, and you and the doctrinaire Smithist laissez-faire, dog-eat-dog, let-'em-eat-cake, robber-baron-capitalist dingbats are absolutely wrong, just a clusterfuck of wrong; you've driven the world off a cliff, and are screaming "get rid of that pesky gravity and we'll be OK!" all the way to the bottom. You're going down big time!

At my university, a majority of the Conservative Party activists I know are, I would say, broadly libertarian in outlook. It's a growing movement, which is increasingly supplanting the more traditional, socially-conservative right wing in UK politics - Walton

Walton, exactly the same was being said some 20 years ago. These student "libertarians" become bankers, brokers, businessmen, barristers etc., and turn into ordinary Tories, far more concerned with maximising their personal wealth than abstract "free market" principles. It's the most self-indulgent form of adolescent rebellion known. Keep this comment, and look at it again in ten years time!

#24: Actually, it's a patch day, so WoW will be down for much of the day. Might as well vote.

Walton,

in other words, let's continue with the same failed economic policies as GWBush for another four years....

Of course, when one is dogmatically determined to ignore reality and to consider that the causes of the economic crisis are government interventions and monetary policies rather than the obvious laissez faire policies, it's sure that one is going to get everything fundamentally wrong.

Again Walton, you don't seem to want to answer my question in post #48, this crisis will have caused a reduction in asset value of something like $ 15 trillion between housing and stocks, you tell me how that's due to government policies and not just greed and speculation on the most completely deregulated market that was the shadow banking system.

Nick Gotts - While those are nice fashion suggestions, usually I braid some beads into my fantasy beard, and sprinkle it with glitter and perfume.

I'm rather disappointed, I expected the Incubus and Succubus to show up over night trailing some demons and imps.

I know it's been mentioned before, but this: http://www.iftheworldcouldvote.com/results is pretty nifty. Approximately 800 000 votes worldwide so far, and the map is pretty much all blue. Not as interesting as WoW, of course (no dwarves, for example), but still rather cool.

Not as interesting as WoW, of course (no dwarves, for example), but still rather cool.

Sure there are, have you been to Scotland?

/ducks

Tried to find the source for the WoW poll results on the machinima site, but couldn't find anything. I'm curious how that poll was conducted or if the video creators just made up the data. It would be interesting to see if their truly are correlations among the various races & classes and their political leanings.

Oh and let me just say this--FOR THE HORDE!

@DW: They've interviewed the level 2 "monyplspls" dwarves in Ironforge :). In particular they were all very worried that Obama we'll increase the drop chance of epix.

There was an amazing spoof of Joe the Plumber, where Big Mean Blizzard wanted to take away poor Joe the Paladin's ret buffs.

Sadly, I can't find it anymore.

The important thing is that Blizzard's pally nerf plan is really just a way to redistribute the buffs to other classes that have not been so fortunate. Joe Pally has plenty to share.

Vote Thrall-Vol'jin 2008!

Vote YES on Proposition 12 (Allowing Adam to cuddle dwarves)

This video just proved what I suspected ever since I started playing and took a chance on being Horde. I noticed right away that Horde players tend to be more fair, just, and intelligent. While I won't make a blanket statement saying all Horde are awesome and all Alliance suck, the majority I have met on both sides have continually proven this point to me. It's a REALLY interesting subject, actually. A friend of mine in high school wrote her college thesis on a similar subject, but related to Morrowind.

@97: "Vote Thrall-Vol'jin 2008!"

Nah, the whole medicinal herb issue would make Vol'jin unelectable. And Thrall-Windrunner... Talk about skeletons in the closet! Clearly the choices for VP are Bloodhoof for the more balanced ticket or Saurfang for the more kick ass ticket.

Although the Thrall-Proudmore unity ticket...

I voted for Obama, and I play Horde. Notably everyone in my Republican family plays Alliance. (So sometimes I play a Draenei so I can play with my fam, but my primaries are HORDE!!!!)

Notably, when my dad started playing, and I asked if he could roll up a Horde character to play with me, he said he didn't want to play "the bad guys". (If he'd read his lore, he'd know that the Horde and the Alliance have cooperated a number of times, and the Taurens, for example, tend to be nature-lovin' hippies. But no....they look scary and not attractive to him, so they are the Bad Guys.)

Hell. Real good joke just came to me.

Q: If evolution is true, why are their pygmies and Dwarfs?

A: So someone would vote for McCain.

'...with dwarves being the only group that favored McCain.'

If you've ever played the game, you would know that the number one favorite pastime of dwarves is supposed to be drinking. Heavily. Maybe that explains this little abberation.

@23,

ROFLMAO "libertarian wet dream"

Man I do love the comments here.

Way to go Obama.

FOR THE HORDE!!!

