James

[quote name='Morpheus']Anyone that thinks that Barack Obama is just a bunch of fluff with no real political positions needs to actually read about him sometime instead of watching a speech and assuming that that is all he has to say.[/QUOTE] [font=franklin gothic medium]Well, luckily I have not expressed that view here. In the same vein as your comment though, I will say that anyone who thinks this is all about passing off Obama as nothing but fluff needs to actually pay attention to the distinctions being drawn. This is about media and its emphasis on politicians (or ignoring of politicians). The whole idea is to get [i]away[/i] from pointless generalizations. This is why Obama does himself a massive disservice by frequently emphasizing hollow messages in his speeches. I'm 100% certain that he has distinct policy objectives and ideas (as I've seen him discuss them), so that is not at issue. The issue is how the politicians present themselves, how the media represents/misrepresents them and how large groups of people are swayed not by legitimate policy debate but by starry-eyed, quasi-religious rhetoric.[/font]

[quote]Generally I do this to get a balanced perspective on domestic politics... sometimes we get so wrapped up in things here, we fail to take a step back and observe it more objectively. So if I feel a story has become convoluted or skewed, I check it against its BBC counterpart.[/quote] [font=franklin gothic medium]Heh, the BBC is pretty good but it isn't always terribly balanced when it comes to US politics. Anyway, I read a wide variety of sources. I choose to read some newspapers on the internet, such as The Australian (National), The Daily Telegraph (Sydney) or The Age (Melbourne). I never really read comics in newspapers though. I sometimes read local stories, but I generally read national news, international news or columns. Columns are definitely my favourite. Other than that I read some general news sites, like News.com.au (which links in with several online papers). I also sometimes read Time if I can be bothered getting it (although for some reason I don't prefer to read the online version of Time). And other than those sources I read a lot of gaming industry based stuff (everything from IGN and GameSpot to GamesIndustry and Engadget). Out of everything I really do prefer columns, especially those related to political issues. I like to read multiple perspectives on political issues, as well as different views on major issues of the day. And I [i]love[/i] reading about foreign policy and international issues.[/font]

[quote]I don't consider him visionary, far from it. I merely consider him the lesser of two evils as it's often referred to. [/quote] [font=franklin gothic medium]That's interesting. I think many people [i]do[/i] consider him a visionary, even though you don't. Still, lesser of two evils is very telling.[/font] [quote]I'm disappointed in all of the candidates to be honest, so no hype here. Obama has a lot of fluff in what he says just as Clinton has a lot of sticking to things that haven't worked in hers, something I'll address in a moment.[/quote] [font=franklin gothic medium]I just tend to think that fluff is worse than having concrete things to say. The worst part about it, though, is the way the media has pedalled it. Those people who are informed about their political leaders are at an advantage and I think it's always good to be informed - it's just a shame that so many people are getting swept along with largely manufactured hyperbole.[/font] [quote]Who's to say her ability to govern is actually any good though? My deciding factor is that she has policies she wishes to see put into play that I don't agree with, universal health care being the first. Even if her demeanor was perfect, those things she's that she has voted for or against that are not what I want to see are the true deciding factor, her past actions speak for themselves. [/quote] [font=franklin gothic medium]Who's to say her ability to govern is actually any good? Well, the voters. And she herself will make a case, as she has tried to do. However, my point was that people can't judge her ability to govern based simply on her demeanor or on media hype. I think most people would agree with that.[/font] [quote]I can't speak for others, but that more than anything is why her demeanor just makes it worse, I already dislike her for the stances she takes in government. So I see no reason to vote for someone who will work to enact things I don't want to see here.[/quote] [font=franklin gothic medium]I will have to read through her policy positions and compare them to Obama's if I want to make an actual choice on candidates, but that in and of itself is not really what I'm debating (although as I look through this list, I realise I'm aware of most of it - perhaps we can have a policy discusssion another time). I'm just pointing out that the Obamessiah machine is incredibly powerful and that in many cases across the nation, it's based on hype and not legitimate analysis of policy. If you disagree with - and understand the implications of - Clinton's policies, then you are not someone who I would include in my comments. I mean, with any candidate, it's likely that you would agree with some things and disagree with others. The question, I suppose, is who you disagree with "less" rather than who you adore. And that's often the case with political candidates. So with the merits or pitfalls of each candidate put to the side for one moment, I will repeat my general theme which is that I think Hillary Clinton has been generally misrepresented and misunderstood - whereas Obama is facing a classic "election by the media" situation. As I said earlier, this point of view has nothing to do with which candidate is ultimately better. You can like or dislike either one. The point is just that the representation has generally not been equitable.[/font]

