Monday, December 6, 2010

Best Thanksgiving Ever

As excited as I am about what I'm going to talk about, I'm going to make this post fairly brief.

During the Thanksgiving feast my family and I had, I finally did something I've been wanting to do for a very long time: propose to my girlfriend. I figured this would be a great time to do so, since pretty much my whole family would be watching a great moment. My girlfriend was so happy about it that she shrieked with glee and said yes several times while hugging me after I pulled out a ring; I didn't even have to ask her if she'd like to marry me.

After the feast, I was confronted by pretty much everyone, congratulating my girlfriend and I on our engagement. My own mother came up to me, apologizing to me for anything wrong she did in the past related to my lesbianism, coming to terms with that issue, and told me that she was glad that I could find someone who would make a great partner who made me happy. My girlfriend's parents came up to me and thanked me for making their daughter happy and helping her throughout her life. Everyone else I talked to pretty much simply congratulated my girlfriend and I.

That's not all that happened, though. My cousin and her wife, the day after my girlfriend agreed to marry me, announced that they plan on adopting a child soon. They are hoping to find a child who has had hardships like being bullied or abused and want to help raise them and make them feel better. They haven't called an adoption agency, but they're going to soon. I hope they can find one before my girlfriend and I get married, because I'd love for their adopted child to be there for that. If not, that's okay.

So yeah, had a great time, probably better than I'll ever have. Hope anyone out there reading had a nice Thanksgiving as well, even if it wasn't as great as mine. If not, then I apologize.

Friday, November 12, 2010

Thanksgiving Plans/About My Girlfriend and Her Family

For this Thanksgiving, my girlfriend and I will be heading to my cousin's parent's house with my cousin and her wife. Once there, we'll be greeted by not only her parents, but also her wife's parents, my girlfriend's parents, and my mom (just her, because I no longer keep in contact with my father and want nothing to do with him any more). My girlfriend, her mom, my cousin's dad, and my mom will be helping with the food-making for the most part, and my cousin wants to bring something she likes to make (she doesn't know what yet). If I were to make and bring anything, it'd be peanut butter brownies, which I might end up making with my cousin, because it's been a couple of years since we made anything together.

The only reason we're doing all of this at my cousin's parent's house is because it's the only house that has a large enough table to fit everyone joining to eat dinner. And my girlfriend wants to help make food because she loves to cook and is actually incredibly good at it. She initially wanted for her mom to teach her how to cook because she wanted to make me meals in the future, and figured she would also want to feed her kids later on in life. She's cute like that.

Now I feel like talking more about her, because, despite the absolute love I feel for her, I haven't talked about her in a lot of detail yet. Since she hasn't been writing on her blog any more (just got bored with it), I figured I'll do so now. Better late than never, I guess.

She is the sweetest person I will ever meet in my life, and I like to go as far as saying that she's the sweetest person ever, so I feel like the luckiest person in the universe just to be with her, especially for as long as we've been together. She was even sweet enough to skip the chance of being homeschooled to ensure that my time in school would not be a living Hell. I encouraged her to be homeschooled instead, since it would get her away from the bullies and such, and because we could still see each other, but she insisted on not doing it for my well-being. Admittedly, she was probably right. I likely would've had a much harder time getting through a lot of it without her being there. However, it did end up emotionally scarring her to some degree, so I still feel bad about the whole thing. She ensures me that I shouldn't worry about it, because she's glad that she was able to help. Now I return the favor if she ever feels upset by reminders or anything like that.

She doesn't like it when people are treated like shit. She likes to take care of things and make sure everything is all right, so she might also become sad if somebody is having a hard time, or get upset if she sees a parent mistreating their child. And, of course, just because something is violent doesn't mean my girlfriend won't like it, since she liked watching wrestling with me and plays violent video games with me fairly often (we played both Star Wars Battlefront games together for a few hours last night). However, she is typically more into stuff that doesn't involve violence. For instance, when she was real little, she mostly liked playing with stuffed animals and dolls. She didn't care for Barbies, though, because they weren't huggable and had too many expensive accessories.

Despite all of that, though, she is typically very smiley and happy. She loves giving hugs out at random, and will only kiss me at random, on the cheek or on the mouth depending on the situation. I'm sure it would probably annoy some people, but I welcome it. In fact, whenever she wants a hug and kiss, she'll get one back from me no matter what. She also tends to be very playful and nostalgic, so she likes to do stuff she did when she was a kid, even play on playgrounds. She likes to sing because of that, too, usually random songs that pop into her head (maybe unless she doesn't like a certain song). Just before writing on this blog post, she started humming "Some Girls Are Bigger Than Others" and singing "This Charming Man," both by The Smiths, because she listened to them on the way home from work. Because of this, she really likes to sing karaoke, and she's actually an incredible singer (no, I'm not being biased because she's my girlfriend).

Had we not met or been together, she probably wouldn't have been nearly as nerdy, considering her circle of friends before befriending me in Kindergarten. However, considering her behavior and her interests even at the time, she likely wouldn't have been friends with them for long, even if we'd never been together (she would've come my way eventually, it was bound to happen at one point or another). But had we not even been together, she would've had a much harder time getting through high school, because she was a very sensitive girl. She still is (which I love), but she was even more so when she was young. I guess her being with me helped her gain more self-confidence, not just because she felt loved, but also because I had a lot of self-confidence because of my cousin, which she then received from me.

Speaking of her mother, I can tell she was mostly influenced by her, since they act mostly the same, and her mother taught her a lot of what she knows, things like cooking, sewing and quilting. Her father, on the other hand, was also a sweet guy who took good care of my girlfriend, and he was a humorist. Just about every time I have seen him, he cracked a really good joke, whether on the fly, or told one he'd either heard before or made up earlier. So he actually kind of reminds me of my cousin, except he is a harder worker, and isn't nearly as much of a nerd, sex-lover, or independent personality otherwise.

Anyway, now my girlfriend is calling on me, wanting me to fuck her silly 'til the night's over come play a couple of board and card games with the family before going to bed in a while. I've been on here too long anyway, so time for me to get off.

Tuesday, November 9, 2010

Correlation Does Not Equal Causation

Case in point:

Just because a study says a majority of a selected minority of a part of a group did something, that does not necessarily make the original proposition true. If anyone were to find a part of the brain or body otherwise that made every single woman on the planet do everything this article is correlating to, and there were no variables due to their own minds telling them not to deviate from the norm, then you'd have a case, because then it would be proven by scientific fact. Since that's not the case, this shit can be thrown out the window.

Of course, the sad part is not only the fact that most everyone seems to be eating it up so far, but that this is all written by a woman herself. I seriously hope she isn't conforming herself into following these findings just because of the correlation, and if she doesn't follow any of it, then I hope even more so that she stops posting this bull shit on the site for essentially showing the findings as ridiculous to believe in the first place, because the site tends to be enjoyable otherwise.

Saturday, October 30, 2010

What Feminism Really Is

Just like with Liberalism and Conservatism, Feminism seems to be oft misunderstood. Just like with the former two, it seems the stereotype associated with Feminism is that of the extremist; people who I wouldn't even call Feminists. I'll explain why.

Feminism is a Liberal philosophy which fights for freedom and equality between the sexes, but is called Feminism because, for that to happen, women would need to gain more rights and privileges to match those shared by men. This means that Feminism is not just a viewpoint for women to hold; men can be considered Feminists as well. This also means that anyone who actually fits the stereotype of a Feminist (a misandrist who wants to treat men as inferior) is not really a Feminist.

Believe it or not, we still have a bit of progress to make in the United States (considering it is a country founded on the concept of freedom, yet inconsistencies still exist), and it seems that most of these problems exist in the workplace. Also, the problems seem to be persistent because of the cultural belief in nature over nurture, far more so than what should really be believed about the subject. However, I will say that it's at least not nearly as bad as what is going on over in places like the Middle East and Africa, where women have little to no rights.

Also, even though I understand why it was named so, I don't like the term Feminism. A change nowadays would be good. I'd prefer something gender neutral, but I don't know what. If anybody has any great ideas, let me know (if you don't want to leave a comment, you can email me through my profile).

Wednesday, October 27, 2010

Banning Teens From Trick or Treating

I've complained about a lot in the past, but this is just about the dumbest thing I've ever heard.

There is no reason to be afraid of kids or even people my cousin's age trick or treating. I'm curious, what is the fear based on anyway? You think they're going to immediately swarm into your house and cause mischief or what? Why worry about somebody asking for something that you have plenty of and are willing to provide for free? That's what I see it as: asking for free food. It may be mostly junk food, but it's still food. That's all these people, both young and old, are really doing is looking for something to eat.

Or is this all just based on social stigma? Deviation from social norms is not reason enough to make a law limiting people's freedoms. The fact that it's not a normal occurrence does not make a cause for a concern. It doesn't mean that there is something wrong with a person if they deviate from social norms. Then again, considering the history of the human race, this isn't a surprising thing to discover, and just proves that even the smallest little thing can be taken far out of context.

