Doug's Workshop's page

I don't care for anything as inconsequential as spelling. You changed the idea. You said i wanted Israel to do something impossible. That is not the case, unless (as you seem to be arguing) you consider not being a despotic conqueror or acting in longer term interests to be impossible.

A despotic conqueror? Really? Last time I checked, Israel was a democracy, and had ceded control of Gaza to Hamas. Hamas has been singularly inefficient in providing relief to Gazans, while building up their weapon inventory.

I'm sure Israel would like to act on longer term interests. But stopping its citizens from being killed takes precedence. If Hamas really cared about the Palestinians, that would be their first care as well.

"Its" was confusing. Had no idea what you were talking about. The only thing I could think of was punctuation. For future reference, "You've changed 'its'" isn't clear enough.

It is impossible for me to negotiate the price of a new car when the organization responsible for selling the car is not involved. It is likewise impossible for Israel to negotiate with Hamas about stopping rocket attacks when, as you point out, Hamas isn't carrying out those rocket attacks. Israel can talk to Hamas about it, but Hamas can't do anything. There is no negotiating.

I'm not sure if this is an error but you've changed "its."

It is not possible for Hamas to police the west bank and gaza, at all, given the Israeli restrictions. This does not prevent israel from negotiating with them anyway

It will never be possible for Hamas to police the west bank and gaza to absolute zero levels of rocket fire for the forseeable future. THis does not stop Israel from accepting their best effort and helping them reach it.

Everything I've said is impossible is impossible on the Palestinian= side. I've only said "this will have negative consequences in the short term" on the Isreali side. That is far, far , FAR from being impossible.

I can negotiate the price of my next car with my water company, but I'm pretty sure the car dealership won't care.

As for your comment about "its" . . . I left your comment in place. I thought about putting a 'sic' in your quote, but I don't like messing with other people's posts.

And that's pretty much it. Eventually this conflict ends in one of two ways: A peace that allows Palestinians a sovereign state or the ethnic cleansing of Palestine. The first has some risks and will take time and a lot of willingness on both sides to overlook provocations. The second will be an atrocity and leave Israel in a permanent conflict with the Muslim world.

There's a third option. There are already a good number of Muslims living in Israel. Peaceful, productive citizens. Of course, that means giving up the quest to destroy Israel.

I keep telling you its not possible. I keep telling you WHY its not possible and you keep going back to nike's "Just do it". Reality doesn't work like that.

I agree with you that it's not currently possible. I've laid out why it's not currently possible.

Your response is "Israel should do it anyways."

Never give an order you know is going to be disobeyed.

especially when most of your power is illusory

You've said this, but then insist that Israel negotiate with Hamas.

Hamas cannot provide any guarantees. If Israel were to concede to Hamas' demands to open the Gaza border, weapons would start flowing in, allowing everyone to rearm. How is that in Israel's interest? "But democratically elected!" doesn't cut it. A faithful negotiating partner can and will act on promises made. "But good!" doesn't cut it, because civilians will be the expressed targets of those weapons, and Israel would have to repeat its actions again, leading to even more death.

So please explain why Israel should allow the groups that want to destroy it access to the weapons that will allow even more death to occur.

They're what you've got to work with. And I still say, focus on their actions, not their charter. Encourage them when they take steps towards moderation, which they have done again and again, only to be slapped down every time. Are they nice people? Of course not. They're anti-Semitic terrorists. But they've shown they're rational enough to deal with.

If it was possible to destroy Hamas without a complete slaughter of the Palestinian population, I'd be for it. But it's not. So they're there and they have to be dealt with. Cutting the grass every few years seems to be Israel's current strategy, but that's inhumane and it isn't working either. Not if the goal is peace.
As for the Charter, as Comrade Anklebiter linked, the Likud charter seems to deny any possibility of a real solution. It's not as vile as Hamas's, but if we're just going by charter's there's no point in even negotiating with a Likud government about a 2 state solution, is there?

Okay, I'll look at their actions.

The jihadis (not Hamas) decided to start launching rockets again today, once again trying to kill civilians. What's Hamas' action (or reaction)? I don't recall hearing their spokespeople condemn those actions. Not even a token "we would prefer that not happen." Nothing. Strange actions for a group that's interested in peace.

Like Islamic Jihad and the Al-Nasser Salah al-Din Brigades, right?