[quote]I wouldn't say that politicians (namely Obama) say anything they must to get into office... there have been instances where candidates handed the public the bitter pill. It's always expedient to tell people comfortable lies, but there have been instances all around of candidates telling the cold truth.[/quote] [font=franklin gothic medium]I haven't seen any cold truth from Obama, really. Only stuff like this:[/font] [quote=Barack Obama]"I face this challenge with profound humility and knowledge of my own limitations. But I also face it with limitless faith in the capacity of the American people. I am absolutely certain that generations from now, we will be able to look back and tell our children that this was the moment when we began to provide care for the sick and good jobs to the jobless; this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal." "This was the moment, this was the time, when we came together to remake this great nation."[/quote] [font=franklin gothic medium]So, Obama will be the first president to provide health care? He's going to shrink the oceans during his presidency? If the nation is so great, why remake it? I know that I'm being a little sarcastic here, but seriously, this is an entire paragraph that is utterly meaningless. I know it sells, but it's largely without merit. Anyone - you, me, McCain, Clinton, Bush - can make statements like those above. They're feel good stuff. The big problem, I think, is that so much of this is what has driven the campaign - as opposed to anything significantly substantive. Also, here's a quote from a recent piece of political analysis that I found interesting:[/font] [quote]Ambinder is right. Obama's rhetoric is in a different "emotional register" from McCain's. It's in a different emotional register from every US president; not just the Coolidges but the Kennedys, too. Nothing in Obama's resume suggests he's the man to remake America and heal the planet. Only last week, another of his pals bit the dust, convicted by a Chicago jury of 16 counts of this and that. "This isn't the Tony Rezko I knew," Obama said, in what's becoming a standard formulation. Likewise, this wasn't the Jeremiah Wright he knew. And these are guys he's known for 20 years. Yet at the same time as he's being stunned by the corruption and anti-Americanism of those closest to him, Obama's convinced that just by jetting into Tehran and Pyongyang he can get to know America's enemies and persuade them to hew to the straight and narrow. No doubt if it all goes belly-up and Iran winds up nuking Tel Aviv, president Obama will put on his more-in-sorrow-than-in-anger face and announce solemnly that "this isn't the Mahmoud Ahmadinejad I knew". Every time I hear an Obama speech, I start to giggle. But millions of voters don't. And, if Matthews and the tingly-legged media get their way and drag Obama across the finish line this November, the laugh will be on those of us who think that serious times demand grown-up rhetoric. [/quote] [font=franklin gothic medium]I do tend to think that this quote is right on the money. And so many people seem to be falling into the tingly-legged category that Matthews finds himself in (he being a journalist who described his reaction to a rally as giving him "tingly legs"). Regardless of a candidate's actual flaws or strengths, I find it worrying that the media has such apparent power - and that a candidate (of any persuasion) can so easily be thrust into the limelight without passing some of the most critical acid tests.[/font] [quote]Also, campaigning I would say has a lot to do with framing your personal strengths as the best for the job. Perhaps that narcissism is what makes people feel like the process is disingenuous, but at the heart of things, that's what people want. It's a catch-22 that cannot be escaped, so we're all caught here.[/quote] [font=franklin gothic medium]Well, that's a different problem. I'm not referring to narcissism or framing one's own personal strengths. For Obama or Clinton, it's [i]all[/i] about discussing their own personal strengths. And this is necessary and important - in fact, it is and should be the focus of any campaign. The problem is when you fail to define your policies clearly and, instead, opt for the so-called "Obamessiah" route (whereby it's all about bumper stickers, uplifting tag lines and ever-increasing groups of bleary-eyed worshipers). That strategy has more to do with covering any weaknesses that you may have and relying on the pack mentality of voters and media hyperbole, which is itself somewhat cynical.[/font] [quote]Obama was the most liberally voting Senator of 2007 (according to the National Journal). So I would assert out of the Senate, he (at least in terms of past views) is most likely to fundamentally alter the status quo.[/quote] [font=franklin gothic medium]I interpret that as saying the following: "As long as we get the opposite to the status quo, we're happy." How is that positive, though? It strikes me as being similar to closing your eyes and jumping into the deep end of a pool, without really knowing what you'll encounter at the bottom. Surely altering the status quo is a means to an end; it is not an end in and of itself. And that, I think, is half the problem here. Everyone is so caught up in the means without worrying (or even considering) the end result. Even people who identify themselves as liberals are not necessarily highly liberal on every single issue. Being liberal on [i]every[/i] issue is as blindly one-sided as being highly conservative on every issue - it's simply an opposite extreme. But it's an extreme nonetheless. Surely people are more interested in ideas and policies rather than simply "it's different, so it must be good".[/font][quote] On Australia's Government: Perhaps you all have a more fine-tuned government, but that's because you learned from our Great Experiment. [/quote] [font=franklin gothic medium]We did learn. Why didn't you? ;) (Also, something to note: our system is based on the Westminster system, which is significantly older than the US system. In all honesty though, I do find the US system interesting and it's certainly a lot better than many other systems around the world...although perhaps a debate about political systems is better suited to a different thread).[/font] [quote]Oh and James, two of the biggest things that worked against Hilary Clinton (in my opinion) was first: her arrogance upfront that she would win. And two: her sense of entitlement. That air of thinking that having more experience along with having been first lady at one time somehow meant she deserved the position instead of earning it like other candidates do. [/quote] [font=franklin gothic medium]Okay, well, to address those points... First, on arrogance. I have seen arrogance from every single candidate during this primary campaign, Obama included (and Hillary certainly not excluded). To some extent I think that's the nature of the beast - running for president does, after all, require a large ego. :catgirl: But secondly, I don't think Hillary ever assumed she would win. How could she? Despite her initially good numbers (and Obama's numbers actually dropping as time went by), the media played out a scathing narrative that would make victory difficult, at the very least. I'm not blaming the media for her loss; I do think she has to take responsibility for it. And that's the way it should be for all candidates. On the other hand, the media certainly didn't [i]help[/i] her. And the ridiculous hysteria surrounding Obama - based on nothing other than almost a kind of zealotry - definitely distracted attention from the issues of the day in many cases. And on the second point, I don't quite understand what you're saying. Hillary Clinton pointed out that she was experienced and that she'd been an active first lady and that these two traits were positives for a future president. What is wrong with that? As I said earlier, I expect candidates to sell themselves to the public. I do expect them to frame their achievements and perceived benefits. Hillary clearly thought these were hers. And they were at least quite substantive - it's one thing to talk in vague terms about lowering oceans and remaking a country for instance, but it's another thing entirely to actually discuss concrete matters of experience and so on. I don't think any of this meant that Hillary expected to win, nor do I think she felt she had a "right" to the job. I think that is an interpretation that the media have also pushed heavily. Consider that Hillary worked incredibly hard (like all candidates) and that she put something like $12 million of her own money into her campaign. I don't think any of this is evidence of a candidate who simply expects to become president. Rather, I think Clinton listed concrete reasons as to why she felt she was more suitable for the job. When she does this, she's called arrogant. When Obama does the very same thing, he's called visionary. As I have stressed before - and despite how I sound here - I am not necessarily in favor of either candidate (that is to say, I don't dislike Obama or find him to be a "bad" candidate). It's just that I'm fascinated with the Obama hype machine, as so many non-Americans are. It's bizarre to watch and it's interesting to dissect, especially given some of the more glaring self-contradictions it involves.[/font] [quote]I'm not saying she wouldn't do a good job or that she really felt or acted that way. What I am saying is that I know many people (myself included) who found that side of her very, very abrasive and a huge turn off. Even if that was not her intent, it still came across that way.[/quote] [font=franklin gothic medium]That's cool. It's just a shame that her demeanor is granted more importance than her ability to govern. That sucks.[/font]

