Redhead Metalhead

My Cousin (Part 1)

2012-01-22T03:06:00.000-06:00

I'll start off with something interesting, because, when it comes to my cousin, how could I not? I know not everyone would think so from what I've typed up here before (though I have given interesting details), but people often can't help but like her because she's quite unorthodox and charismatic. She's the kind of person who would usually be derided throughout high school and such, but she was actually really popular. There are several reasons, but one big reason for that stands out the most.

She is a highly sexual being. She prefers to have meaningful relationships before having sex, but she didn't always refrain from that, especially if she found someone particularly attractive or nice. Despite her being bisexual, she ended up being with women most of the time, especially since she eventually decided to only date women "because they're sexier, more fun to play with, and can usually go on longer." She even wore an earring on her right ear to signify her interest in women. Despite that restriction, I wouldn't be surprised if she has broken Wilt Chamberlain's record. That can't be verified, though, because even my cousin lost track, and didn't really care anyway considering she was more concerned with love and pleasure.

Still, she has had a lot of sex with a lot of women, and some isolated sexual encounters with men. Whenever she did have sex with men, however, she was quite picky. Her biggest restriction was hair length. She would only date men who at least had shoulder length hair, and would otherwise not even consider them in the slightest. She also didn't want to be with more than one man at once. She typically liked being with one person at a time either way, but she only ever had sex with multiple women at once, and didn't much care for having two men at once.

And though she has been at least somewhat attracted by men, she has never, ever crushed on a man (not before officially starting a relationship, at least). She has, however, crushed on women. Several, in fact. One of her first big crushes was the first person she ever had a sexual encounter with. My cousin was confused about what she liked despite being sure she really wanted this other girl, and they eventually decided they wanted to experiment just to see if they even liked women. By the way, this happened when they were fourteen. My cousin did, of course, but the other girl ended up not wanting to go any further, which made my cousin upset for a little while.

Soon after, however, she gained her first girlfriend, though they still didn't last long together. Word spread quickly, however, of my cousin's behavior, and she had a ton of people asking her out and for sexual favors and such. She actually didn't like having that much attention, because she didn't want to be bothered by half of the people coming up to her (because of a severe lack of attraction, or if she knew other person's personality and behavior wasn't good enough), and the other half she had a hard time choosing between. For those she felt bad for, she befriended and sometimes later grew closer to (again, mostly women, especially early in her dating/relationship timeline).

Even if she was with girlfriends, however, she liked to ogle other girls, sometimes to make her significant other jealous (she tried not to make them too jealous, though) and sometimes because the other girls wanted to as well. Surprisingly, it was usually the latter. Sometimes they would do that for random women they'd see or meet out in public places and such, and sometimes they'd do that for celebrities, and there was one in particular I remember my cousin crushed on: Gillian Anderson. She had posters of Anderson in lingerie and such, though she got rid of most of them (she still has one left). She even wrote Gillian some letters, one time with a pic of herself in a bikini, flexing her muscles (she has always been fairly strong and quite fit). That's the kind of thing my cousin does, and it's one of those things I laugh about even to this day.

But my cousin's strangest crush was actually on my wife's mother. I prefer not to think of her that way, but I can see why. My wife looks and acts a lot like her own mother does, so that's unusual, but it's still one of those funny things I think about. What's even more strange, however, is that my mother in law actually did sometimes like to cheer my cousin up after break-ups by taking her out on dates. Her husband didn't mind, because he knew all she was doing was hanging out with her and making her feel better by doing something nice for her anyway. Whenever my cousin came back from those dates, she always had felt mesmerized and felt like she had to masturbate almost every single time ("because of the hugs" was her excuse). When she says that (about masturbating, I mean), that usually means she hasn't had sex.

To my cousin's credit, my mother in law always talked afterward about how nice my cousin was, and that she figured from their dates that my cousin just had bad luck when it came to picking nice girls to be with, because she saw nothing wrong with her. From what I've seen, I can vouch for that. For instance, my cousin didn't like it if her significant others had a problem with me being around, because I usually was and kind of had to be sometimes. Some simply didn't want to deal with it, for which I don't entirely blame them. The ones who were mean to me, however, I told on, or my cousin simply saw herself, and she always became mad when that happened. She even got into a physical altercation with one of her former partners about it because my cousin was defending me from being hurt.