No matter what, though, there is no good reason to ban anyone from trick or treating on Halloween. Anyone deliberately out to get someone in any way on Halloween is not going to be trick or treating. They obviously have other motives if they're not, and that's all you'll be giving people (particularly teens, I imagine), a reason to do something else, including trashing houses, like has always been done and can be done even if not allowed to trick or treat. So even if it's banned, there's no point, because shit can still happen anyway. The only purpose it serves is to limit citizen's freedoms for no reason.

So why do it?

Monday, October 18, 2010

Cheating in Online Multiplayer

I'm going to talk more in-depth about one of my biggest problems with online gaming: cheaters. In this post, I'll be using Call of Duty 4 as a prime example, since that's where I see this bullshit the most. I have the Xbox 360 version, so Microsoft is supposed to be able to detect whether or not someone is hacking and cheating automatically. However, there are still quite a few who are undetectable (and if you want proof that people are indeed cheating, look at the leaderboards, particularly the kill ratings), and usually try to hide their cheating ways by trying to play legitimately, but they usually still do little things that give it away. Playing on Hardcore can render a couple of the cheats useless, but many still work well.

For instance, there is a name display hack, which always displays the names of everyone, so they can not only tell who's on their team, but they can even see the names through walls, and if they have deep impact on (they likely do if they're using this hack), then they can easily shoot your through the wall. Now, here's the problem. Just because they shoot you through the wall does not mean they know you're there. They may have gotten lucky, since there may have been a person in front of the wall they were trying to shoot at. Otherwise, you can tell someone's hacking if no one is around that area, or if they only shoot one or two bullets and manage to hit kill you. Hell, that's a general rule of thumb even if there is no wall: if someone only shoots a bullet or two, particularly from a sub-machine gun more than halfway across the map, and it hits you and kills you, that person is very likely cheating.

Either that or they make themselves seem legitimate by coming around to get you, so they're in plain sight when they see you to seem legit. Sometimes they are, like if there is a UAV (radar) activated, but half of the time I've had that happen to me, it wasn't even on. In fact, I remember a time when I was hiding in a building for a bit, shooting someone out a window (somebody else was in there with me at the time). After I kill that person, I move away from the window a few feet and sit for a moment to see if anyone will come through the door, and sure enough, after about fifteen seconds, a guy far away pops up from behind a corner, immediately shoots a rocket launcher through the doorway (not even enough time to aim), and hits me with a direct hit. And there was no UAV at the time, so there was no other way for him to know I was right there, so it would've been dumb for him to waste a rocket on nothing if nothing were there. It's too hard for me to believe that was based on luck or skill, mostly because you don't just go shooting rockets at random because that's a bad strategy, since you can only have two shots with it, until you die and respawn, and the guy only died a couple of times during the game. And got a kill score higher than thirty.

Which reminds me of another thing that should tip you off on who's cheating and who isn't. If there is someone who is consistently never or rarely dying and getting a shitload of kills every single match/map (and there's usually one of those mother fuckers every game), there's a good chance that person's cheating, but that depends on how that person is playing. If they're one of those run and gun types, then they're probably cheating, because in Call of Duty 4, doing that will typically get you killed often. If they're sniping people out from a secluded location, particularly one that takes time to get to (which makes me wonder why they don't die anyway, since they usually have to be wide open to get to those places most of the time), it's kind of believable, but still makes it not much fun to play if some asshole keeps sniping you out every minute or two (by the way, sniping like that takes little skill, and if anything, shows a lack of it, despite the large scores attained).

But beware of reporting these people. If you do it enough, and it turns out they're not cheating (somehow), then you could be the one who ends up banned. Some of these people are either just being legally cheap, or are insanely good (i.e. a person who needs to do something else with his time, even if that means playing a completely different game and not just, you know, switching to Modern Warfare 2). So if you're thinking someone is cheating, but aren't completely sure about it, just give them a bad rating. Otherwise, if you've seen enough proof, such as another person not dying after several hits in Hardcore mode (if I remember correctly, Juggernaut only helps in Normal mode, and even if it worked in Hardcore, it wouldn't help you last more than a couple of hits), or if someone one-hit kills you in Normal mode (no head shot) all the way across the map with a pistol literally almost immediately after being killed by you, then it probably wouldn't hurt to report them.

And of course, I am certainly not against cheating in video games. Sometimes doing so extends the life of your game with neato codes that you can use. And you want to make your purchase worthwhile, so if you can't beat a game, you're not getting the full experience. That's another instance where cheating can save the day, and it's nothing to be ashamed of if you ever have to do it, since there are quite a few games out there that are otherwise good, but are just too fucking hard. However, the one instance where I can easily make an exception is in multiplayer games, particularly online. It just goes to show either a person's lack of skill or inconsideration for the concept of having fun whenever someone feels the need to use cheats and hacks online. If there is one thing that makes me think a person is less of a gamer for doing something, that's it right there: the need to cheat in multiplayer, for a person who otherwise can't play worth shit in the game. On second thought, what I think is worse is if someone is really good already and still feels the need to cheat in multiplayer. Either way, it's stupid.

P.S. Not that I care much for winning or competition compared to having fun, but for those who do, it's because of bull shit like this that, for a game style that I otherwise usually do at least decent at, I usually get low scores in this game. If you normally do well in games like this, like I do, and expect to do well, think again.

Saturday, October 16, 2010

Local Multiplayer Vs. Online Multiplayer


-I love having the ability to hug and kiss my girlfriend before, during, and after games. It's otherwise still great fun playing with friends and loved ones, i.e. the people you typically want to play games with the most.

-Cheating is nearly impossible, so you're almost guaranteed a fair game.

-Usually no worries about lag or having a game cut out suddenly. A game that does (that's not online) either has too much going on at once, or has bad design.

-It's easier for the group to get what is preferred, such as a particular map or weapon set to be used during play.

-You don't normally have to pay for extra crap. Maybe an extra controller, if anything, but that's about it. Everything else is available for you automatically. 


-You don't get to play with some cool people you otherwise wouldn't normally get a chance to play with.

-Unless you have LAN set up, you can't play with more than four people.

-Sometimes the people you want to play with in local multilayer aren't available at the time you want to play.


-Sometimes, there is extra content available online, such as more maps and items. Extends the life of the game and usually makes it more fun.

-Usually, you can play with up to sixteen people easily. Sometimes more, sometimes less, but either way, you're most likely going to play with more than four people.

-Somebody is always available for play, and sometimes you can meet some good people.


-Most of the people you meet online, however, are assholes in one way or another, but your most common asshole is probably the troll, who just does what he/she does for his own personal lulz (not like it's funny or takes much thought anyway).

-To add to that, the treatment of women is particularly bad, and is otherwise something you normally won't get in local multiplayer. Click the image below to see a good example of the typical bull shit involved with that.

-There are quite a few cheaters online. Although some people are unfairly judged as cheaters, some people do little things that give away the fact that they are indeed cheating somehow, such as being able to see your display name at all times, or if they only need to shoot one or two bullets from a sub-machine gun to kill you.

-If there aren't people cheating, you're bound to find somebody using a cheap tactic, or you'll find somebody who's insanely good (i.e. somebody who spends far too much time playing the game). Either way, getting killed constantly by any of these people ruins the fun for everyone else.

-Don't be surprised if the game ends suddenly, or lags because of a bad connection. Hell, don't be surprised if you can't even get online, either.

-Extra shit usually must be paid for, whether it be a monthly subscription to the online service running your games, or add-ons and stuff like that.

-Certain options are usually predetermined, mostly maps. Sometimes it can be changed with a vote if a particular map is unsatisfactory to most players, but that doesn't happen even half of the time you play. A bad setting is almost guaranteed any time you play.

-Good luck being able to play your games online forever. Servers may be shut down; a lot of games no longer have online multiplayer due to the feature not being supported by the company anymore. Even so, don't expect to play games like Mario Kart 64 or the original Super Smash Bros. online.

So, what would I pick? I think it should be obvious: local multiplayer kicks online's ass any day of the week. I'll play online games if I'm really bored and have nobody around to play a game with me, but otherwise, I'll take giving my girlfriend hugs and kisses over some idiot insulting me for the easiest attempt at "humor" ever any day of the week.

Friday, October 15, 2010

The Fifth Element

Upon first viewing this film in the late nineties, I found it confusing, but I figured that was because I was a kid who couldn't understand any underlying themes like my cousin usually kind of could. Even after learning how to search for that kind of symbolism in film and literature, I still don't know if this is one of those kinds of films that can be studied much, if at all, but either way, all I needed was just another viewing with my cousin to explain a bit more of the plot. After that, it made sense, and I liked it a lot.

The film is essentially about this evil sitting out in space that gains power from evil deeds committed either throughout the world or the universe, and attacks Earth once every five thousand years. To stop it, four stones representing certain elements are to be collected and placed in a pyramid around a fifth element, the supreme being representing good or love, to stop the evil heading towards Earth, but if evil stands there, then. . . obviously something bad happens.