[quote]Right, lobbyists in and of themselves are not inherently cancerous to the political process. But in practice this is simply incorrect -- there are lobbies that have a disproportional amount of access to the bureaucratic structure, legislators, and (most importantly! ) money. This gives them much more sway in the decision-making process than they should have, and can easily lead to flagrant misconduct. So, while lobbyists can be good, they generally aren't. Therefore, an anti-lobbyist platform is expedient (in that citizens hate them and they're corrupting in government).[/quote] [font=franklin gothic medium]Well yeah, as I mentioned, corruption is a bad thing no matter how you slice it. And where a public figure is taking money from a group and where this is basically "paying" for a vote... that's clearly a problem. But that in and of itself doesn't mean that lobbyists are bad, it just means that lobbyists - like any similar group - can do the wrong thing. I suppose my main point is that "lobbyists" is another generic term that is frequently misused when it comes to political debate. Every political candidate is ostensibly "anti-lobbyist". I don't think any have made fundamental changes to the way lobbying works, though. And there are clear (and valid) reasons why.[/font] [quote]Well, the fact that he is multiracial leads people to believe that he will look out for minority interests (which, I would say, is a fair assumption). But aside from that, you're right; one's race should not be a selling point in a campaign.[/quote] [font=franklin gothic medium]That's a reasonable assumption, for sure. Of course, when someone is in an office where everyone wants everything all the time, that person will have to prioritize. And in many cases, they will make choices that their predecessors made - not for ethnic or cultural reasons, but for practical reasons of cost and sheer logistics. So when you're in campaign mode it's easy to be everybody's friend. It's a whole lot tougher when you have to make real decisions.[/font] [quote]I feel like most citizens have never truly and seriously thought about the "nuts-and-bolts" of any campaign. People base their judgment on impression, tone, and salient issues (abortion, gay marriage, etc). I mean, Bush was voted for because he seemed personable and decently competent (lulz). Clinton was elected because people thought "he cared" about them. Both of these judgments are entirely superficial, but I'd argue that's the nature of the beast most of the time.[/quote] [font=franklin gothic medium]Oh yeah, that is definitely true. But that totally underlines and reinforces my original point: that constantly spouting "change" and having the right image has little to do with one's actual political ideology (or practice). If people elect a president on a superficial basis (as Americans may with Obama and as Australians have with Rudd), we can not be surprised if our new leader critically under-delivers on substantive matters. So I suppose the bottom line is "buyer beware". :catgirl:[/font] [quote] And if you're willing to (more or less) agree with that point, it shouldn't be a surprise that people like Obama because of his image. I honestly don't see any reason why he should try to make "experience and competence" his platform when it's not getting votes. If "change" is more salient, why not harness that power? The reason the media is in love with Obama is because of his image, and kudos to him for the brilliantly successful media blitz.[/quote] [font=franklin gothic medium]That's all fine and good, but that goes back to my earlier question: are people convinced that all this talk of change will result in legitimately different policies and implementation? Or is it about saying whatever you can to be elected? I certainly believe that most politicians will stretch words in any way, shape or form in order to attain high office. That's just a fact of life. But playing media games and building a largely artificial image (artificial in terms of it being manufactured very specifically) should not be confused with actual decision-making and real policy approach. Image is fine and I understand why it's necessary, especially for America. There's a big cultural component there that nobody can deny. On the other hand, I tend to believe that people elect the Governments that they deserve much of the time. By that I mean, if everyone is swept up by vacuous image and fail to pay due regard to the policy platform itself, they must acknowledge the risk involved.[/font] [quote]Haha definitely. But I would call it "ability to see" rather than "realism." Anyone who's read the "OBAMAS A MUSLIM" e-mails knows that America is disgustingly xenophobic. Why should it matter if Obama is a Muslim? Americans think that it does, whatever the reason, and it's one of those pills you have to swallow as a politician. It's sort of ironic people accuse politicians of being disingenuous -- they're generally like that so people will accept them. [/quote] [font=franklin gothic medium]Yeah I think you point out a really good piece of irony there, without doubt. I suppose the big issue I have in the current environment is that it's so easy for a large group of people to fall in love with someone that they haven't bothered to know anything about. This does happen at times and it's just the way things are. Unfortunately, people only learn through trial and error - in Australia, we are starting to discover that our Prime Minister is not quite what he promised. And we will learn that lesson the hard way. If he is voted into office again, we will have only ourselves to blame. The same is true for Obama; it is always in people's interest to make voting choices based on the policies they agree with, rather than jumping on whatever train happens to be popular at the time.[/font] [quote]Yeah, I guess. But at the same time, the other candidates quickly tried to hijack Obama's theme of "Change" by reappropriating it to their own campaigns. So to call it all media-fluff isn't quite right... obviously it's a widely popular theme, and they tried to harness it. Hollow? Maybe when McCain says he's going to deliver "change" to Washington (in reality, his policies aren't much departure from them). But Obama's proposed policies are radically different from Bush's (and hence qualify as "change").[/quote] [font=franklin gothic medium]It may be a widely-popular theme, but that makes it no less hollow and fluffy, lol. I wouldn't say that Obama's policies are radically different to Bush's as a general rule. In some very obvious ways they are, of course, yet a number of areas that have been portrayed as examples of change are anything but. And in the same way, the assumption that McCain is simply a carbon copy of Bush (not your words, but the words of many others) is patently false. Most people view political leaders in vague, broad strokes. And oftentimes, that either sells them short or massively over-sells them. This is how I would describe the approach to Clinton/McCain and Obama respectively.[/font] [quote]I agree with you on both counts. But I can't have much sympathy for Clinton (in terms of the media shunning her) -- she was handed the political legacy of Bill, the name-recognition, and the fundraising network, and still was outperformed.[/quote] [font=franklin gothic medium]Well you could argue that Bill's legacy and the name-recognition worked against her - and unfairly so. But that's ultimately something for the statisticians to debate I guess, haha. I can only really go on what people have said to me or what I've read on the news, which may not represent what most people think. She was outperformed, indeed. But I don't believe she was outperformed on substance - I believe she was outperformed by media spin. To those who support Obama for legitimate reasons (i.e. they understand his policies and agree with them), then I'd be saying congratulations. But to those who simply support him because it's cool and he's charming...well, these are the people who, I think, are largely responsible for some of history's biggest political disasters.[/font] [quote]Absolutely right, I'd say. [/quote] [font=franklin gothic medium]Heheh, cool. I do actually think we agree on most things. Does this mean you can have a good discussion/debate with someone you agree with? :catgirl: Haha. [/font] [quote]Welcome to America! [/quote] [font=franklin gothic medium]Haha, I suppose that's why I'm so glad I live in Australia - our political system avoids most of America's major pitfalls while ultimately maintaining a better system of checks and balances. But having said that, I'm definitely a big fan of America and I am often one of its biggest defenders (even to Americans themselves!) And I put time into discussions like this because I'm genuinely interested in American politics and in what Americans think of their system and leaders. It's always most interesting. :catgirl:[/font]