Hamas is the moderate faction. Deal with them or don't. You'll only get worse. Nice peaceful moderates don't tend to win civil wars.

Mind you, I said deal with them, not trust them or surrender to them. Encourage them when they make overtures towards peace, rather than try to provoke more conflict.
In fact, the proposed unity government was doing basically what you want. Not removing Hamas entirely, but subordinating them to the more moderate Fatah. Israel's reaction appears designed to sink the deal.

Hamas' reason for existing is to destroy Israel. It's in their charter. They are not moderate. They aren't as radical as Islamic Jihad, but that doesn't make them moderate.

Notice the "Islamic Jihad" bit there? That's one of those nastier than Hamas groups we keep talking about. I don't think anyone here has defended Islamic Jihad or any of the other more extreme factions.

Again, the basic argument is that if Israel wants peace, they'll get it faster by encouraging the more moderate Palestinians, even Hamas when it shows itself willing to deal, than by trying to stomp out all the extreme ones.

If Gazans want peace, they'll kick Hamas out of power and turn towards more moderate Palestinians.

I'm sure y'all will be shocked to learn that the not-bad-guys-just-resistence-fighters-we-hand-out-candy-and-teddy-bears-at- orphanages-on-the-weekends people started trying to kill civilians again.

"The enemy ended the cease-fire when he refused to accept the demands of the resistance and he bears responsibility for the consequences of that," the military wing of Islamic Jihad said in a statement.

Translation: "It's your fault we keep trying to kill your people. This could all be resolved if you'd just open the borders so that we can import more weapons to kill you guys faster."

Oh no. The fact that bigoted and hateful fanatics REALLY don't like us is a point of sincere pride for me. No mass bombing here.

I seem to recall a quote about being known by the enemies you make . . . .

Which is like coke saying "we won't have sugar in the water anymore" Hamas has 3 things,

1) we hate israel
2) We're not the Fatah party that let you down and
3) An oddly competent crisis response team. Israel blew up your house? here's a dozer. Killed by isreali bombs? Here's a check. Relative ofa suicide bomber? Oh look, this suitcase of cash fell off the back of my truck. Here you go ma'm. Seriously, reading up on those guys i would have invited them to do new orleans...

You're treating Hamas like a single entity. Its not. Its 2 family feuds away from being an autonomous collective.

So what I'm hearing is that you aren't recognizing the difference between "can't" and "won't."

I can't fly my truck Mach 3. Ain't gonna happen.
I won't drive my truck 100 mph. I'm pretty sure it can go that fast, but I'm not going to do it.

Hamas CAN stop firing rockets. Hamas WON'T stop firing rockets.

See the difference?

could have missed an election but

Political groups
Hamas (74)
Fatah (45)
PFLP (3)
Palestinian People's Party (1)
Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine (1)
Independent Palestine (2)
Third Way (2)
Independents (4)
Linky

Yeah, you missed an election. The link you provided . . . look at the first paragraph of that page. Then look at the third sentence: "Since January 2013, the Fatah-controlled Palestinian Authority rebranded itself as the State of Palestine in official documents . . . . "

A couple paragraphs lower . . . "After the Gaza Strip was taken over by Hamas on 14 June 2007, the Authority's Chairman Mahmoud Abbas dismissed the Hamas-led government and appointed Salam Fayyad as Prime Minister."

From a moral standpoint, hamas is the democratically elected leadership of the palastinians. They're the government that Israel is either continually invading or has conquered, depending on how you look at it.

So a democratically elected group

should be allowed to try to kill Israelis because it's the group the Gazans elected? Strange morals.

It CAN:T. Can not. Its boot strap levitation. Cold fission. A perpetual motion machine.

Could you at least give me some signal that you acknowledge that I'm saying this because this is like the 5th time you've had to rely on this idea as part of your reasoning.

Say "yes they can!" or something and explain why you think they can.

Israel doesn't let them have any of the tools they would need to do this.(not really a surprise there because they'd probably use it to shoot israel)

You keep saying they can't like they don't have a media operation.

There. That's it. Two things. But you keep saying "They can't" like I'm asking for them to fly to the moon. It reminds me of the old adage "whether you believe you can or you can't, you're right."

you are VASTLY over estimating the cost of those.

Hamas was declared a terrorist organization, which despite winning the election and some creative accounting to go around that, got their funding slahsed to pieces.