Unfortunately, considering this is directed by Luc Besson, the same person who also directed The Transporter, I'm not even sure if this movie does have much hidden symbolic stuff to look for. A lot of the messages seem to be pretty clear. That's not a bad thing, it just seems like quite an artsy project despite the action and comedic moments. Here you have a film with a wobbly, penguin-like alien with shitloads of DNA being resurrected as a sexy flat-chested, red-haired woman who knows martial arts and eats more food than that Japanese guy who eats over fifty hot dogs every year, an evil corporate boss with half a head of hair and plastic on his head who deals with evil alien merc creatures and talks to a magic evil orb thing hanging out in space waiting to attack Earth, and a tall blue female opera singer with tentacles coming out of her head who bleeds green blood, and has magic stones that are supposed to help the red-haired chick save the world stuffed inside her stomach somehow.

Oh, and I can't forget about the most annoying character in the film, probably the only thing that is truly bad about the film: Ruby Rhod, the radio DJ with wacky hair, a horrible fashion sense (it is the future, but damn, a full bodied leopard print outfit?), an annoying voice, is an extremely jumpy scaredy cat, and has a scream loud enough to pierce through the sound of an explosion (and still manages to get plenty of women even considering all of that), played by the only actor this character could possibly be played by: Chris Tucker. Other than comic relief, he has no purpose. He essentially does nothing helpful, other than ensure Korben Dallas, played by Bruce Willis, who can usually only act decently in an action film (12 Monkeys being a notable exception) is accompanied to Fhloston Paradise. Thankfully, though, even the movie is self aware that Ruby Rhod is annoying, but it doesn't have the gall to kill him off or let him leave the group. Once he appears, he sticks around until near the end of the movie, so have fun.

Anyway, despite the fact that this film is mostly Science Fiction with some Action and Comedy thrown in the mix, there is even a bit of Fantasy. The fact that the four stones, which represent the four elements, are magical, and require four elements (fire, water, wind, and earth), and the fact that there is a big ball full of evil, and something good, a fifth element, must stop it, essentially makes this film Fantasy as well, since there is no scientific process involved. I can also talk about how morality is relative, but it's a movie critical of war and violence. . . even though there is a lot of beating up and blowing up of bad guys by the main characters, but screw it, I agree with the message that war is not always the answer and it's bad that we're one of the few species on the planet that kills itself en masse like we do despite our higher reasoning abilities.

I also like to mention how, since the fifth element, Leeloo, played by Milla Jovovich, seems to represent love, that essentially makes me wonder if Luc Besson ripped off Captain Planet. Seriously, it's the exact same elements: Earth, Fire, Wind, Water, and the additional power of Heart (Love).

But that show sucked, and this film doesn't, so it's all good.

Sunday, September 26, 2010

The Walking Dead

I have read the whole series so far, and overall, I've gotta say, it impressed me; it exceeded my expectations. It is one of the best Horror stories you may ever come across. It's a very realistic story, particularly when dealing with the characters.

. . . Except for one thing: the relationship between Andrea and Dale. It's certainly not a big enough deal to ruin the story, but it did make me cringe. Why? First off, the biggest reason is the fact that Andrea looks a Hell of a lot like I do. I wear a ponytail and have freckles like she does, and we even have some similar personality traits, except she's apparently straight, which is not the problem. The problem is the fact that she's with some old, fat man. Not that I don't like the guy, but I did cheer for the moment he died, because that meant their relationship, the only thing to criticize about the whole series thus far, was over. Until then, reading the comic and reading of their relationship literally made me feel nauseous, because I inevitably started having unpleasant thoughts of being with the old fart. Thankfully, my girlfriend was able to help with that any time that happened. Thanks again, sweetheart. ;)

Second, even if I can get past the nastiness of the whole thing, the relationship just wasn't all too believable. The only thing the author made any connection for them was that they both lost people that were important to them and didn't want to be alone, like that's the only criteria for a relationship to work. "I don't care if he's an old man who'll die a whole few decades before I do, and I don't care if he's gross, I just don't want to be alone! I'll be with anybody, no matter who!" Quite frankly, even forgetting the age difference and all of that, their personalities were really not much of a match. I didn't feel any sort of connection between them. It feels like the relationship was forced upon the readers by the author, and it was bad enough at certain points that I'd even facepalm at the severe lack of any true connection, especially because the author felt the need to explain the connection, which was a ridiculous one at that. Just your typical "I wanted an all-around nice guy" viewpoint. If that's the best he can come up with, then the relationship shouldn't have fucking happened, partly because he wasn't the only candidate. Why not Glenn? He was around during that time as well. Or why not make her wait longer to meet somebody? Anyway, ultimately, it felt like an awkward mess, which I'm glad was fixed with Dale's death. Now Andrea is almost with a new guy, and this time, I'm actually feeling a connection, and the guy's not old and gross, so no complaints about that.

That's my only gripe. Otherwise, this comic series is wonderful,mostly because of the character development, and the realism, particularly because no one is safe. Read far enough into the series and that will become quite apparent.

Tuesday, September 21, 2010

What Liberalism and Conservatism Really Are

Often, I hear of Liberals and Liberalism being compared to Progressivism, Socialism, Communism, etc. They are not related. Otherwise, only one term would be needed for them all.

Liberalism is a viewpoint that generally puts an importance on liberty and equality, hence the word "Liber," which is Greek for "Free". A person who is a Liberal typically considers constitutions, Liberal Democracy, free and fair elections, human rights, Capitalism, free trade, and the separation of church and state high values. Even with these general ideals, there are still differing opinions within the Liberal circle, much like any other.

Conservatism is simply the viewpoint of following tradition, keeping things the way they are, or were in the past, hence the word "Conserve," which essentially means to save or hold onto something. This means that it can cover a variety of different opinions, and not just the stereotypical ideology that is thrown out there, even by Conservatives themselves (and even by me, heh heh). One may be a supporter of the Constitution, another may be a supporter of the mentality present in the Dark Ages.

So yes, Progressivism is typically looked down upon by Conservatives, which makes sense, but Liberalism is not synonymous with it. Sometimes a Progressive viewpoint is needed to attain certain Liberal goals, but this is certainly not always the case.

Personally, I am not a follower of the Conservative philosophy because I don't believe in supporting something just because it's been that way, or has worked for a while, since things that work at one point in time do not always work at another. "This is the way we've done it before" honestly sounds more like an excuse than an argument. Also, a lot of old viewpoints have often been freedom-limiting before Liberalism stepped in and changed a few things around, such as slavery and women's rights just to name a couple, to give American citizens more freedom; to put things in line with the Constitution and make it more of a non-contradictory document.

I am a Liberal because I believe social equality is essential for freedom, and I'd like for our country to be more free than it already is. Nearly three hundred years have passed, and America still has problems with freedom, a country which was founded on that very concept. Not just the big things, but also the little things that quite a few people haven't noticed, such as supporting conformity in the workplace or within society otherwise (whether they realize it or not). Not that much can be done about that, but I'd like for it to be noted and have someone be influential in changing that atmosphere for the betterment of our society.

And quite frankly, I'd like to get married.

Sunday, September 12, 2010

Metroid: Other M

I was pretty hyped for this game. I've been a big fan for quite a long time. I not only like the gameplay, but I liked the story. Well, of course. It's Science Fiction, and I generally love Science Fiction. But even that's not the only reason I liked the story. I also liked it because of the main character herself, Samus Aran. I have idolized her since childhood, because she was a headstrong, independent, bad ass woman who could take on the biggest baddies throughout the galaxy all by herself.  She's the Ellen Ripley of the realm of video games. Of course, she's not the only one who made me feel this way, but she helped me feel like I could do whatever I pleased if I put my mind to it. And she did that without even speaking much.

However, in recent years, she seems to have become more of a sex symbol. Of course, being a lesbian, I can't help but like that (she has a great ass, sure, but she has an unrealistic figure (too skinny) in Super Smash Bros. Brawl), but at the same time, I don't. It started a transition into a less tough personality for Samus, and essentially became yet another in a line of sexualized women in the field of video games, catering to the male gamer crowd and alienating women.

But, to be honest, it wasn't really that bad, especially compared to the transition made in this game. Now, Nintendo (or Team Ninja, not sure who) decided to make her one of those delicate flower types, essentially fitting her into more of a gender role stereotype. In this game, she will cower in fear before fierce enemies who'd rather roar and growl at her for a few minutes than fight her. She's even scared of Ridley, who Samus has faced several times before this game chronologically takes place.

This is obviously in complete contrast to her past behavior. Because of this, the story in this game does not fit with the rest of the series. However, that's not the worst part about this. The worst thing about this is it's misogynistic. Quite frankly, it's an insult to women. There's no reason Samus should be scared like this. Of course, this is all if they're making her this way just because she's female and because of, you know, estrogen and all that (estrogen, as well as testosterone, do not affect personality in that way, by the way; they mainly affect the sex drive and other sex characteristics such as voice).