[quote]Haha, yeah. Pre-primary season, though, Hillary Clinton was the presumed winner before the contentious atmosphere between her campaign and Obama's solidified. The spotlight always shifts.[/quote] [font=franklin gothic medium]It's true that there's an ebb and a flow, but I think that the media influence on campaigns is not an unimportant issue. Unfortunately the whole primary process itself does, to a large extent, attract this kind of influence. It would probably be a good idea to restructure it somehow (which is admittedly difficult, considering the nature of American presidential elections in general).[/font] [quote]For the campaign? A good slogan. For me, as a supporter? I don't know what other supporters think of his aim to bring "change", but I supported Obama starting from last November due to his anti-lobbyist standpoint. I have viewed lobbyists in Washington, both liberal and conservative, very negatively. I hope, though he is a politician with aims for power, that he will, to some level, make efforts to curtail lobbying in Washington. Additionally, a somewhat bipartisan president would be very refreshing for a few years.[/quote] [font=franklin gothic medium]I think "a good slogan" just about sums it up. This in and of itself is not a poblem - I think Obama sincerely considers himself a vehicle for change. I think the problem is wider than that, though. "Change" for the sake of change is a concept devoid of substance and, let's face it, substance is what matters when someone is running a federal government. There are areas where I do think Obama would represent genuine political change, however, I think the media (again) has significantly muddied the water. For instance, the anti-lobbyist stance. Almost every candidate in history - even political candidates in other countries - regularly label themselves as "anti-lobbyist". How many times have we heard the phrase "I'm not going to pander to the special interests in Washington"? I think if you counted the amount of times you heard "special interests" being used by any political candidate, you'd probably be somewhere in the millions by now. This kind of rhetoric is unfortunate and more than a little disingenuous. One reason is because lobbying is not necessarily a cancerous element in government. Many kinds of groups lobby government all the time, including groups who have genuinely positive agendas (like consumer interest groups, civil liberty groups and many others). Lobbying is often just a way of attracting attention and informing government when it comes time to draft legislation. Yes, of course, there are negative lobbyists (like those who try to engage in bribery or other forms of illicit conduct). But, at the same time, it's unreasonable for candidates to tar them all with the same brush. Oftentimes, lobby groups represent large sections of the community who may not otherwise be able to influence the legislative process outside voting in and of itself. I think the issue is far more complex than this, but my overall point is that [i]many[/i] people buy into rhetoric without understanding what political decision making really means. In any case, I think you're right on one point: if Obama has a more bi-partisan approach, he will no doubt do well. I would agree with you that America needs a president who can build alliances through a consultative management style, for sure.[/font] [quote]It?s not that he?s black ? it?s that he?s both black and mixed. Socially, he?s considered black but technically he?s 50% black and 50% white. It?s a physical unity of races that accompanies a man talking of unity amongst Americans. It?s the American dream of a kid from a normal home rising through the ranks of society due to his own hard work. [/quote] [font=franklin gothic medium]If this is the case, then I actually find it kind of disappointing. Why? Well, what does it really indicate? It indicates that many people are more likely to vote for a person because he represents a broad cross-section of people on a purely ethnical basis. What about his ideas? His ethnicity is relevant in terms of breaking down a racial barrier and saying that anyone can become president. But beyond that, should it be a basis for election? To many I'm sure it is. But it is his ideas and his actual physical plans that would matter most as president. I think that there is a great deal of narrative surrounding Obama and that has clearly worked. But it's a [i]narrative[/i]. Would anyone really suggest that any of the presidential candidates are not ridiculously hard workers? Would anyone suggest that any of those candidates do not love their country and want to do what's best for it? Of course not. A narrive is nice and it's great for the media. But a nation who has a major crush on a presidential candidate is not necessarily thinking clearly about the nuts-and-bolts of federal policy. From what I do know, I'm sure that Obama does have a degree of substance that he can bring to the table. It's just a shame that this has never been his selling point - and he has largely ensured that through his approach to the media.[/font] [quote]It?s his lack of Washington involvement/experience. It?s his disavowal of lobbyists in his campaign and reliance on small donors. He?s offering a movement away from the current policies and outlook of the US government. And people are responding to this.[/quote] [font=franklin gothic medium]I think this aspect is probably a better summation of why someone should vote for Obama; or at least, why he should be considered as a presidential contender.[/font] [quote]Sure, but Obama has advocated the status quo insofar as it is obligatory to do so to have even a remote chance at the Presidency. You have to be Christian, you have to be pro-Israel, you have to verbally manhandle Iran, etc. This is simply what the people want, and you have to honor that. If you aren?t willing to compromise a few of your values, you won?t be able to get into office and affect greater and more substantial change. [/quote] [font=franklin gothic medium]I'm glad to hear you say that, because I think it isn't said nearly enough. The only thing I'd say, though, is that the "change" label is often applied to areas where it doesn't belong. Iraq is one example. So, you know, I think this goes back to the idea that "change for change's sake" is a hollow message that has little to do with formulating sound policy. It is a shame that so many people have responded only to this message and little else. It's at least good to see a healthy dose of realism among some. :catgirl:[/font] [quote]If you look at some of his other policies, I would say it?s tough for you to argue he?s largely advocating the status quo. For instance, look up his policies on talks with foreign hostile powers or his response to Pakistan. Both of these stances received criticism, but they?re definitely departures from the status quo in Washington.[/quote] [font=franklin gothic medium]I'm not familiar with his response to Pakistan; so far I've only heard detail about his response in Iraq. And I think that latter issue has received the most attention - in some ways probably unfairly, too. What you are referring to is a great example of what I've been talking about though. That you recognise this as an Obama supporter is important, I think. I am not so much arguing that Obama is good or bad, I'm more arguing that a lot of the messages surrounding his nomination are totally hollow and media-pedalled.[/font] [quote]It?s called branding, and Clinton simply lost the battle. ?Change? is thrown around because it encapsulates the American zeitgeist at this instant. People, in one respect or another, are discontent with the Bush Administration. But Obama?s wildly successful and shrewd campaign slogan should not make you doubt his ability to be an agent of substantial and meaningful change? I?m not even sure how you could say that, as the two are not mutually exclusive. And let?s be fair, Clinton does have a voting record (and stances on issues) closer to the status quo. Again, look at her position on talking to foreign hostile countries and compare it to Obama?s. [/quote] [font=franklin gothic medium]The slogan should not make me doubt Obama's ability - you're quite right there. But by the same token, a simple campaign slogan should not and does not immediately qualify Obama as an agent of real political change. The latter does not come from slogans, it comes from careful, thoughtful articulation and a combination of experience and practice. As for Clinton... I just think she's been handled the raw end of the deal in many respects. I wouldn't say I'm particularly a Clinton supporter (anymore than an Obama supporter), but there can be no doubt that a lot of people have worked against her simply because of who she is, as opposed to what she thinks.[/font] [quote]You?re absolutely right, but an unfortunate percentage of politics is not rational. A lot of it has to do with association and perception, and Obama won that fight. Whether or not he?s a more effective leader has to do with the candidate?s presentation of themselves to the public? that?s all the public has to base their judgment upon. [/quote] [font=franklin gothic medium]I disagree with this to some extent. Whether or not a candidate is a more effective leader has less to do with slogans, rhetoric and the 24 hour media cycle and more to do with their policy platform and their understanding of a wide variety of issues. Many Americans, I think, have foregone the latter and clung desperately to the former. It's one thing to want real change and to make an informed choice. It's another to be so desperate for change that we cling to the first candidate who calls the word loudly enough over and over again. Unfortunately these kinds of competitions become more about personality than substance and [i]that[/i], in my view, is largely the fault of the media. I think this sentence really sums up my general thoughts on the issue.[/font] [quote]Generally speaking, that?s how it works in America. Runner up usually gets the VP nomination as a sort of reconciliatory gesture.[/quote] [font=franklin gothic medium]And if the utter disingenous nature of this does not alarm people, then I think something is wrong. It's also utterly hypocritical. If Obama does choose Clinton, then it would certainly be tougher to talk about him as a genuine vehicle for change; not because he chose Clinton as such, but because he is willing to appoint a VP who he has spent months attacking for her lack of suitability. That is a bald faced hypocrisy and it smacks of the very thing that Obama is lauded for avoiding - i.e. pandering to the Washington status quo. These issues don't seem to come into the discussion very often, which is a shame at times.[/font]

[font=franklin gothic medium]I'm afraid the gold star represents something shifty between Lady Asphyxia and Desbreko. We don't have any gold star programs or anything. :catgirl: (Although, perhaps we should).[/font]

[font=franklin gothic medium]Apart from what the rules/FAQ say, I can tell you that what I look for is very simple. What I really like to see are good contributors - people who start interesting threads and who take initiative. If you're an active member of the community with decent quality posts you will have the best chance. Of course, we have a limited number of spots for Moderators anyway. So...it's also a numbers thing. That's why I try to rotate staff a little bit here and there, to give fresher faces a go (although I haven't done this in a little while, admittedly). There are other ways we try to recognise great members, too - especially through events like Nifty Fifty and such. I guess the main thing is, if you are doing all the right things you should not think that it goes unnoticed.[/font] :catgirl:

[quote] The media did not rally against her. [/quote] [font=franklin gothic medium]I don't know if I'd say that the media "rallied" against Clinton, but there's also no question that the media in general have artificially elevated Obama's campaign. In our last federal election here, the media did a similar thing with Rudd (who is now our Prime Minister). It was not so much a case of the media actively attacking his opponent, it was more that he received continuous favourable coverage. Also I must admit, I really get annoyed by this whole "change" question. I'm not entirely sure why everyone thinks that Obama inherently represents change. Is it simply because he's black? Or because he is considered to be a political outsider? Neither of these things - nor any number of speeches that contain the word "change" - are representative of true political change. In many respects, Obama has advocated maintenance of the status quo. It was, again, a similar situation with Rudd. We heard all about fresh leadership and change and this became a kind of buzzword that the media perpetuated. In the end? He is proving too politically impotent to implement the serious, fundamental changes that his campaign implied. We have had surface changes and good media management, but little of substance. Obama does represent change in some genuine respects, however, my point is that "change" is regularly thrown around without consideration to its meaning or context. By contrast, we're always told that the Clintons simply can't represent change. Why? Because, I assume, there has already been a Clinton in office (and Hillary has had prominent political roles in the past). This alone should never be the basis upon which we decide that a candidate does not stand for genuine political change. It is highly naive for many out there to suggest that these qualities and true political change are mutually exclusive. Anyway, for my money, Clinton should definitely be giving up at this point. Not giving up would only hurt her position in general even further. And I don't believe that Obama should take her on as a Vice Presidential candidate, primarily because it would be seen (I think) as obvious and blatant hypocrisy. How can you criticise someone's fundamental policy approach for months and yet find them suitable to be your Vice President? This would, perhaps, ironically suit Obama (if I were to take the cynical approach, haha). On the other hand, as I said, it would blatantly and cynically damage his chances come election time.[/font]