You should really do some research on the lifestyles of senior Hamas officials. For having their funding "slashed to pieces" they do pretty well living in luxury villas. There's plenty of money, but then the thugs at the top would have to stop living the high life.

Look how Fatah got replaced. Hamas IS going to get replaced.. probably by someone angrier.

Fatah is in power in the West Bank. I don't know what you mean by "replaced."

Of course the situation isn't sustainable. Hamas wants Israel destroyed. Generally speaking, keeping a neighbor like that isn't a great idea.

Lets see the video.

here's one

here's another

As to your comments: If Hamas can't effectively police the area, why should Israel deal with Hamas? If Hamas wishes to be taken seriously as a regional powerbroker, it needs to show itself capable of these actions. But if you're right, then Israel is right to ignore Hamas' demands because conceding to those demands will only mean more violence later.

Right now, Hamas is facing the equivalent of Detroit. It can't pay it's workers, and the infrastructure Gaza needs went to build tunnels and buy weapons. Its only hope is some sort of truce where Israel opens the border crossings. If it doesn't, Hamas is broken and within a few years will likely be replaced.

Totally unrelated links:
Hamas commits war crimes? Shocked to find gambling etc. etc..

a nice overview

Slowly, the Palestinians are realizing that Hamas is the problem. Other Arab nations are also deciding that Hamas isn't the best choice of an ally.

Gazans turning against Hamas

Old allies rejecting Hamas

It would not. This factual error of yours shows your lack of understanding of the situation and undercuts your entire argument. You think hamas is like a standard military or government where it can actually control the actions of its subordinates: that isn't the case.

Hamas isn't out there saying "we can't control this, it's not us." Right now, it is Hamas firing the rockets. Therefore, it is within Hamas' power to stop the rocket fire.

It is also with Hamas' power to announce it's policy of "no more attacking Israel." And it could use it's position of leadership in Gaza to do it's best to stop those attacks and punish the offenders.

But Egypt cracked down on the border after ousting the Muslim Brotherhood, putting lots of pressure on Hamas because no money and few supplies made it to Gaza.

At this moment, with the Gazan economy tanking, all Hamas' factions know that with the Egyptian border closed they're done. So they'll keep launching missiles in hopes of getting Israel to concede to some sort of border opening. It's Hamas' only hope of retaining power in Gaza.

As to your request for a citation: will you accept Israeli statements? I've seen the videos of Hamas gunmen grabbing children, but since those videos aren't from Amnesty International or Human Rights Watch, I'm not sure how much they'll sway your opinion.

And you wonder why most people here can't take you seriously...

Depending on what group "most people" belong in, I don't see how this is a bad thing.

I mean, if I'd adamant that Sharknado can't happen and "most people" here disagree with me . . . .

That Hamas cannot solve the situation.

Hamas can stop firing rockets at Israel. That would stop the situation.

That the situation is almost entirely Israels fault.

Hamas launches rockets at Israel . . . and it's Israel's fault. I see.

The Israel's retribution for the rocket attacks is a massive over reaction

Looking around at the world, I don't see other countries allowing outside forces to launch rockets at their civilian populations without reprisal.

That Israel is the one killing the majority of the civilians (around 800 at last count, compared to Hamas's 2) Israel not shooting back would eliminate over 99% of the innocent deaths.

First, Hamas doesn't differentiate between civilian and combatant deaths (says so in their charter). Don't know if you knew that or not.

Second, yes, when Hamas launches rockets from civilian areas and Israel has to attack those sites after warning the civilian population to leave, there will be more civilian deaths. Maybe if Hamas allowed those civilians to leave . . . but many times they don't.

Maybe if Hamas spent all that time building shelters with concrete instead of building tunnels there'd be fewer casualties. But Hamas wants the civilian deaths. Their own misfired rockets have landed on Palestinian houses and Hamas has claimed the deaths were the result of an Israeli attack.

Out of curiosity, how many Israelis should be allowed to be killed before Hamas needs to held accountable?

You can't substantiate your claims.

Or you won't look further than the propaganda Hamas supplies.

You need to blame everyone for the problem with the argument your sources are making.

I haven't blamed everyone.

When someone calls you on the dissonance between the claims and the evidence, you can't back up the connection, you hop to something completely different and unrelated.

Or maybe I realize I could post a link to a video from Hamas that states everything clearly, and some would argue that it's simply Israeli propaganda.

Its not people's bias leading to the conclusions you don't like here. Either you're making really, really horrible arguments for your position or reality's well known liberal bias is showing again.