She never liked being violent or mad, though. That's why she always wanted to be in relationships and why she always liked having me around to take care of me. She has always been a very loving and affectionate person. She can still be devious, though, and she likes to pull pranks and such. In fact, that's kind of how she met her wife.

My cousin signed up to be a life guard, but she only did so to get closer to female lifeguards, and to get one of those sexy swimsuits, like the ones worn on Baywatch (she didn't get them, because they weren't issued, but she bought one online later anyway). My cousin, of course, kissed her future wife during CPR practice, and was fired because of it. Her wife, however, asked for her number, and the rest is history. My cousin's wife later told her that most of the other employees there make crude remarks, such as calling her a "dyke," except for one guy who thought it was really hot. My cousin doesn't care if other people make fun of her and such, though, which was yet another reason she was a little more popular in high school than usual (didn't help my girlfriend and I much, though).

Despite my cousin's deviancy and sometimes questionable behavior, she still has her limits. For every time she fucked a hot maid or nun (she seriously did, no joke), there would also be times when she'd deny sexual activity for whatever reason. For instance, she doesn't like having her sexual activities filmed, whether it be amateur or professional quality. She was once asked to be in a porno film, and denied the offer. She also had an ex hide a camera, and my cousin figured out about it, somehow found the footage, and destroyed it. After that happened, she got into a fight with that girl, and they broke up.

Anyway, I should be winding this post down. I could probably write a goddamn novel about my cousin's sexual adventures alone, but I at least wanted to give a broad description. This doesn't mean I won't tell more about my cousin, but that's all I'm blurting out about her sex life. Anything else is just about her, with more about myself thrown in as well, and that's because we were around each other a lot. So, that's what to expect from part two, if I ever get around to it.

Workplace Discrimination

2011-11-03T11:22:00.062-05:00

http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/power-your-future/visible-tattoos-other-corporate-no-nos-193828198.html

Really? In this economy, we're still worried about inconsequential bullshit like this? Having a tattoo doesn't prevent someone from performing their work, does it? Same goes for a lot of appearance-related issues, and all of it falls under discrimination. "But Redhead Metalhead," you may be asking. "What's wrong with discrimination? Why can't people believe what they want?"

Here's the problem:

Prejudice = the belief

Discrimination = the action

That right there is the problem: the action. Discrimination. You can believe someone with a tattoo is an asshole if you want, but that doesn't make it true. Just because you get rid of the tattoo doesn't mean you get rid of the asshole (from what I've heard, it's expensive and painful anyway). You still have the same person, just without a particular visual image associated with the individual. Boy, that accomplished a lot, didn't it?

But the biggest problem is obviously a person's rights being limited. Why should a person have to cater to what a business wants if they legally can't even have control in the first place? That's a big reason why people call it "wage slavery" nowadays, because employers deeply affect our personal lives in several ways, and there's apparently nothing a lot of us can do about it, despite the fact that they're not supposed to do it. Besides that point, it's apparently okay for them to ask someone to, say, cut their hair short simply because it looks better to them (seen this happen to a lot of men), but they won't ask a black man to change his skin color or a woman to change her sex (both of which are possible). All it boils down to is the employer being a stupid piece of shit for thinking looks actually mean something.

But seriously, with our economy and unemployment levels where they are at now, and with the way our society and culture has been progressing, why even worry about it any more? Don't we need to be hiring more people, or are we really not that bad off after all? Are you telling me that even if a really nice guy who's a hard worker had four kids and a wife to feed at home, and had absolutely nowhere else to go to get a job, you'd still deny him simply because he won't cut his hair or remove a tattoo? Fuck you.

Now, I know what some people are thinking. "Why can't he just cut his hair or remove his tattoo?" Because he shouldn't have to. Why? Because it shouldn't even be an issue in the first place. There should be nothing else on your mind if someone is nice and works well enough and is qualified for the job. This shit seriously needs to stop, not just if we want to help with the unemployment problem and such, but if we want to have freedom. Freedom, you know, that concept this country was founded on? Yeah, let's not be hypocrites and try to keep that, because it's nice to have.