[center][img]http://img152.imageshack.us/img152/9978/vboavatarey3.jpg[/img][/center] Zahir had used almost all of his first pay from the bar to purchase a new outfit. He chose a grey coat that fell just below his waist. It covered a simple, crisp new shirt. He wore a pair of trousers that he’d had for a while; they were nothing remarkable, but they looked presentable. Since being chosen to travel to the Deep Space Outpost, Zahir felt obligated not to offend the paying guests by dressing in anything old and tattered. The prospect of visiting the DSO excited Zahir; perhaps even more than being on the Von Braun itself. Very few people knew much of anything about the DSO, except that its primary purpose was for scientific research. Zahir had leafed through a small brochure about the outpost on his first evening aboard the ship and, despite the limited detail, he was fascinated. The DSO contained several laboratories that each conducted research into different areas. The largest laboratory, for instance, conducted research into materials and fuels – Zahir remembered that NARA had recently (and rather proudly) declared that several breakthroughs were made in both of these fields. However, the sheer secrecy of the outpost made Zahir quietly suspicious. It was said that the outpost employed more than two thousand people and, furthermore, it had been built into the side of a large asteroid. When NARA had been questioned about the cost of the project, they had refused to respond and had shut down several Congressional committees. Critics in Washington Prime and around the Republic suggested that the cost of the project must have been astronomical. For one thing, the outpost was further from Earth than any previous man-made object. And in addition, the asteroid that it was built into was not orbiting any larger objects – how, then, did the outpost remain in the same place all the time? Some suggested that NARA had built enormous stabilisers across the rock, which routinely fired in different directions, automatically maintaining position at all times. Such technology – and on such a scale – would surely have to be prohibitively expensive. During his stay in Washington Prime, Zahir had read several underground magazines that were dedicated to conspiracy theories surrounding the Deep Space Outpost. Some theories – such as the secrecy surrounding cost – were plausible. Others, which involved encounters with aliens and secret weapons testing, ranged from laughable to utterly insane and illogical. These magazines were not outright banned, but they were certainly frowned upon. Large retailers who stocked such magazines were regularly dragged before the courts to face a vague series of charges that were never fully explained to the public. In most cases, the retailers simply suffered heavy fines until they ceased support for the magazines. And in rare cases, shop owners were jailed – again, often for undisclosed reasons. Luckily these incidents were highly rare, but nevertheless, acquiring conspiracy-related materials became more difficult as time went by. Zahir had once discussed an article about the DOS with Khalid, who seemed thoroughly uninterested. ‘Why would they hide things like that from us?’ he had asked. ‘All the big wars are over now. The Republic rules eighty per cent of the globe; why would they need to make advanced weapons? Don’t be so gullible.’ Zahir did not discuss his magazines with Khalid again. Still, he viewed them in the same way as tabloids; entertaining, but hardly realistic. [center][img]http://img152.imageshack.us/img152/9978/vboavatarey3.jpg[/img] [img]http://img508.imageshack.us/img508/2357/kathykf5.jpg[/img][/center] The shuttle was surprisingly comfortable. From the inside, it rather looked like a large ferry; the passenger area featured two long aisles, which divided three rows of luxurious seats. When Zahir arrived, there were already several guests dotted around the cabin. There wasn’t much of a view, though; the shuttle’s windows simply looked out onto stark white walls – the interior of the Von Braun’s shuttle dock. Zahir found his way to the left row and sat on a window seat by himself. Several of the guests who were already on board looked decidedly first-class and Zahir did not particularly want to mix with them (although as the cabin filled up, he started to think he’d be forced to). But before too long, Zahir was joined by a rather tall, slender woman. She sat beside him and, at first, did not say anything. She glanced around the cabin. Her hands were folded in her lap. Although Zahir did not know its name, he could smell the slightest hint of a highly expensive perfume. Finally she turned to face him. ‘Oh, I’m sorry,’ she said with a smile, ‘I should introduce myself. My name is Natalia.’ She extended a hand, which Zahir gladly shook. Natalia immediately seemed warmer and friendlier than many of the people he’d met on the ship so far. ‘Zahir,’ he replied. ‘What brings you here?’ Natalia shrugged and glanced out the window to the white space beyond. ‘I manage the Casino,’ she said casually. ‘What about yourself?’ Zahir was amazed at Natalia’s casual attitude; managing the Casino was a major role on the ship. He was further surprised by her young age; no doubt it caused resentment among some staff. Perhaps this is why she was not in the habit of big-noting herself. ‘Oh, I’m just a bartender,’ replied Zahir, ‘nothing too interesting.’ Natalia smiled. ‘I’d think it’s a pretty interesting job,’ she said. ‘I suppose you get to meet all sorts of people. I imagine a lot of people would clamour for such a role.’ Zahir shrugged. ‘Oh I don’t know. It has its moments,’ he muttered. ‘Your job must be fascinating though – running a big Casino like that.’ ‘Actually,’ she said with a slight laugh, ‘I feel that I’m already somewhat tired of this place. I was here prior to the launch, overseeing preparations and set up for the entire Casino. So I can’t say I’ve had much of a chance to enjoy myself.’ The shuttle began to vibrate beneath their feet, as the rear doors closed. Everyone was now seated and, as Zahir looked around, he saw several faces that he’d noticed earlier (including Arthur, who was sitting on the other side of the cabin – he couldn’t be sure if Arthur had spotted him yet). In an odd way Zahir could understand Natalia’s sense of boredom and frustration. After all, how could one possibly enjoy the voyage if one was spending hours upon hours dealing with a myriad of staff and other issues? Zahir looked out the window and now, he saw the blackness of space. The shuttle pulled out of the dock as it closed behind them. From this point, he could not even see the Von Braun itself – there were no rear windows on the shuttle, nor any windows on the ceiling. Despite the distinct lack of inertia, he was sure he could feel the shuttle rounding a corner and turning eastward. And then, suddenly, an enormous object rose up in front of the shuttle. From their vantage point, the passengers could see large craters and boulders of different sizes. The surface of the asteroid was almost luminous as it reflected the shuttle’s blinking navigation lights. He could not yet see the Deep Space Outpost, but a fuzzy announcement over the shuttle’s PA system indicated that they were close.