What liberal bias would that be? That jihadis like to kill civilians? Liberals seem to think that Hamas is a purely humanitarian group that gives children puppies while making sure their people are safe from the Jews. That Israel, the only functional democracy in the area, has a right and duty to defend itself from murderous thugs who hide behind women and children? Because the "liberal bias" seems to indicate that Hamas is not filled with murderous thugs that set up shop in hospitals and store rockets in schools run by the UN. Maybe that Hamas is a theocratic and demonstrably racist group who's stated goal is to destroy Israel? Certainly, the "liberal bias" demonstrated so far is that Israel is to blame for everything and poor Hamas is just acting the only way it can when it tries to blow up civilians.

I've seen lots of liberal bias, but reality doesn't seem to support it.

A spike in the conscript/military aged that isn't present in Gaza's overall population distribution? 44% of the deaths amongst 10% of the population. A statistician might find that little coincidence rather intriguing.

Furthermore, Palestinian Ministry of Health claims 82% of deaths are civilian. A little research into that shows that in 2009 (Operation Cast Lead), 82% of the deaths were claimed to be civilian. Is that coincidence #2?

Luckily, reports indicate the populace of Gaza is starting to turn against Hamas. Some people are probably wondering why that might be. Those of us who follow such things already know why.

Kinda hard to build shelters when Hamas keeps diverting the concrete to build tunnels into Israel.

I have NO idea what you're trying to say here. Are you trying to say that there were not multiple bombs?

Multiple bombs were used. There was the big plume of smoke the guy was filming, there was the one that went off while he was filming, and I'm pretty sure there was another one nearby that the crowd was leading the ambulance to.

"the link" is less than informative. He has enough links to different things to tie the girlscouts to global warming.

Secondary explosions . . . from Hamas' rockets. Bombs explode differently.

You don't like the link. I get that. Next time I'll try and find one that meets your criteria.

How about this one: http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_context=2&x_outlet=37&x_article=2 786

I'm sure it's just coincidence. Nothing to see here. Move along.

Go look at the video in the link, not the video on his site.

This video shows an attack on a relatively open space does not mean that all of the other bombs hit a relatively open space.

Um . . . you do know that precision bombing means multiple bombs don't need to be used, right?

Stop evading the argument by putting words people didn't say in their mouth.

If you link something that is malarkey, accept the possibility that people rejecting that malarkey is because its malarkey, not because they are closed minded.

If that's the only type of support you can find for your position, reconsider your position rather than crying that the audience is unfair.

Might be malarkey. Or it might be true. I noticed no one actually pointed out where the guy was wrong.

Doug's Workshop wrote:

Hey, if you don't want to keep an open mind about stuff, I can't force the issue.

Stop using a passive aggressive insult as an argument.

Yes. That is exactly what you're doing.

So I should only link sites that are BigNorseWolf approved?

Doug's Workshop wrote:

For what it's worth . . . .

http://www.thomaswictor.com/massacre-at-shijaiyah/

Pro-Israel conspiracy theorist reporting on what he's seen with no real expertise? Really?

Surprising, Doug. Even for you.

Hey, if you don't want to keep an open mind about stuff, I can't force the issue.

Curious that similar photos appeared 2 weeks ago.

Even conspiracy theorists can get it right once in a while.

Doug's Workshop wrote:

For what it's worth . . . .

http://www.thomaswictor.com/massacre-at-shijaiyah/

I like the other article on that website wherein the author relates how he was scammed out of $40,000 because he suffers from a variety of mental disorders and is gullible.

But it was considerably more fun to read than other stuff posted.

For what it's worth . . . .

http://www.thomaswictor.com/massacre-at-shijaiyah/

Never had an issue.

I started playing in 1981. I don't remember when I got the DM's Guide, but I remember my parents looking at it and seeing the chart for mental illnesses. They're both psych nurses, and were very impressed that a game would include such technical stuff. The descriptions were accurate enough for them that they didn't worry about other aspects of the game.

They even adopted the term "half-orc" for very unpleasant coworkers.

I think the only negative experience I had was with a coworker's wife, who apparently took Jack Chick's description of a secret cabal of 'uber players' to heart and was convinced that if I played too much I'd be indoctrinated into their cult.

So no, no issues at all in southwest Michigan.

It's also important to note that Hamas doesn't recognize a difference between "civilian" and "military." Look at their charter.