But it's not just the cowardliness. Otherwise, I'd only bitch about this being an inconsistency. She also tends to get overemotional about all of the things she does, constantly putting herself in doubt. She even keeps talking about the Metroid baby that died at the end of Super Metroid.

Which brings me to the worst part about this whole thing: although she has her powers ready to use at the start of the game, she won't use any of them until Adam, her former commanding officer, authorizes use of her powers. First off, she is a sovereign individual who doesn't have to listen to authority to do what she needs to get done. In fact, I'm surprised her doing this shit doesn't get her killed, just in case she needed to do something to stay alive. But the worst part about this is actually the fact that Samus is dependent upon a male authority figure to do much of anything, like she's completely helpless to do otherwise. She's not his fucking slave. She's an independent woman, and that's how the series has been up until this point. Speaking of being inferior to Adam, she seems to be that way with the other guys as well. I've seen them try to fight her battles while she gets scared shitless and does fucking nothing; they have to try and save this formerly strong and level-headed woman. It's fucking pathetic.

To top it off, she constantly reflects on her past, often for really odd and minuscule reasons, or even none at all. Why she's doing that now and not in any previous Metroid game, I don't know. And why we need to know even half of the shit she tells us, I don't know. It's not interesting, and you can't skip any of the cutscenes. Quite frankly, I don't think there should be very many, if at all, cutscenes in Metroid in the first place, but the cutscenes in this game last several times longer than most people would want them to. I want to shoot aliens and monsters, not watch a fucking movie (a bad one at that).

Those are my gripes. Otherwise, the game is okay. The game's atmosphere is great, and the controls are okay. I also thought it was weird that Samus doesn't collect energy pellets and missiles anymore. She does this charge thing now. It's actually not bad, but I'd still prefer the collecting of stuffs, since this game really isn't that hard anyway. In fact, it's a little too easy, partly because of that new function that she never had before and has never had since. It's the easiest Metroid game ever, seriously. Also, excluding the cutscenes (which total up to about two hours long), the game doesn't last very long, but I think, considering the story, I'd prefer it that way.

But ultimately, would I recommend this game? Eh. . . maybe give it a rental. Just for the gameplay. Otherwise, if you're looking for a masterpiece in storytelling, or an evolution in Samus, stay far away. Quite frankly, the story and the characterization of Samus are so bad that they almost ruin this game. Normally, I don't care about story that much, but this game was pretty offensive to me, and possibly forever ruined a fictional character I idolized throughout my childhood. It ruins the experience when I try to play and have fun when that kind of bull shit mixes with the game. In fact, I felt like I wasn't even having fun half of the time playing the game because of the story and the new Samus (especially Samus). I'd even go as far as saying that the story is so bad that the game overall is almost as bad as Metroid Prime Hunters, maybe even worse. That's saying a lot.

But if you can get past that bull shit, then go ahead and give it a try. Even if you do play for the gameplay, though, just know it's still not nearly as good as most of the other Metroid games. It's still better than Metroid Prime Pinball and Metroid Prime Hunters, maybe (seriously, just maybe) Metroid II, but the rest are still superior. Even if you forget about the story, they still are.

Is it just me, or is Nintendo getting good at making games that look kick ass, but turn out to be disappointments in some odd way nowadays? I guess one exception would be New Super Mario Bros. Wii, but otherwise, even if a game is good, there's still something about it that just sucks bad enough to either be just a nuisance, almost ruin a game, or even just plain ruin it.

Anyway, I'm feeling a bit down after talking about what happened to Samus again, so I'm going to see if my family, or at least my girlfriend, can help me feel better. At least I can still depend on them.

EDIT: I forgot to mention the fact that you cannot do simple things like even shoot missiles in 2D mode anymore, which is quite inconvenient. You have to go into first-person mode to do that, and then you have to lock on to enemies to shoot it. Easily the worst thing about the gameplay.

And I forgot to talk about the new red-haired woman and her android clone thing (part of the story), but all I really feel the need to say is it's stupid. It's not bad like the way Samus is portrayed, it's just dumb.

EDIT 2: I realize that the emotions Samus had were building since at least Metroid Fusion, and that there's a manga that displays similar emotions. However, they are more understandable, because they don't take the emotions as far as they were in this game.

And I know of the PTSD claim. Quite frankly, that's bull shit, because she can get treated or possibly even cured, considering this game has a futuristic Science Fiction story. Not only that, but considering the way she acted in this game, I highly doubt a bounty hunter with PTSD this bad would still be in the business, whether because of her own realizations of how bad it is, or because of the fact that nobody would be willing to hire a bounty hunter that's capable of literally freezing in place during battle.

One last little factoid:

The same people who made this game made Metroid Other M.

Saturday, August 28, 2010

Glenn Beck's Tea Party Rally

I have less to say than before, partly because of what Al Sharpton said in the article, and partly because of a video I'll be posting at the end. By the way, despite agreeing with Al Sharpton's criticisms, I still don't like him.

Other than Sharpton's criticisms, I found a few other things stupid and funny. I like how Glenn Beck insists that doing this on the anniversary of the "I Have a Dream" speech by Martin Luther King, Jr. was a coincidence, but then Glenn Beck goes as far as even staying in the same hotel room where Martin Luther King, Jr. practiced his speech.

I don't like how Beck said that he wants us to help restore traditional American values. If that includes holding true to the Constitution, then I agree, but I have a strong feeling that's not all that he means. I say this because, as the article says, he's acting like an Evangelical preacher, talking about bringing God back into our country, even though most of the American population is still Christian. Granted, the number does seem to be falling very slowly, but that's not really a bad thing anyway. We have this thing called the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights, which states this:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

That's not all it says, but that's the part I'm talking about. The first part is the most important part of this, considering the ideology that this country needs to follow God and preserve Christian values. Quite frankly, the First Amendment states you can't ever do that, no matter what religion or ideal you belong to, because no matter what you have everyone follow, it limits their personal freedoms. I like having the freedom to be an Atheist, much like I'm sure a Christian likes having the freedom to be a Christian.

Just a side note: to put this stereotype out there that Atheists are dangerous and are causing a lot of bad things to happen (like Glenn Beck has done before) reminds me a lot of the Red Scare of the 1950s, so it's essentially like a new age of McCarthyism.

Also, while I'm on the subject, the United States of America is not a Christian nation, nor was it founded on Christian values. Democracy is not discussed in the Bible, nor are personal freedoms such as freedom of speech or the right to bear arms, nothing like that. The Treaty of Tripoli, ratified by the U.S. Senate in 1797, says in Article 11: "As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility [sic], of Mussulmen [Muslims]; and, as the said States never have entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries." In fact, even George Washington said, "The United States is in no sense founded upon the Christian religion."

Moving on:

"Tea party activism and widespread voter discontent with government already have effected primary elections and could be an important factor in November's congressional, gubernatorial and state legislative races."

Quite frankly, a lot of the things that the Tea Party tends to complain about has been around for quite a while, and it seems odd to me that they're just now gathering when a black man was finally elected president. Disregarding the potential link to racism, since I'm sure that's not the major reason why for most people, it seems Socialism is a big part of their complaints as well. Seriously, Obama is not a big time Socialist. He has done little that falls within the Socialist perspective, except for the Sin Tax thing, which hasn't even come close to passing, and universal health care. Even so, people are forgetting that our society already features some Socialistic things, such as the police force, firemen, garbage men, and even free books at the library.

Anyway, the sentence reminds me of something else. When I first heard of the Tea Party, I initially thought the idea of a new Libertarian party was cool. However, as I learned more about it, it proved to be a more extreme Conservative party than the Republican party, and doesn't hold up very many Libertarian values. At that point, I just disregarded the Tea Party, figuring it was going to fail. That was, until I heard that Fox News started supporting and sponsoring the group. Then I figured it could potentially become a problem. Why? Because Fox News is (maybe with the exception of Shep Smith) propaganda, even if there is news given. They're highly influential to their viewers, and because of that, I figured the Tea Party would just gain even more support, and they have. They are now influential enough to get people into elections and potentially into office. We need to stop them.

For more information, watch this video:

By the way, that guy makes awesome videos on more than one channel (his main being bryantulsa). I'd suggest checking him out. He's very well read, so it's quite a learning experience.


This post is going to be about the main ideal set in the philosophy of Andrew J. Galambos.

Andrew J. Galambos considered himself a Liberal (or Libertarian, can't remember which), but his viewpoints seem to be closer to Anarcho-Capitalism. He was 100% for intellectual property rights, even going as far as putting a nickel into a can or jar every time he said the word "Liberty," because he thought that Thomas Paine invented the word (he didn't, but that's beside the point). Using that logic, we should be paying for every single word we use, since somebody had to invent it. That would mean this sentence alone is worth over half of a dollar.