[font=franklin gothic medium]I am still playing GTAIV, which I'm loving. It just keeps getting more interesting. But I'm playing it nice and slowly - I don't want to finish it too fast! Also I re-bought Final Fantasy XII (which one of my siblings had originally borrowed and lost). I had no save file so I've started again. In the original copy I was up to the first bout with the Judges... so I'm having to get back to where I was. Shouldn't take too long. In any case, it's been enjoyable. This is one Final Fantasy that I really didn't want to miss out on.[/font]

[font=franklin gothic medium]Ditto to what Des said. As a footnote, I hope that the next full version of vB has this feature. Although there are newer versions of vB available, I believe they are indeed working on Version 4. I've heard that will be quite different but I don't know much about it at this stage. Although I suspect that if it comes time to move to vB 4, it'd also be time for major overhauls here as well. [/end major tangent][/font]

[font=franklin gothic medium]This will lead to another landmark shortly, which will present a dilemma for some guests. Also we have moved directly to the part where everyone is boarding the shuttle bound for the outpost. If you wish to write about anything prior to that (i.e. when your character was selected or whatever), you can include that in your post too - but I would advise marking it as separate with a line break tag or something.[/font]

[font=franklin gothic medium]Sorry for my absence over the weekend guys - we don't have internet at home right now. This was an unpleasant surprise (I'm staying with parents, which explains why this is the case haha). I was going to finalise the next landmark with Crystia on Friday and I wasn't able to. So, again, sorry for that everyone - it does delay things ever so slightly. This week I will get up to speed with everyone's posts and will endeavour to have the next landmark up. I'm hoping we'll have internet this week, but I'm not holding my breath. [/font]

[font=franklin gothic medium]I don't think that it is necessarily true that democracies can not be streamlined. Bureaucracy (or too much of it) and democracy do go hand-in-hand to some extent, but then again, the two are not inherently linked. China is probably not the best example of a government that is streamlined. The Chinese central government is an incredibly complex system with many layers of bureaucracy - which is possibly slower and more lumbering than even the big democracies. Although China has a central government, it hands many responsibilities to Provincial and Local governments - to the extent that if something goes wrong, the central government simply blames its local counterparts and nothing is ever fixed as a result. One of the problems with this system, also, is that the central government dictates that local and provincial governments must complete a particular task (or achieve a particular goal) in a given time...without any federal/central support. This is partly why buildings collapse as they have recently - there's a major lack of investment in local authorities from the central regime. So really, their system is probably not terribly efficient or effective. And at least in a democracy, there is some incentive to streamline procedures - this is because public officials must deliver outcomes to voters, otherwise their careers are at risk. This is obviously not the case in China. Anyway I really can't say what the biggest problem in America is right now, because I don't live there. I can only give you an outsider's perspective (which may or may not be relevant, depending on the subject).[/font]

[font=franklin gothic medium]Ship security won't be lax...but this isn't 1984 either. Despite any potential subversive/secretive issues going on, the Von Braun is primarily intended as a hotel. So the actual hotel areas (i.e. passenger quarters and surroundings) are relatively low security - at least in comparison to larger public places and high security zones (like B-2, which nobody - not even the Captain - can access). Crew quarters would have higher security, but not a great deal more. Crew rooms and such would have no cameras or microphones, etc. However, you would certainly expect hallways and public rooms to be monitored.[/font]

[font=franklin gothic medium]That'd be cool, Sandy. I'm sure the passengers would receive some sort of safety briefing one way or another. I'd say that those attending the party might see some kind of briefing on the TV screens when they return to their rooms. [/font]

[font=franklin gothic medium]Since the party will go all night, it won't matter if some people arrive later than others - so yeah, I'm happy for things to get kicked off now. And of course, I'm sure some will leave earlier than others too.[/font]

[center][img]http://img152.imageshack.us/img152/9978/vboavatarey3.jpg[/img] [img] http://i228.photobucket.com/albums/ee132/Runaway511/von%20braun/arthurmostdefinitely.jpg[/img][/center] ‘You’re the first actual passenger I’ve met,’ said Zahir. ‘In fact, I have only had time to put my things away and have a short sleep in my quarters. They weren’t quite what I was expecting…’ Arthur smiled. ‘Oh? In what way?’ Zahir shrugged. He felt bad for complaining again. ‘Well, you know, it’s just that there are so many people in the room and it’s not very private. That’s all. The conditions are okay other than that I guess. I shouldn’t complain; I’m going to be spending most of my time at work anyway.’ Arthur nodded and turned his attention to the ground. The casino sat among a tropical jungle setting, complete with large walking tracks, wooden torches and exotic bird calls. Zahir peered down at the ground too; they were standing on a stone path, which led to the casino’s entrance. ‘Is something wrong?’ asked Zahir curiously. ‘Oh, er, kind of. I think I’ve dropped something,’ stuttered Arthur. ‘Don’t worry, I’ll find it.’ He wandered around the path’s edge for a moment and hastily grabbed a small object, which looked like it had settled underneath a fern. ‘Here it is, good as new.’ Before Zahir could get a good look at it, though, Arthur slipped it into his pocket. From the quick glance, Zahir thought it looked somewhat like a small leather case; it was larger than a wallet, but too far too small to be anything that he could easily identify. Arthur looked embarrassed. He blushed slightly and looked around, almost suspiciously. Zahir smiled warmly. ‘Are you sure you are okay?’ Arthur nodded. ‘Yes, seriously, don’t worry. I am okay.’ Arthur sat down in front of Zahir on a nearby wooden bench. As the crowds moved from the nearby lobby towards the casino’s grand entrance, the noise around them grew ever louder. ‘You look tired,’ said Zahir tentatively, not wanting to become trying. Arthur had his hands on his knees. He looked up at Zahir and grinned. ‘All I need is a good drink! Your bar isn’t open tonight, is it?’ Zahir laughed and shook his head. ‘Oh, no, it opens tomorrow night. You should give it a test run; I’m sure it will interest you.’ ‘What’s the bar’s name?’ asked Arthur. Despite his politeness, his gaze was intense. Zahir felt as though he could not look away. There was something both intoxicating and altogether odd about Arthur, although Zahir could not put his finger on it. ‘Der Raum. It’s on Deck One,’ replied Zahir. Arthur’s eyes widened. ‘You lucky thing,’ he chuckled. ‘They made it look pretty fancy in the brochures, so it looks like you have a lot to live up to. You must be good at mixing drinks, for them to hire you in a bar like that.’ Zahir shrugged. ‘So I’ve been told. It’s a little intimidating though. I’ve heard that Captain Sorokov frequents Der Raum at times – and that he may even be entertaining special guests there. I really don’t want to have to serve the Captain on my first night at work!’ ‘Oh,’ Arthur rubbed his chin thoughtfully. ‘The Captain, you say? Well, it [i]must[/i] be a cool place. I think I will drop in on your opening night, in that case.’ Zahir smiled and nodded. ‘Sure. Well, I had better go and see if I can get a ticket to enter this casino before I’m too late. It was nice to meet you, Arthur…’ ‘I am sure I will see more of you soon, Zahir,’ Arthur stood up and shook his hand again. ‘Nice to meet you.’ And with that, Zahir turned on his heel and approached the casino’s ticket counter. When he was halfway there, he looked back over his shoulder and noticed that Arthur was still sitting on the seat. For a moment he seemed to be looking back at Zahir and then he turned his attention to the small leather case, which he’d produced from his pocket. Zahir felt a sudden sense of guilt. What would Khalid think about him making friends so easily? After all, Khalid had frequently told Zahir that he was not terribly social and that Americans were unlikely to find him interesting. For the most part, Zahir believed this; Khalid himself was highly-travelled and very worldly. Now, Zahir wondered if he should have questioned Khalid’s comments earlier. In truth, Khalid had done much for Zahir. He’d helped him secure a job upon his arrival to America and he had been generous in other ways. In many respects, Zahir even owed his presence on the Von Braun to Khalid. And yet, Khalid was a man who always had to be in control. He controlled everything in his life – his friends, family and lovers. He had built himself up so much in Zahir’s eyes that to disappoint him felt like a cardinal sin. At the same time, Khalid was somehow able to do whatever he wanted. Drugs, sex, alcohol – it was all part and parcel of living in the same apartment with him. Zahir felt that he had to stand by and say nothing; after all, where would he be without Khalid’s help? How dare he bite the hand that feeds him. As much as Zahir [i]knew[/i] the fallacies in this whole line of thought, he also felt emotionally tied to Khalid. It was like Stockholm Syndrome, he thought. When your captor utterly controls your life – your freedom, even – you can become drawn to them, even if they are ultimately bad for you. There was nothing stopping Zahir from physically walking out the door at any time, but Khalid’s emotional hold was so strong that Zahir doubted he could ever break free. And yet, here he was, on a vessel that was about to put millions of miles between he and Khalid. He was going to be in space, living a dream. And now he’d met a man who was altogether frightening and undeniably alluring. It felt strange and wild; all the things that Zahir considered himself not to be.