From Hamas' point of view, they aren't hiding their weapons in civilian areas, because those areas don't exist. Children are not students, they're future martyrs.

Of course, lots of people in the rest of the world see it differently, but representatives of Hamas are being "truthful" when they state "We don't put weapons in civilian areas."

Officially, Hamas was not behind the kidnapping and murder of Gilad Shaar, Naftali Frenkel, and Eyal Yifrach.

Officially, such an admission of involvment would derail the reconciliation of Hamas and the PA.

That didn't stop the PA from publishing cartoons celebrating the murders, though.

In other ME news . . .

The US has abandoned its embassy in Libya.

1000 people were killed in Syria last week, with ISIS carrying out beheadings, crucifixions, and other wonderful tortures as described by sharia.

Kurds fighting ISIS got bumpkis from the US in terms of support, so their victories will likely be for naught.

But yeah, let's focus on the boogieman that is Israel.

Hamas has misfired rockets on numerous occasions, killing their own people. Hamas then gets the cameras and claims Israel has bombed a home/school/hospital. The civilian population gets to suffer for the wrongs of Hamas, and Hamas gets to use those deaths to fuel their propaganda.

Oh, and as of 2011, at least 160 children died while digging tunnels for Hamas. http://www.jpost.com/Diplomacy-and-Politics/At-least-160-children-died-digg ing-tunnels-for-Hamas-369138

How many have died digging the latest tunnels? You know, the ones that were built with the express intention of attacking and kidnapping civilians? I'm sure all appropriate child labor laws were followed, because Hamas cares so much for the Palestinians.

As for the UN being friendly with Hamas . . . do you really think the rockets that were discovered earlier this month were the first time rockets were stored in a UN school? Really? {"I'm shocked, shocked to find that gambling is going on in here!" "Your winnings, Sir." "Oh, thank you very much."}

But BNW is right . . . there won't be peace with Hamas. As an organization, Hamas is dedicated to the destruction of Israel. It's in their charter. They will not accept a truce, except for either the destruction of Israel, or as a 'hudna' which is not a real truce, but rather an opportunity for the Faithful to recover and rearm.

It's up to the Palestinians and the PA to drive Hamas out of their ranks. Given the PA's recent "reconciliation" announcement, I'd not hold your breath.

Believe you me, they know this. They are acutely aware of the fact that nobody has the magical combination of both wanting to help them and being able to. Most of them are sick of Israel, of Hamas, of Egypt, of everyone.

Sadly, it only takes some of them to continue the violence and condemn them all to a pretty miserable existence.

Out of curiousity, is there a Palestinian organzation that recognizes that working with Israel is a better option?

Its a lose lose for the other states. Taking in the refugees would cost money, deprive them of a weapon, and invite retaliation any time Israel decided to snag some more land.

Also, they all look the same to us, but they were already a not so popular ethnic group BEFORE this whole mess started.

It would certainly deprive them of a weapon, because once the Palestinian issue is resolved, people might realize that the only liberally-minded nation in the region was Israel. Way easier to get the world distracted by the Israeli-Palestinian conflict than let the world focus on the moral, economic, educational, and cultural failings of the rest of the Middle East (quick: which nation in the region is rated highest by the Human Development Index? Here's a hint: it's the only functional democracy in the region).

The sooner the Palestinians figure that out other interests need them as martyrs, the sooner a real and lasting peace will be forged.

So that would just add incentives to continue to make the conditions worse and drive more Palestinians away while avoiding a peaceful solution until Israel can simply take the land. At this point allowing/helping refugees is enabling ethnic cleansing.

I'm not speaking so much of the refugees from 1948/67, but Doug's Workshop's question as to why neighboring countries don't open their borders to refugees.

Yeah, so much better to continue to let those people be used by Hamas as human shields. Makes perfect sense. Can't believe I didn't think of that before.

Doug's Workshop wrote:

thejeff wrote:

Has there ever been another war/occupation/whatever you want to call it, where that was the suggested solution for allies of the oppressed? Don't try to help them fight, just evacuate the country?

It seems to me that lots of Iraqis went to neighboring countries as refugees.

Different situation. And those refugees have been allowed back in, though they haven't all wanted to go yet. Which isn't the case with Palestinian refugees from decades ago. Israel won't let them return, not just to Israel, but even to the Territories.