Galambos seems to be gaining a bit in popularity since his death in 1997, partially due to the Internet, but also because audio tapes and a humongous book called Sic Itur Ad Astra were released (however, the book is no longer in print). These were based on lectures he had given throughout the past few decades before he died. They were not released until after he died because he told his students not to tell others about his ideas because he considered them his intellectual property, and even told them not to follow what he says.

Despite this, some of his material has been spreading after his death, and has been garnering a small Libertarian following. It seems to be because the Galambosian ideology supports a personal independent way of thinking, like with Ayn Rand's Objectivism, but at the same time, it's Authoritarian because it forces people to do something-to pay for something minuscule like words or other non-physical productions and tell them not to share anything-as opposed to allowing them to do as they please. Not only that, but things such as wikis, the GNU license, free software, peer-to-peer file sharing, and so on would be viewed as unacceptable.

EDIT: I forgot to mention, the book I described earlier talks about much more than just intellectual property. For instance, he also tries to dispel the "overpopulation myth." Of course, this was back in the late sixties, when the world population was only about three billion people, compared to our six billion (nearly seven billion) in present times, which also explains the lack of knowledge when it comes to things like the way the Chinese have been dealing with their overpopulation problem; the One-Child Policy, which forbids couples from having more than one child, or else they don't get the same benefits, or may even have to pay the government a fee.

Friday, August 27, 2010

Marvel Ultimate Alliance

Note: I'm reviewing the Xbox 360 version.

I've been playing this game a with my family (my girlfriend, my cousin, and my cousin's girlfriend) recently, so I feel in the mood to talk about it a bit now.

This game is a third person action beat 'em up in which you can play as a wide variety of Marvel super heroes, and even a few villains if you can manage to download them (they're not included in the game). There are quite a few secrets to be found, quite a few of them in places you may not even notice at first. Together, my family and I found more than we probably would have alone, but we stilled must about thirty percent of the hidden stuff to be found. It may seem like kind of an original idea, but I can make some gameplay comparisons with the Gauntlet games. Even so, the game is still unique and fun.

Overall, it's a pretty good game, with very few problems. The most irritating problem is when some kind of effect happens to you, like being stunned or frozen, and the game glitches out and won't let you get out of that phase, meaning you're stuck like that until you die. Also, if you happen to be playing alone or otherwise have computer players on your team, sometimes they're dumb enough to fall off a cliff or die some other odd way, which can be a pain if you happen to lose a top tier character, and you can't resurrect them unless you either have Ghost Rider (even then it's not guaranteed) or if you go to a S.H.I.E.L.D. outpost station thing and resurrect them there after your character has been dead for five minutes. Otherwise, any qualms I have with the game are minor, such as not being able to do certain missions properly again after beating the game (particularly the Skrull mission where you have to face Galactus), and there aren't a whole lot of unlockable characters (unless you count the downloadable characters as unlockable).

My family and I debated a bit on who we thought the best characters were in the game. I haven't played every character a whole lot, but from what I've played, here's my tier list (in order from best to worst; also note that I do not have any of the downloadable characters, so they're not listed here):

Top Tier:

Ghost Rider
Silver Surfer
Iron Man
Moon Knight
Human Torch

Second Tier:

Luke Cage
The Thing
Ms. Marvel

Third Tier:

Mr. Fantastic
Spider Woman
Doctor Strange

Bottom Tier:

Black Panther
Invisible Woman
Nick Fury

So this all essentially means that most of the unlockable characters, save Ghost Rider and Silver Surfer, are mostly useless. However, this doesn't mean that I don't like certain characters just because they're bad in this game. For instance, Dr. Strange deserved better treatment than what he received in this game. Also, I'm disappointed that we were unable to play as The Vision. Then again, he is incredibly powerful, but so is the Silver Surfer, and he's playable.

But still, even if your favorite hero sucks, the game still is well worth checking out.

Tuesday, August 10, 2010

TV Show's Name Causes Controversy

And that controversy is over absolutely fucking nothing. Well, it's over something, but it's such a non problem that it's essentially not worth complaining about.

The controversy is over a new TV show called $#*! My Dad Says with Captain James T. Kirk. Er, I mean William Shitner. Oh, whoops! I said it! I said shit! SHIT SHITTY SHIT SHITTY SHIT SHIT!

Yes, that is the Parents Television Council is bitching about. The expletive in the title. It's already been censored, so I have to wonder why they want more shit done. The First Amendment of the Constitution was already broken when the title was censored like it was (unless that was the Producer's or whoever's choice), but now they want to take it further to protect the kiddies.

You know what, I watched a lot of R-rated movies with shitloads of cussing in them even before I was ten years old. I even got to see ninjas decapitate people and tear their hearts out with their bare hands. I turned out just fine. Why? Because of how my cousin handled it. That's ultimately the problem, if anything, is the lack of personal discipline on the parent's part. Instead, they blame TV, and ruin it for the majority of the populace who can handle the swearing and shit. In this case, the majority should not have to suffer for the minority's problem. Deal with the kid yourself, and he or she will be just fine.

Or here's another idea: don't watch the fucking show.


Wednesday, July 14, 2010

Hot Tub Time Machine

My girlfriend and I rarely see movies in theaters because we're usually pretty patient about seeing movies unless it's a real big one. Because of that, we finally got to see this movie not long after seeing my cousin again, because she has it. I don't really have a whole lot to say, but there were enough things I wanted to point out in a blog post.

Overall, I actually thought this movie was alright. Not as good as I thought it was going to be, but not as bad as it could've been, though there are a couple of things dragging this movie down. Usually, it's hard for me to criticize Comedies sometimes, since people have various humorous styles they're into, but even considering that, there are some things about Comedies that can be criticized otherwise, like if it's not a spoof movie and it's trying to be somewhat realistic, there can be very unrealistic moments that make you groan or roll your eyes instead of laugh or anything like that. That's the basis of my criticism for the worst scene in this movie. (By the way, spoilers ahead).

This is what happens in the worst scene in the movie: Nick (the black guy, for anyone who's confused) is supposed to try and keep the timeline flowing properly, so he has to play at a small venue with his band. What initially happened was that he was booed and made fun of, but he decides to take a different path by playing two songs from the future he knows are good. So first, he plays "Jessie's Girl" by Rick Springfield. The problem with that is the fact that he seems to be playing it like it's a new song or something, but the movie takes place in 1986, and the song was released in 1981. Did the movie-makers or script-writers not do their research? All it takes is less than a minute online to figure it out. Not hard at all. However, that's forgivable because sometimes lesser-known bands may play a cover song at the start of their show just to get it going at a good pace.

And while I'm on the subject of getting things accurate and doing research, there's a joke at the end of the movie in which Lou (the bald guy) forms Motley Lou. It's obviously a play on the name Motley Crue, but that band was formed in, once again, 1981. As if that wasn't bad enough, here's another factoid: "Home Sweet Home" was released in 1985.

Anyway, speaking of getting things started, that's where I really have a problem with the scene. After "Jessie's Girl" is done, Nick says he's going to play a song from the future, which is an obvious nod to Back to the Future. I was thinking it could be Grunge, Alternative Rock, or even one of those House songs that were popular in the early to mid 90s, like Haddaway's "What is Love." However, the band starts to play "Let's Get it Started" by the Black Eyed Peas. It's not just that he played that song, but that everyone in the club, even before the song officially gets started (he's just going through the "runnin'" part) they not only immediately like the song, they also immediately know how to dance like people would do so in our current day and age. Now, with "Johnny B. Goode" by Chuck Berry in Back to the Future, that was a song that wasn't too far from being released, so it was close to the relevant period in which it changed the culture, and it actually isn't a bad song. With "Let's Get it Started," it's released twenty four years later into the future, and is being performed in a period that I'm quite sure would've disliked the song, since Hip-Hop was not that big a deal back in the 80s, at least not until late in the decade. Even then, that kind of Hip-Hop was far from being popular.

Considering all of that, here's what the more appropriate action should've been: Nick and his band should've been booed and insulted right then and there. In fact, that actually would've been kind of funny. That's good enough reason to do it right there, since, after all, this is a Comedy.

Other than that, although I thought the film was generally funny, I still had a bit of a problem with some of the humor. It seemed like it was trying a bit too hard to get people to laugh, especially because of the prevalence of Shock Humor. I don't generally dislike Shock Humor, but I do dislike it when it's relied upon too much, which this movie kind of did, especially with the character Lou. Most of his humor was derived from sort of over the top statements that he'd usually make, so he was my least favorite character because he actually wasn't very funny for most of the movie.

And just to add a bit to that, the kind of humor I was expecting was thekind that parodies Science Fiction concepts, since it's a Comedy about time travel. That could've been amazing, but no. They went to route of using pop culture references and Shock Humor.

And I guess the last thing I didn't like was just a minor complaint, but when they were talking about time paradoxes, they were referencing various movies and stuff. It's not that they mentioned them instead of just talking about paradoxes, since that's what would probably happen in real life anyway, but I would've preferred a couple of different references than what they used. This is just coming from a Science Fiction buff, so otherwise it's believable because people aren't total nerds like I am, but every time someone points out something from, say, The Butterfly Effect, I usually feel like mentioning that the movie took the concept from Ray Bradbury's "A Sound of Thunder."