[font=franklin gothic medium]I'll be leaving this landmark up for another couple of days, but I've got the next couple of landmarks planned. One of them will be a tiered landmark. You will see what I mean when it comes around. Hopefully I can put up a Landmarks Dossier before that to fully explain it. Basically, though, it'll be like a Choose Your Own Adventure type of thing. Hopefully it works out and I don't royally mess it up, haha.[/font] :catgirl:

[font=franklin gothic medium]Regarding Jamie (who I think Darren was going to sign up as?) ... I'm still waiting for the sign up from Darren. I told him that even though sign ups are closed, he [i]can[/i] submit his sign up and join in by the skin of his teeth. He's sent me the PM, but I don't yet know whether he's edited his post in Auditions. Once he's done that, his avatar and details will go into the Cast. So, for now, please feel free to use the avatar - but make sure it has the black border on it. [/font]

[font=franklin gothic medium]As far as the controversy...I don't really know what else I can say. Games with adult content still attract a disproportionate amount of criticism - movies with this type of content (and worse) regularly fly under the radar. Also I do think that GTA IV regularly provides context for what's happening. When you go on dates with [spoiler]Kate[/spoiler], for example, all you get told is [spoiler]how horrible your life is and you get questioned about why you aren't getting married and having kids, etc...[/spoiler]. There are frequent reminders, both subtle and not-so-subtle, that Niko's habits are not only dangerous to his own health...but that they impede his life in various other ways. So GTA IV never sends the message that Niko has some amazing, care-free life as a result of his criminal activity. Quite the opposite. In terms of the drink driving and everything, I suppose it's like those who complained that you can smoke in MGS. Yet such people don't acknowledge that both activities have negative effects in their respective games. Drink driving in GTA IV is actually a pain on multiple levels. For one thing, it's harder to drive. For another, you easily attract police attention and it's even tougher to evade them when you're off your face. Not a good idea. Anyway, I've been making my way through this game nice and slowly, trying to savor it as much as I can. I'm now on the third island where I've done a couple of missions already. I'm also about to date [spoiler]Lawchick[/spoiler], which should prove interesting. In all honesty, she's got to be better than [spoiler]Kate[/spoiler], who has so far proven to be a complete pain in the butt. Also as I get further into the game, I'm noticing a lot more cool stuff. For one thing, the missions are getting better and better. I'm actually finding a substantial increase in their quality and variety, which is good. And I have to say, after using it extensively...the entire gun combat system in GTA IV is vastly superior to its predecessors. Yes, there are still issues (sometimes taking cover can be awkward when you're in a hurry, for instance), but over all I'm pretty happy. The ability to actually take cover totally changes gunplay in this game, I think - especially during missions with lots of enemies. I'm now finding that there's a great deal more strategy involved. This is good because GTA IV has some absolutely epic gunfights. And rather than them being a total chore, I'm finding that I am really loving them. So, all in all, I am definitely uncovering more and I'm actually becoming more and more interested in the game as time goes by. It helps that the whole relationship system continues to be interesting and that the actual story and characterization remains top-notch. GTA IV is up there with the very best when it comes to this area. Where is everyone else up to? And has anyone actually finished this thing yet? I'd be interested to read about how people are getting along and if you're still enjoying the experience.[/font]

[center][img]http://img152.imageshack.us/img152/9978/vboavatarey3.jpg[/img][/center] When Zahir had checked in at the lobby (he wondered how many check-ins were necessary for the average bartender), the staff behind the counter had taken his bags. 'They will be forwarded through to your quarters,' said the pleasant, middle-aged lady, who's face was illuminated by the soft glow of a computer screen. He headed back to the elevator, which took him to B-1. This was where the vast majority of staff quarters could be found. Zahir had never actually seen a picture of any staff rooms; he had seen the glossy brochures and the promises of a wonderful "working holiday". His mind was filled with vivid images of a spacious cabin with a clean, new bathroom and a large, comfortable bed. When the elevator stopped on the lower deck, however, he saw something quite different. The elevator opened out into a large, spartan room. There were signs indicating lockers and showers and there was a large hallway leading to the kitchen and food storage bays. Zahir approached a nearby map, which seemed to be the only object on any of the plain walls. It looked like the empty room where he was standing was in the center of a large spoke, from which many long hallways extended outward. In between the spokes were the staff quarters. The spokes reached all the way to the outer perimeter of the ship, which was lined with another wide hall that circled the entire vessel. There were rooms attached to this outer hall and they were quite large - Zahir assumed that these rooms were the quarters for senior staff. He placed a finger on the map and traced the route to his room. It wasn't far. When he arrived and opened the door, he gave an audible gasp. Far from being a luxurious private room, he saw an open space with several bunk beds lining the walls. There were also single beds sitting on their own, framed by drawers and small dressers. There were people in the room already, but none paid any attention to Zahir. He hesitantly wandered in and looked around. Where was his bed? Another young man, who was standing nearby (and attempting to stuff too many clothes into too-small drawers), noticed Zahir's apparently confused expression. 'Oh, hey, have you been assigned a bed?' Zahir shook his head. 'Not that I know of. Who are you?' The man - more like a boy, thought Zahir - reached out and shook his hand. 'Sorry, my name's Brad. I'm a janitor on the ship. It's pretty exciting to be here! What will you be doing?' Zahir suddenly felt bad. Clearly this boy had no problem with the living conditions; he was excited just to be on board. Zahir felt awkward and rude. 'Oh, er, I'm a bartender. Der Raum.' Brad's eyes widened. 'What? Der Raum? Are you serious, man?' He shook Zahir's hand again, this time almost snapping it off at the wrist. 'That's a pretty big deal,' he exclaimed. 'Some of us would kill to be in a job like that. You must have some serious mixing skills.' Zahir shrugged. 'Not really. I just got lucky.' Brad shrugged. 'Oh well. Anyway, tell you what. See that bed over there? It's the one jutting out from that little alcove. Nobody's taken that yet. I reckon you should have it.' Zahir glanced over at the bed. It was sitting behind a recess in the wall. It almost looked as though the recess were designed to house something else and the bed had been forced into place at the last minute. 'So I can just take it?' Brad nodded enthusiastically. 'Of course! I doubt they'll fill up this room. I think they overestimated just how many staff they'd need. So, yeah, go take it!' Zahir smiled and sat on the edge of the bed. 'I'm waiting for my bags to arrive.' 'I'm sure they will be down soon,' said Braid. 'Are you going to the party tonight?' 'I am not sure,' replied Zahir. 'Maybe. I'll be lucky to get in.' Brad shook his head. 'Oh, no, see... if you're a bartender, you'd be a Level C staff member. As long as you're quick, you'll get in before the places fill up.' 'Level C?' Zahir scratched his neck. 'So what are you?' Brad looked at the floor sheepishly. 'Level D. I don't have access to any parties or anything.' He looked up again and grinned. 'But if they need someone to clean up afterwards, I might get to look at that swanky casino! I hope I get cleaning detail there.' Zahir nodded and looked around the room again. Oddly, he missed Khalid. He wasn't sure why - perhaps it was just that he was in a new place on his own. 'Okay, well, I'd better go and get my uniform on just in case. See you later...er, what was your name again?' 'Zahir. You can call me Zee if you want.' Brad grinned. 'Zee. Okay then. Talk to you later.' And with that, he rounded the corner and went back to his bed. [i]Khalid, So, I'm on board the ship, finally! It feels so strange to be here. The room isn't what I thought it would be; I'm sharing with a ton of other people. No need to be jealous, either! I know what you'd tell me if I was at home. Anyway, apart from that, I think I'm going to be happy here. At least I'll be earning far more money here than at home. I'll try to save as much as I can for when I get back. Maybe we can put it towards a bigger place? I will send you another email soon. Just try to keep the apartment clean while I'm gone, won't you? See you later, Z[/i]