Walton @ 83:

It alarms me that you'd prefer a politician that is willing to compromise his own judgement and pander to his party's base (all the while accusing his opponent of being a slave to his own party) leading this country. It is exactly because we are in such dire straits that we need someone with the temperament necessary to navigate the waters ahead.

And your assertions about both Obama's "protectionism" and the US's "punishingly high" corporate tax rates are misinformed. While the base corporate tax rate in America is high, we are also one of the only countries who allows corporate entities to enjoy so many tax breaks and loopholes that they actually end up paying less taxes than they would in other countries, especially when we allow them extra tax breaks for such "free trade" actions as moving plants overseas to take advantage of cheaper labor and lower material and overhead expenses.

To insist that the companies that comprise our economic base should create and maintain jobs here in the country that has allowed them to grow so properous is far from "protectionism." It is, simply put, good economic sense. The problem here is that the current model of free trade so successfully peddled by the GOP in recent years is really a sytem that allows these companies to reap all of the economic benefits the USA provides them, while leaving the workers of this country hanging out to dry in order to cut costs and enlarge their profit margin. The protectionism we need to move away from is our current culture of pandering to corporate and other monied interests at the expense of the middle class.

McCain sought to maintain this system, while Obama railed against it. And tonight, the voters made their choice between the two.

brokenSoldier at #105: It's rather too late to be having this argument now, admittedly, but I must respond to a couple of points.

...especially when we allow them extra tax breaks for such "free trade" actions as moving plants overseas to take advantage of cheaper labor and lower material and overhead expenses... To insist that the companies that comprise our economic base should create and maintain jobs here in the country that has allowed them to grow so properous is far from "protectionism." It is, simply put, good economic sense.

While they shouldn't get tax breaks for it, I fully support allowing companies to move their operations overseas where it's more economic to do so. Global free trade and unrestricted competition is the last, best hope to reduce poverty in our world. Consumer capitalism is the greatest force for good in the world today.

Yes, America will lose manufacturing jobs, just as Britain has done. We can't compete in those areas with China and India; we just don't have the abundant supply of labour or other competitive advantages. Our economic future (of both the US and the UK) is in the service and financial sector, high-tech industry and scientific research, and other economic activities that rely on innovation and high educational levels.

As Adam Smith outlined so long ago, the most efficient economic model is free trade; allowing each country to produce what it's best at, and to trade freely overseas without tariffs, barriers or restrictions. It's good for everyone in the long run. It makes consumer goods cheaper and more readily available, raising living standards; and it provides much-needed jobs and economic opportunities in developing countries, allowing them to diversify their economic bases beyond agriculture. (This has been a great boon over the last few generations to much of eastern Asia, for instance.)

If America does really want to keep manufacturing jobs, the answer isn't protectionism; rather, it's a more flexible and competitive labour market, with fewer restrictions on employer-employee relations and less union power. But if that isn't palatable, America ought to face the reality that it is no longer economic to carry out much manufacturing in the United States, or indeed in any OECD country. Rather, the American economy has to focus on the areas in which it does have a competitive advantage. Manufacturing is not the only important source of wealth creation.

I do respect Senator Obama's intellect, and his educational background is beyond question; he's also been advised by numerous free-trade economists. I have hope that he understands the benefits of capitalism, and will ultimately support NAFTA and free international trade, rather than caving to the special interests of threatened industries and unions. He's a pragmatic and astute politician, and unlike many of his predecessors I do think he has genuine moral integrity. So I wasn't devastated by the outcome of this election, by any means. But I still like and respect Senator McCain; his concession speech was very moving, and I think it's a shame that he missed his last shot at the presidency.

Let's just hope Palin doesn't get nominated in 2012. She's a walking, talking advertisement for the worst, basest and most anti-intellectual elements of the Republican party - who, I fear, may increasingly take over the weakened party in the next four years, along with religious-right wingnuts like James Dobson. It's a shame that the GOP seems to have abandoned the great tradition of libertarian and conservative philosophical thought in America - from Jefferson to Reagan - and moved towards a narrow, sectarian and divisive perspective.

Loss union power? My union is damn near powerless, being in Arizona, there are rules to "prevent" anyone knowing who gets payed what in the company, so people don't find out how screwed they are getting, and, despite those rules, I just found out that because I am living where I am, instead of in Phoenix, I am being payed close to 50% ***less*** for the same fracking job, because the company says I am not worth the wages. Some of us need "more" union interference, not less. Other places... the unions are too powerful. But, in the end, allowing "wage negotiation" like you suggest has, in every time it was allowed in the past, led to people being cajoles, threatened, or pushed into taking more than they where worth, or could afford to live from. Its the whole fracking reason the government thought up the "federal minimum wage" in the first place, and the fact that "that" is lower than it sanely should be is "precisely" the result of people lobbying to prevent it being raised, because they don't want to pay people anything.