There are probably more things I could harp on, but despite these criticisms, this movie isn't too bad, and I'd recommend at least a rental or something like that. Just as a warning, though, it is quite apparent that the filmmakers weren't trying very hard on this one.

P.S. I never thought I'd see Chevy Chase in a movie ever again, and seeing George McFly (the guy who played him in Back to the Future, I mean) again was cool, so great surprises there.

Saturday, July 10, 2010

Just One More Response to Certain Bone the Fish Members

This is just to clear up some things and to further prove their stupidity, which, after this post, shouldn't be necessary. This should be the final and ultimate proof of it, so you'll see no more of me bashing these people after this post; this is the last one. Here's why I will talk one last time about them:

They managed to find my blog. Unsurprisingly, they're criticizing my post, but that actually makes me laugh. Why? Instead of stating why I was wrong, they keep using Ad Hominems and never actually argue my positions, my favorite being "pour some slaw and vinegar on yourself," which isn't even that great of an insult to begin with. Today, I will do the opposite of that, because I know how to debate pretty well. There is even a new claim made that is, yet again, flawed and just plain dumb, but I'll get to that later.

Anyway, I'm not making this post specifically to argue with them, since I can tell they're the kind of people who won't admit when they're wrong and will go on forever with their bull shit. It's an attitude that's not hard to spot once you get into enough arguments and debates. I'm making this post as an addendum to further prove their stupidity, and to show that they're putting words in my mouth.

For instance, let's start with this:

"Advocating rape and bashing gays? Gotta love the utterly ridiculous strawmen RHMH's pinching out."

"(S)He's got me bashing gays and even advocating rape!"

That first comment was made by a member named Robert, and the second was made by DolFan316. I'll show you what I initially said to prove what I said are not Straw Men, starting with the gay bashing thing:

"But seriously, gays in the military? Fuck, that's the choice with the second highest number of votes, which proves even more how fucking biased the people on this site are. What is the problem with gays in the military? It limits people's rights. You can be openly straight in the military, but not gay (unless you're closeted)? There's obviously something wrong with that. But people are concerned in the first place because they believe a straight person is going to have his personal space interfered with if a gay person tries to come on to the straight person. You know, like they're sexual deviants who are always horny, and straight people aren't. If you're even somewhat smart, you can figure out why this is incredibly fucking moronic. And quite frankly, I'm offended that option is even a choice that can be made on the site, since people like me might want to go there in the first place, but it has one hundred and fifty three votes. That's fucking insane."

I don't know about you, but I don't see anything in there that calls them gay bashers. What I will admit to is the fact that one hundred and fifty four (one more than last time) aren't supporting gay rights. This isn't true for everyone, but usually people who don't support gays in the military don't support other areas of LGBT rights. Considering I am a lesbian, I was offended by that, and I deserve to be since I'm part of that demographic they wouldn't support in the military. As for the advocating rape thing:

"I have never seen or overheard a Conservative change his/her mind about much of anything. In fact, I often hear them going to extremes by saying ridiculous bullshit just to try and keep the argument going, and they usually do this when they show (sometimes even quite small) signs that they're losing. For example (and I'm basing this on an argument that I've heard before, but there were many more quotes similar to it), if you argue with a conservative Christian, and prove to them that the Bible promotes rape (especially to women, because the Bible is also quite misogynistic), they might say something like, "That's for women who sin. It doesn't advocate raping innocent women. Women who have sinned deserve to be raped." This is obviously ridiculous. I am a woman, so I would be deeply offended if someone actually said this, partly because their view of what a sin is and isn't is ambiguous (which means if that person thought being gay is a sin, then I would apparently deserve to be raped), but mostly because rape shouldn't be condoned fucking ever."

I was generalizing Conservatives, sure, but I really do see this so often to the point where I am able to do that. However, I made no mention of DolFan316 or any of these people specifically supporting rape. I was simply quoting from several arguments I've had with various Christian Conservatives, and I was ranting about Conservatives in general, because they tend to piss me off. I did not claim that the people on Bone the Fish advocated rape, yet they claim I did. After reading this and properly understanding this, it's obvious I didn't even want to make that connection at all.

And while I'm on the subject of Conservatives:

"Instead of hurting my feelings I find it absolutely hilarious! Especially since this blogger actually came back here just to read the posts AGAIN after having already declared massive hatred and rage at us conservatives."

Another quote by DolFan316. Just to clarify, I have no hatred of Conservatives. I think, in general, they tend to spew bull shit, but I don't hate them, since there are smart Conservatives out there, Dennis Miller and Shep Smith being good examples. I also had a History teacher in college who was pretty smart and fair in his views, even though there were a couple that I didn't agree with.

Also, I only came back after a long while because I was hoping the site would've changed, and to see what I might've missed, because the site is interesting otherwise. As for this time, I Googled my name, which I use to find my blog and log in, so I saw myself getting talked about on Bone the Fish even before I clicked on the link.

Now let's move on to this:

"Chubby rain is amused that his IMDB story was touted as a reason that Dolfan is an idiot for believing him."

"So if I'm the main one mentioned by name, does that make me the leader of the gang?"

First quote is by Chubby Rain, and the second is by DolFan316 (again). Here's what I wrote that made Chubby Rain post that, and also a correction on my initial view of DolFan316, which they seemed to overlook:

"(so it's not just DolFan316, and I may have been wrong about him being the biggest Conservative guy, but he's still the dumbest, particularly for trusting what a user named ChubbyRain said about IMDB just because he was the guy who said it, which means he'll trust anything he says)"

Here's what DolFan316 said that made me post that in the first place:

"Wow...if what Chubbyrain says is true than IMDB is right up there with Wal Mart, TV Guide and Al Queda in the pantheon of evil organizations."

The subject is not to question Chubby Rain's story, but he seems to accept it without question just because he said it, thus is why I deduced that he was the dumbest member.

Now I'll admit, I initially misread his post, so it is questionable that he just goes and trusts anything Chubby Rain says, but that post does still gives that vibe, and seems like he would trust him anyway, especially because you can tell that he's been easily brainwashed.

Even after disregarding that, there's still this dumb comment:

"Nope. PC is strictly a liberal concept. Don't lump conservatives into it when they just want people to stop acting like gangsta wannabes and destroying America from the inside."

He generalizes Conservatives worse than I tend to, and Liberals are certainly not the only people that use Political Correctness (proves more of his obvious extremely Conservative bias), but that's not the big problem. He states that Conservatives want people to limit their own freedoms by not acting like gangsta wannabees (the "destroying America from the inside" part is vague). Wanting people to not act like gangsta wannabes to the point where you want to stop it, as long as they're not limiting the rights of others in the process, is a freedom-limiting, unconstitutional, and Authoritarian viewpoint.

Now before I get on to my last criticism, I'd like to point one other thing out, so this next criticism makes sense:

They posted that as a site that claimed they were too Liberal, or something along those lines. However, I see nothing on the site that says or even hints at anything of the sort. This is all the article says about the site:

"I believe that shows tend to “jump the shark” around the middle of season two., the successor to the original Jumptheshark website, lists Ellen’s arrival as only the eighth biggest reason the show jumped, and makes no mention of her sexual orientation. Indeed, the major reason the site lists for the show tanking is that it “sucked from the start” and was never worth watching."

What part of that says these people are "too Liberal," or anything of the sort?

Anyway, here's the last thing I'm going to criticize; the stupid claim I noted earlier:

"Bone the Fish is both too liberal and too conservative? What a paradox! IMHO, if you're accused of being too liberal by one group and too conservative by another, then it proves you're neither. Could these paradoxal accusations prove that BTF is...BALANCED?"

I can prove why this is a stupid claim just by looking at the page this comment was posted on, and it's not by analyzing their comments. Look at the reasons section for this page (the Bone the Fish page posted above, if any of you readers are lost here). Look at some of those reasons:

"Liberal Vote Stuffing: Everything liberal never boned? Yeah right!"

That right there is a Conservative bias. I have looked everywhere on the site, and have seen not one page, other than the page for Fox News and this one, that claims there is a Conservative bias, and that's why the show sucks (it's obvious Fox News has a Conservative bias anyway). There are also two other reasons stating the ridiculous political arguments, which is obvious regardless of whether you see a bias or not, but then there's another reason that also proves a Conservative bias is apparent:

"Fox Newsification: Accusations of "liberal agenda" or "anti-American" (The rest of the reason why is not able to be seen)"

That means that even other members on the site who don't have this Conservative bias are completely aware that there is one in the reasons for why things suck or Boned the Fish/Jumped the Shark. I know that's an Appeal to Popularity or something similar, so I'll justify that by saying this: if you look around enough, you'll see it. It's not hard to find, since it's on several pages, including this one. A bunch of pages bitching about a Liberal bias, and rarely any about a Conservative bias. Even if a reason doesn't specifically state anything about a Liberal bias, there is still usually a reason made with some kind of Conservative bias, or you can tell otherwise that the reason was indeed stated by a Conservative. If you want a little proof out of a lot, here's something interesting:

There's obviously a pattern there, and that's why I noted the site's Conservative bias in the first place (besides the users responsible, obviously). Now sure, people who are on neither side of the spectrum can claim something has a bias (for instance, anyone who isn't strongly Conservative can clearly see Fox News and Bone the Fish as having an extreme bias), but only people on the far side of one can complain of even the slightest bias like these people on Bone the Fish do constantly. And, of course, they don't usually go into their reasons why, but they sure do bitch about it a lot.