[font=franklin gothic medium]I think I mentioned somewhere in this thread that there would be about 1,500 people or so on the Von Braun (including staff and passengers). The break down is probably around 200 staff to 1,300 passengers or so. But that isn't set in stone, so please feel free to mention your own figures there. Also, yeah, I'm happy with the holograms being A.I. Having a person talk through them would probably be too time-intensive for staff, given how many passengers there are. But yes, you could expect that a) their responses are somewhat limited and b) there's still always going to be a need for human interaction and old-fashioned hospitality. ~_^ So they won't interfere with staff at all in that sense (And the rivalry between an aging staff member and a new computer system [i]does[/i] seem appropriate - I'm sure we can play on that quite a bit as time goes by). [b]Edit:[/b] Also, I have to say, even so far you guys are doing a wonderful job. I've thoroughly enjoyed reading all of the posts thus far. Brilliant stuff. Oh, and I want to mention one more thing before the question comes up. Obviously in space it's always dark, so there's no day/night cycle. On the ship, however, day/night cycles still occur in real time. All of the public spaces are filled with natural light (i.e. simulated sunlight). As "night" falls, the light dims and the system simulates moonlight in some large public spaces - in those cases, artificial lights come on to simulate artificial light at night (if that makes sense). So basically, everything outside your character's quarters would almost be "outside" in terms of lighting. If you were in the outdoor park areas for example, you'd get moonlight.. but torches might light up along the pathways to allow people to get around. Please feel free to experiment with that too. Remember how physically large this ship is - it's like a city. So there will be plenty of opportunities to create your own spaces and concepts.[/font]

[center][img]http://img152.imageshack.us/img152/9978/vboavatarey3.jpg[/img][/center] Zahir had arrived at the space center by train. A new station had been built near the landing dock, where the Von Braun was perched. Even from a distance, it was enormous; it seemed to dwarf the city that surrounded it. When the train stopped, everyone shuffled toward the giant landing dock, which had an expansive glass terminal attached at one side. The Von Braun's lower superstructure hung over the terminal and cast a wide shadow far into the distance. There seemed to be a deep but almost inaudible humming sound emanating from somewhere beneath the ship, although Zahir could not identify the exact location. After presenting his boarding pass at the staff terminal, Zahir was guided into a wide corridor that sloped upwards and opened out at the other end. When he stepped out of it, he found that he was standing right underneath the ship. Where he now stood, he could clearly see the hull's infinitely complex superstructure. It stretched for several kilometers in both directions and, in truth, Zahir could not even see where it ended. In fact, he did not know how the ship was actually standing level with the landing dock - he couldn't see any legs, nor could he hear engines. It was as though the vessel was floating in the air effortlessly, although he could not be certain. All guests entered through a port at the bottom of the ship, which took them up in a large elevator to the third deck. A small column protruded from the ship's hull and almost touched the ground. Glass elevators ran around it and they quietly floated up and down, in and out of sight. Zahir approached the closest elevator and stepped inside. The doors closed behind him with a quiet [i]whoosh[/i]. Much to his surprise, the elevator's interior darkened; he could not see outside the glass any more. As the elevator gently took off, a large face appeared in the glass before him. It was a young woman with long, blond hair. Zahir guessed that she would have been about twenty-five or so. 'Welcome to the Von Braun,' said the woman, who's eyes were squarely fixed on his. Zahir looked around. 'Er, thank you,' he replied awkwardly. He had come across holograms before, but none that involved any significant interaction or conversation. 'I can tell by your boarding pass that you are a new staff member,' said the woman with a wink. 'That means you'll have to board the B-1 Monorail, which will take you to the General Staff Quarters. Your room is number seven zero two.' 'Thank you,' said Zahir again. He scratched his neck and tried not to focus on the hologram's eyes. 'I heard that there is going to be some kind of launch party at the casino tonight...' The holographic woman smirked. 'Oh, yes, that's true. It's an event for First and Second Class passengers. Staff entry is limited - you'll have to be quick if you want to get in.' Zahir nodded. Finally, the face began to fade and the doors opened again. An enormous lobby unfolded beyond him - or at least, it was what he assumed was the lobby. There were large polished-wood desks everywhere, with smartly-dressed staff in pillbox hats standing behind them. Men in long coats and women in elaborate hats strode left and right across the area, chatting amongst themselves and occasionally barking orders at staff. The atmosphere was thick with excitement. The large central lobby was surrounded by a number of other open areas. One looked like a room full of large telephone boxes. Another appeared to be some kind of garden with a pond and a gazebo. There were many wide hallways, which had arches at their mouths. The lobby appeared to literally be the hub of the ship. There were also many signs pointing in all directions. Zahir gathered that there was a single large monorail station beyond the immediate rooms and that from there, monorails to all parts of the ship could be accessed. He grabbed his bags and held them close. Before even considering tonight's festivities, Zahir had to simply find his room. The sheer grandeur of the ship's interior stunned him so much that he had completely forgotten about Khalid and his apparent lack of concern that Zahir was leaving. Now, he thought, he may actually get his own room. As he wandered into the center of the lobby, he noticed that the light had changed. [i]Surely not,[/i] he thought. [i]A skylight?[/i] He instinctively looked up. There was no skylight, but he could indeed see the sky. Zahir rubbed his eyes - he didn't believe what he was seeing. Clouds drifted overhead and punctuated a vivid blue sky. The occasional flock of birds darted in and out of the clouds, apparently flying over some distant horizon. He felt a very slight breeze against his face. Yet, when he looked carefully, he felt certain that he could see glass and metal beyond the clouds. For a moment he almost thought he'd caught a glimpse of a man in a yellow hardhat, strapped to some kind of mechanism - he looked almost like a window cleaner. But the clouds drifted by again and obscured his view. 'They even simulated the sky,' he said to himself. 'Amazing.'