Any refugees Egypt or Jordan or anyone else took would be permanent.

Ethnic cleansing.

You wanted a situation, I gave you a situation.

Note: Jordan (population of 8 million) already has over 600 thousand refugees of the Syrian war, 2 million refugees from Palestine (descendants of the 1948 refugees), a whole lot of iraqi refugees (numbers aren't clear online).

How many are they meant to take? - is over a quarter of their population not enough already?

As many as their big hearts can provide for.

So then, where are they supposed to go, doug?

I don't know, freehold. Maybe out of a war zone. I'm not an expert, but I'm pretty sure not being used as a human shield is preferable option to studying next to a missile.

There'd be no point in Israel denying civilians the chance to leave.

But there's a better chance that the sun would start rising in the west than Muslim countries provide refugee charity to the Palestinians.

Note in this case that 'neighbouring countries' = Egypt... that's it. They are the only other country with a shared border with any Palestinian controlled territory. You'd think that Jordan would border Palestine... but Israel have claimed a strip of land that prevents that.

And Jordan could still announce a policy of accepting refugees . . . but doesn't.

Has there ever been another war/occupation/whatever you want to call it, where that was the suggested solution for allies of the oppressed? Don't try to help them fight, just evacuate the country?

It seems to me that lots of Iraqis went to neighboring countries as refugees.

No doubt it was for a vocational training program for electrial engineers.

I'm sure this was for studying orbital and escape velocities.

If neighboring countries really cared about the Palestinians, they would open their borders to refugees. But it's much better anti-Israeli propoganda to refuse to help refugees and instead blame Israel for the violence.

Furthermore, those calling for "peace" need to define what they mean. Because to Hamas, "peace" means the destruction of Israel. I'm no expert, but I would suspect that the average Israeli has a considerably different definition.

Of course price fixing happens. A longsword has cost 15 gp anywhere you are in Golarion. If that isn't collusion between merchants, I don't know what is!

But seriously, if the minimum wage in Pathfinder is 1sp/day, that means a healing potion runs about $4000 - $5000 US. There are some pro sports players who would buy that, because it's crucial for them to be out on the field scoring baskets, making touchdowns, and defending Sandpoint from raiding giants. But the normal person just doesn't have the desire or need to spend $4000 on a one-use item.

So the "market" has priced potions at the appropriate level.

The beauty of pen-and-paper RPGs is that they aren't scripted the way computer RPGs are. The GM plays the opponents, so start thinking like someone who is defending his house.

Can a burglar break into your house, take a tv, and leave? Sure. Can he do it every day for a week? The homeowner is going to take actions to stop him. Maybe by setting up an alarm system, or hiring a security firm to post guards.

Nothing stops your player from going back to town after every encounter, but the bad guys will take advantage of his absence to bolster their defenses.

As for sleeping eight hours to regain HP, a character cannot get that benefit more than once a day. So resting five days and doing nothing else gets 10 HP healed, but the world moves on. Maybe another group of adventurers takes care of the monsters while the group was resting. Maybe the monsters decided there were easier pickings elsewhere, and moved on, taking their treasure with them.

As for the situation with the skeletons, I would rule that the skeletons are going to follow him, attacking all during his descent.

Enemies aren't static, like in computer games. That's a feature, not a bug. Make sure your player(s) know this, because it can be a rude awakening if you're used to computer games.

The secret we should never let the gamemasters know is that they don't need any rules.

I find this article to be a really good resource.

I, too, much prefer a physical rather than electronic copy.

I managed to fix the issue when I started getting into cardstock models, and bought an inkjet printer with a continuous ink supply. Decent paper isn't crazy expensive, and the ink is cheap. Throw in a couple 3-ring binders, and I'm swimming in printed product!

A bear probably can't be trained to respond to its handlers signals to detect drugs that aren't actually there.

Of course, now I have the image of a bear riding a tricycle with little red and blue lights, wearing mirrored sunglasses and a mountie hat . . . .

The final bill passed 60 to 39 in the Senate (58 Democrats and 2 Independents voting yes and 39 Republicans voting no, with one not voting.

Just to point out a little fact: That "one not voting" wasn't seated. Scott Brown had won the special election for the Senate, but wasn't sworn in yet.

A flash of movement on the ground to the side attracts a PCs gaze. He catches the hindquarters of a terrain appropriate predator disappearing into the underbrush (mountain lion, bear, wolf, crocodile, etc).