And I'll add this just in case:

Before anyone, whether it be a member of Bone the Fish or somebody else reading my blog out there, criticize me of Cherry-Picking, I'll just quickly let you know that I only did quote the most important things that they had said enough to prove my point. Anything left out is meaningless or Ad Hominem attacks, so they weren't necessary to post here.

So now that I have all of that taken care of, I'm done with that site. And hey, thanks for giving me more publicity as well. ;)

EDIT: First off, I figured out why they thought that article claimed they were "too Liberal." It's apparently because of that site saying they were tolerant of gays. Why that translates to "too Liberal," I don't know, but that just makes it clear to me even more than with the gays in the military thing that whoever wrote and whoever agrees with that doesn't support gay rights, which translates to more reason for me not to join the site, and also shows how extreme their Conservative values are.


That's quite a mature reaction to criticism, isn't it? Let's make a page dedicated to hating someone who criticized us, regardless of how well-founded the criticism was. (By the way, "Red Not Blonde: What metal heads have red hair?" is a pretty lame and dumb reason reason to actually dislike something)

I happened to figure out that they made a whole page about me, which really got me laughing, partly because they're stereotyping a lot of shit, like thinking everything is too Conservative. As much as I complain about Conservatives, I don't claim everything is Conservative, nor bitch every time something is, like they do whenever something is even slightly Liberal.

For instance, they said I complained that TVTropes (which I never even mentioned before, and after looking at it, seems like a better site), and that Retro Junk was too Conservative. Here's the whole post on that again:

"And I figured I'd mention this since I've been talking about forums and stuff. For a short while, my girlfriend and I went to the site Retro Junk and posted a bit there. It's not a bad site, but we ultimately left because of the number of trolls there (that's why my girlfriend left, since she hates dealing with that shit at all) and the shape of the forum in general. Seriously, it's quite a mess, and keeping up with it all can be a bit aggravating and confusing, mostly because of the large number of boards there. So if any members there are reading this, that's why we left. Otherwise, most of you were cool people, and the site has great content otherwise, so my girlfriend and I still keep track of the articles and stuff. But it's just not really worth being an active member there. So basically, if you're new to Retro Junk, don't join unless you want to become active and write articles and all of that, but I'd still recommend the site just for the amount of content alone and the quality (at least for the most part) of the site. So, Retro Junk, reorganize the site and crack down harder on the trolls, and we may return, and you may also grab more members in the process."

That's all I wrote about it: trolls and the messy board setup. Did I mention Conservatism at all in that whole paragraph? No.

And besides, I actually do think a bit Conservatively. I think we should definitely keep to the Constitution and the Bill of Rights for instance. That's a Conservative viewpoint I actually agree with. Well, it also happens to be a Liberal viewpoint, but in terms of living in this country, it can also be considered Conservative.

As for that "pot calling the kettle black" comment, it's not really a big deal who has more members. I've never claimed that I've been trying to get more members; I ultimately don't care since this blog is a good way for me to get my thoughts out of my head anyway. These people on Bone the Fish, however, are indeed looking for more, so I figured I'd give them advice (all it is, so they can do what they want regardless), which didn't surprise me at all that they didn't take.

And just to clarify, I have actually criticized women who fake lesbianism to get attention in the past.

"Speaking of which, what actually grinds my gears is the women who pretend to be lesbians just to attract men. You might be able to grab their attention (if they're actually into that kind of thing), but what if they actually thought you're a lesbian? That approach might not work because they'd think that you're just into women. It's just like a skit I saw on Mad TV where two guys were pretending to be in a gay relationship just to get girls, but they just stayed friends with them for a couple of decades because the girls actually believed that they were gay. Besides that point, why would you want to go kiss someone other than the person you want to be with? Why not simply go up to the person you want to hang out with? What's preventing you from doing so?"
I'd have to be a complete hypocrite to do just that.

Also, I certainly don't hate every Bone the Fish member. I don't hate anything, but I dislike the people that have been putting this bull shit on me and the things that I have criticized in the past. If you don't hold these extremely Conservative viewpoints, don't put a bunch of ridiculous stereotypes on others, and don't put words in other people's mouth, you're still cool in my eyes, because if these people weren't around, this site would be excellent with you still there, because it has an interesting setup and is an overall great idea.

And no, I'm not looking for a rise out of anyone. I was bullied throughout my life, so I'm not that kind of person. I have better things to do with my time than to rile anyone up, and even if I wanted to, I'd tackle a site with more members if I really cared to get more people to look at my blog. All I was wanting to do was make criticism towards something. Whether these certain members on Bone the Fish replied or not, or figured out about my post or not, didn't matter to me.

And now I'm actually done. For sure. I hope anyone reading out there realizes the truth about these people and their bull shit. And please, if you must, ask me first. Don't turn to these assholes for the truth, because they manipulate it, and I've proven it.

Saturday, June 19, 2010

My Cousin is Getting Married!/We're Moving!

If you'll remember my last blog post about my cousin, I noted that she wanted to wait until Summer to get married to her girlfriend. Well, now it's Summer, so my cousin and her girlfriend are getting married soon. I can't wait to be a part of it. My cousin always knows how to make things fun and more relaxing, so I'm sure this wedding is going to be quite a time to remember. For instance, the biggest thing that's going to make the wedding more enjoyable is my cousin not following traditional practices when it comes to marriage, the couple's first dance at the reception being an exception. She wants to walk down the isle with her girlfriend, she doesn't want to wear anything fancy, she doesn't want to exchange rings (they're wearing rings and whatever they have planned to exchange), etc.

And since my girlfriend and I are having to go out to Iowa to the wedding, and since we were wanting to move there at some point, we decided to move there when we arrive to see my cousin's wedding. We're planning on staying at my cousin's until we can find our own place somewhere, and my cousin said we can stay as long as we like, because she's awesome like that.

We aren't going to say goodbye to very many people, though. Just our friends, maybe a couple of other people. This is because most of the relatives we know here are coming to my cousin's wedding, including my girlfriend's family. The time they all have to come back here is when we're going to say goodbye to them, and my girlfriend is already a bit upset over the fact that she won't get to see her parents as often any more. I gave her lots of hugs and kisses and told her that it was probably eventually and inevitably going to happen, and that I'd miss them, too, but at least we'd be together, and that we'd have at least someone else we know and love around. I'm sure she misses our company, too.

Friday, June 18, 2010

The Worst Blow to the Unemployed

This is such bull shit. Way to help solve the massive unemployment problem in this country, asswipes. Hell, this may be one of the reasons we have an unemployment problem in the first place. It's such a stupid judgment call on the employer's part. To automatically think that unemployed people are unemployed for performance reasons and not even consider a single one because of that is pretty fucking low. What they need to do is do backgrounds checks and not just assume shit. Maybe they quit because they were moving out of state. Maybe they were like me at Burger King and just had shitty management. Maybe they've never had a job and need the experience. After all, if managers expect experience, then how can they expect it if they don't give it?

But quite frankly, I'm not surprised. Employers make stupid bull shit judgment calls all of the time based on even the tiniest little things (yet another potential reason, whether big or small, for our unemployment problem). "Oh my God, he twitched his finger! That must mean he could easily crack at some point and kill a bunch of people!" Considering how bad our economy is and considering how not nice in general that is, that judgmental bull shit needs to stop. It's essentially discrimination and can be freedom-limiting, depending on the job applied for.

He's a good worker who's willing to do whatever it takes, but I'm not going to hire him because of his clothing style.

Tuesday, June 8, 2010

Bone the Fish (Again)/Retro Junk (Again)/Rant About a Few Things

I didn't want to just do an edit to my blog this time, because what I've seen this time is unbelievably stupid, and felt this deserved it's own blog post because of that. As if the Conservative bias on the site by some of the users wasn't already bad enough, it has, if anything, increased since I last talked about the site (so it's not just DolFan316, and I may have been wrong about him being the biggest Conservative guy, but he's still the dumbest, particularly for trusting what a user named ChubbyRain said about IMDB just because he was the guy who said it, which means he'll trust anything he says). I've looked through several pages recently and saw even more incredible stupidity, worse stupidity than what I normally see or hear. Some of it is so stupid it literally hurts, such as the more extremely Conservative members bitching and moaning about being censored on the site by the "Liberals" running the site or whatever. Obviously, since their bull shit is still there from what I can tell, then they're not being censored, and if they are, I'm sure it's for a reason, mainly because these guys seem to be so bad at arguing that they don't seem to care about any viewpoint too far from their own and immediately dismiss it. But the worst page that I've seen is this one right here:

I must reiterate again, I am not a big fan of Obama, but he is not at all comparable to Hitler. Neither was Bush, but even that made more sense since they were both Right-Wing Authoritarians (Obama is a Left-Winger), but those comparisons still don't work. Stalin would make more sense in comparison to Obama, but even that's pushing it pretty far. Anyway, I do agree with the reason given about how he's dealing with taxes. That's obviously a stupid idea that he had. I also don't think sending more troops overseas was the best idea, either. If anything, we have terrorists here, and we need to deal with them right now, if anything, not the ones overseas.