That should have been ((less than they where worth)) in there. Was trying to type it all in the 2 minutes I had before going out the door to work, so didn't double check myself. :p

On a side note. Had an interesting talk with dear dad right before leaving, and about half way there. Started out with him babbling, "Guess you buddy won.", followed by my trying to point out that I would have preferred someone else, but just not McCain, and why, to which I got, in this order:

1. All the poor black people and Mexicans are not going to be helped as much as they think by him.

Protested that, but a bit floored by the idiocy of the statement, so, somehow:

2. Blah blah blah, those people that dodged the draft in the 60s should have never been allowed back into the country. McCain will is better for what he "did" and survived than you will ever be.

Attempt to protest that Vietnam wasn't all some people would like it to be and that what McCain did wasn't a valid reason to vote for the guy, follow by:

3. A bit angry, "Well, true, but if we don't fight them some place else, we will be fighting them here, and without Korea and Vietnam we would all be speaking Russian."

Hmm. Thought that would have been Chinese, but.. WTF are you smoking at this point? But, at this point I sort of tried to get out of the conversation, only to get:

4. Just look at the Muslims now.

I just stopped talking at all and refused to rise to this one.

But seriously, its like his generation are still mired in a) racism, even when trying damn hard to not be racist, b) mired in "beat up the bully to make him stop" 1950s crap, which somehow fails to connect in their mind with innocent dead people, the shrinking of the time it takes for retaliation when pissing people off, or the fact that it just makes you the new bully, and c) an obsession, at least in the US, with thinking that everyone that doesn't like the US for some reason is hiding a name tag under their coat that reads Hirohito or Hitler, so anything we do to "appose" those that don't subscribe to the American ideal deserves "anything" we do to them, and anyone that apposes it is "a traitor", even if what is being apposed is grand stupidity, mass murder, a complete failure to try to sway people to being nice some other way, and a total disinterest in **any** consequences of acting this way.

Guess who, despite being registered Democrat, he voted for...

Kagehi at #107: I see your point, but I disagree. The fact is that, in a competitive world, businesses, money and jobs will go wherever it is most economic to go. If any given jurisdiction has an inflexible labour market, with powerful unions and strict minimum wage laws, then businesses will simply leave, and take their money and their jobs somewhere else - or, if they can't do this, they'll simply go out of business, because they can't compete with businesses in other jurisdictions who have lower labour costs. Conversely, business-friendly moves - like cutting taxes or reforming labour market regulation - can attract business and promote sustained economic growth.

The only way to prevent this from happening would be protectionism - which is both immoral and economically wrong. Tariffs and subsidies aid a particular industry or sector of the population at the expense of everyone else; and they distort the market and distort prices. They are also very unfair on producers in the Third World, which often rely on exporting products to Western markets, and whose governments simply can't afford to protect their domestic industries to the same degree.

The ideal would, therefore, be compulsory worldwide free trade, with no government having the power to impose tariffs on foreign imports (just as individual US states and individual EU Member States cannot impose tariffs on imports from one to another). This would lead to a period of worldwide economic growth and, within a few decades, to the end of the current gross wealth inequities between countries. Farmers in the US and EU, deprived of their government protection, would be hit hard (and would be forced to be more efficient in order to compete, therefore leading to lower food prices for everyone); but farmers in the Third World would benefit massively, from being able to compete equally in the US and European marketplace. But all of this is, of course, absolutely infeasible in practical terms.

"The ideal would, therefore, be compulsory worldwide free trade, with no government having the power to impose tariffs on foreign imports... This would lead to a period of worldwide economic growth and, within a few decades, to the end of the current gross wealth inequities between countries." Walton

Oh for crying out LOUD, Walton, surely even YOU cannot believe this ludicrous nonsense? What it would lead to is a "race to the bottom", with falling wages, countries forced to remove health and safety and environmental protections, suppression of unions, and effectively everything owned by a small global elite. Oh, but of course! Silly me, that is exactly what you and your fellow "libertarians" want!

Unfortunately for you, it would probably also generate an economic crash as the purchasing power of the great majority fell along with their wages; while the removal of environmental protections would lead to disaster of a different kind.

Our economic future (of both the US and the UK) is in the service and financial sector, high-tech industry and scientific research, and other economic activities that rely on innovation and high educational levels. - Walton

You've never heard of call-centres, have you Walton? Or the Indian software industry? Or the fact that China and India have vast numbers of graduates in science and technology? good grief you keep parroting these rightwing nostrums, and in practically every comment, reveal your ignorance of what has happened or is happening in the real world. Don't you think it might be a good idea to acquire a little more familiarity with the facts before committing yourself so totally to an ideology?