But a lot of the other stuff on this page, not just in the comments, but the reasons, is fucking ridiculous. Even the top reason is stupid, because that wasn't even Obama's decision (although he did accept it). But seriously, gays in the military? Fuck, that's the choice with the second highest number of votes, which proves even more how fucking biased the people on this site are. What is the problem with gays in the military? It limits people's rights. You can be openly straight in the military, but not gay (unless you're closeted)? There's obviously something wrong with that. But people are concerned in the first place because they believe a straight person is going to have his personal space interfered with if a gay person tries to come on to the straight person. You know, like they're sexual deviants who are always horny, and straight people aren't. If you're even somewhat smart, you can figure out why this is incredibly fucking moronic (like The Onion, who wrote a great satirical article here:,17698/). And quite frankly, I'm offended that option is even a choice that can be made on the site, since people like me might want to go there in the first place, but it has one hundred and fifty three votes. That's fucking insane.

And then there's issue with Fox News. Do I think it's ultimately appropriate for the Obama administration to go after Fox News like that? Not really. However, I'm giving them leeway on this because they simply stated that Fox News isn't a news network and shouldn't be trusted. And they're right. I don't normally trust or agree with anything or everything the government says to the public, but they are absolutely right about this. Fox News, and this is evident if you watch their network, is ultimately a propaganda network (for the most part, at least) successfully getting their viewpoints out to the public at large, and this is evident by the fact that they tend to associate themselves with various things fitting their viewpoints, most notably the Tea Party movement, otherwise known as the Tea Bagger's movement (love that name). News networks do not and should not do that (unless it's a legitimate charity or something). If one of them does, it should be questioned for sure.

Speaking of which, I know MSNBC isn't the best news network to be watching, either, so I don't. Well, except for Rachel Maddow, she's awesome, because she's calm, rational and logical, and even admits when she makes mistakes. But even if you were to call that network biased, which it definitely can be, it's bias is nowhere near the level of Fox News, and it's quite apparent whenever you talk to someone who actually watches the network. If you watch the network and talk or argue with a couple of people who watch it, it'll be obvious to you just how bad the bias is and how it's influencing the people, especially since it's the most watched news network out of the three major news networks (source removed; dead link). It'll even be obvious when the person you're talking to watches Fox News. Best way to recognize it is if the people you're talking to are talking like these dickheads on Bone the Fish.

And I hope to something that they're not the ones that run the site. That's the only thing keeping me from going there. That and the high amount of people against gays being in the military, which isn't a good sign. So until more people come in to correct the balance of viewpoints, or once these fuckers finally stop going to the site, that's when I might join. Otherwise, I'm staying far away from the place at the moment, other than just looking at the votes and stuff.

And if you look at the TVTropes page, it seems they're still trying to get the word out about their site, despite the fact that their website is featured on the Jumping the Shark page on Wikipedia ( Seriously, they're still lacking in members (or at least people posting) even after being featured on a page on Wikipedia, which I'm sure is seen fairly often since "Jumping the Shark" is a popular term. So, considering you still are lacking in activity despite being featured on Wikipedia, here's some advice, guys: stop with your opinionated, brainwashed (I can easily tell you are), extremely Conservative bull shit, or at least tone it way down. Also, stop acting like what you're saying is gospel or true. It's quite obvious to me and everyone else I know who has seen the site (I've shown it to them, and it's a fairly large group of people even including soft Conservatives) that people like you, the ultra Conservatives, are the site's biggest cancer by a long shot, and that we and many others would join if that element wasn't present otherwise. If you take my advice to heart, I'm sure you'll get more members.


And I figured I'd mention this since I've been talking about forums and stuff. For a short while, my girlfriend and I went to the site Retro Junk and posted a bit there. It's not a bad site, but we ultimately left because of the number of trolls there (that's why my girlfriend left, since she hates dealing with that shit at all) and the shape of the forum in general. Seriously, it's quite a mess, and keeping up with it all can be a bit aggravating and confusing, mostly because of the large number of boards there. So if any members there are reading this, that's why we left. Otherwise, most of you were cool people, and the site has great content otherwise, so my girlfriend and I still keep track of the articles and stuff. But it's just not really worth being an active member there. So basically, if you're new to Retro Junk, don't join unless you want to become active and write articles and all of that, but I'd still recommend the site just for the amount of content alone and the quality (at least for the most part) of the site. So, Retro Junk, reorganize the site and crack down harder on the trolls, and we may return, and you may also grab more members in the process.

Wednesday, June 2, 2010

Neglected Mario Characters

I have been a reader of the comics on this site for at least eight years, if not, longer (but not by much). My cousin found it and showed it to me. She found it kind of funny, but I was laughing at just about everything. I thanked her a lot for finding it and asked if she could keep track of it for me, and she agreed. Ever since, I've been trying to keep up with everything that's been going on with the comic, but after a while, activity started to drop, eventually to the point where I stopped keeping track of the site in general. I even remember the very thing that made me want to stop keeping track, which was this update made on October 20th, 2007:

"Sorry, nothing really new. Just messing around with a few things. And I missed NC's 10th bithday (Sad emoticon). Anyway, take care."

There are a few reasons why that made me want to stop checking in on the site. First off, it was the first update that Jay Resop, the creator, made in about five months. In fact, he only posted four (yes, four) updates that whole year. Who does that? How can anyone be so busy that they can only just barely log on to type a couple of quick sentences only a few times a year? That just blows my mind. If he truly is that busy, he seriously should calm down a little on his workload and take a damn break. Either that or he's not being sarcastic about his laziness at all.


But that's not the only reason. He seemed to stop caring about his site and his comics in general. I mean, look at that. "And I missed NC's 10th birthday (Sad emoticon)." So, what, that's it? You aren't even going to make up for it? At all? Ever? I understand if you couldn't log on around that time or anything, but couldn't you have at least made a quick short or something? You know, something that doesn't take long to make? If you don't care that much about your own work like that, how do you expect anyone else to?

Honestly, I don't think it's ultimately that big of a deal, but for some odd reason, it just blows my mind, especially considering this: he is busy in college, so he has other people maintain, update, and even create comics on the site for him now, which is fine. However, considering he is apparently super busy, and judging by the looks of his posts on the forum, I have to wonder if here even keeps up with Mario games anymore. So considering he hasn't made any new comics for over two years and would likely have to keep up with Nintendo happenings, and also considering he may even have a different sense of humor now that he's a few years older and almost through college, the site may as well say goodbye to the old Neglected Characters, which it seems they kind of already have. I mean, I realize there's still a chance that Jay might create a new comic or even a new adventure some day in the future (at least a short one), but you've gotta admit, the chances are pretty slim.

And this does sadden me just a wee bit because I've kept track with this site for quite a while. I just checked back not too long ago after a couple of years and noticed a only a few changes, most of them being small ones, but the biggest one being the fact that Jay is not even technically running the site anymore (I'm sure he still has full control, though). I always thought the site was pretty funny and was an amusing escape. I don't remember much of the stories or jokes anymore, but they made some kind of impact...

At least for a while. Then I read a few again recently and honestly didn't laugh too much. There were a couple of cheap chuckles and a laugh after reading a couple of adventures and the deathmatch comics, but it's ultimately not satisfying reading the comics anymore anyway. I might try and read one of the Bill and Fred comics, since I remember one of those was one of my favorites in the site, but other than that, I'm not going to sit and read them again.

But I'll give credit where it's due. It's definitely one of the better sprite comics you'll find on the Internet, at least from what I've seen, and I'm sure part of the reason is because Jay was the first guy to do sprite comics like this, and afterward, since everyone else started doing it, seemed to have used the same style of humor and even the same damn jokes. So if you're going to check out just one sprite comic, choose this one.

Although now I'm sure some people will complain that, since Jay is no longer doing most of these comics, that they'll be worse in quality, that Jay's were better, and may dismiss the comic and not pay much attention to it anymore, which may lead to the actual death of Neglected Mario Characters. Considering Jay's position, I'm sorry to say, but that may be for the best, but here's to hoping the site at least reaches its fifteen year anniversary. And just know that, even though I don't find you all too funny anymore, you still made me smile. :)

P.S. My girlfriend's a fan, too, and she gave me the inspiration to check back in the first place.