Cheating/Playing Games

2011-11-03T10:33:00.077-05:00

http://shine.yahoo.com/channel/sex/why-i-cheated-on-my-husband-2596381/

You can say all you want about why you cheated, but it all ultimately boils down to one thing: lack of communication. "Instead of telling my partner what I'm thinking, I'm just going to go fuck somebody else," seems to be what's on anyone's mindset whenever they cheat, and it's bullshit like that (both the cheating and lack of communication) that tends to ruin marriages.

People, seriously, it doesn't matter what you're thinking. If it's a problem, you have to let your partner know, even if it does create a rift. Thing is, it normally shouldn't if you just want to have a discussion, and that's the approach you should take. To not do so creates a lack of mutual respect and brings you even further apart. Even if you end up fighting, you're still far better off than betraying who you love.

Now, despite me giving this advice, my wife and I have never cheated or even had the thought, but that is in big part because of what I've said here (and keep in mind, we've been together since Kindergarten and haven't been apart at all since). My cousin, on the other hand has been cheated on a few times in past relationships, and that was ultimately because of two things: 1. Lack of communication. 2. My cousin's significant other thinking my cousin wanting to discuss issues automatically meant she hated them. Please, don't think that's the case. If someone did truly did dislike you, I'm sure they wouldn't even want to be with you any more and wouldn't discuss anything.

But whether your discussions or arguments end up ending your relationship or further tear you apart or not, stop fucking cheating. All it does is complicate your lives even further by creating far more drama than a simple argument.

But when it comes to the discussions and arguments themselves, here's another lesson people need to learn: stop playing games. Stop giving hints. Just come the fuck out with it. Be straightforward with your intentions. Your partner is not a mind-reader, and what you do is not always clear-cut. In fact, most of the time it isn't. But even if you think it's obvious, just tell your partner anyway, because they may not happen to know. It doesn't make them less intelligent in any way if they can't read you even after a decade or more together, but it does make you look like a piece of shit for assuming they should know either way. Even after approximately twenty years with my wife, we still can't figure out what all is on each other's minds, so think about that before you assume such bullshit about your own partner.

Unfortunately, though I talk about my relationship longevity and how that helps when it comes to giving relationship advice, not everything I say really should be applicable to everyone. What I say here, however, is an exception. This shit is basic and should really be obvious to everyone, but naturally, since the world seems to be full of morons, it isn't. Even some clinical psychologists and psychiatrists seem to not realize what I'm saying here helps prevent breakups, and will give you advice that won't work. If they say something other than what I said here, seriously, don't listen to them just because they're an "authority" on the subject (because even they're not always right). In this case, I implore you, take my word for it. At least on this.

Random News Stuff

2011-10-27T01:17:00.000-05:00

I have my home page set to Yahoo and I've never gotten around to changing it, so every now and then, I notice a couple of dumb or odd news stories. Over the past few months, I've been saving some up for possible new things to post, but I figured I might as well just make quick comments on a few of them, because I'd rather concentrate on other things in my life or other blog posts.

Which, BTW, when it comes to my blog, it's typically just me pouring thoughts out from my head and into Cyberspace, and I don't edit my blogs a lot (like errors and such), so naturally stupid shit comes from my fingers. I also don't type as eloquently as I usually do when I write something, but I assure you I can if I try. Here, though, I don't, because it's a way for me to relax (as if I don't do enough relaxing with my wife, if you know what I mean).

Anyway, on with the commentary.

Note to parents: Stop trying so hard

I agree that parents really shouldn't be so hard on their kids like he says, but I don't think he's saying it for the right reasons. I've said a lot ont he subject before, but. . . you know what, it's hard to say interests and talents are natural when they change and, at least in the case of talent, have to be built up with repetition for it to become better, no matter how good they are. I didn't always used to be amazing at guitar, and it took me several years to learn how to play almost every song on Joe Satriani's Surfing With the Alien. Also took me several years to become a competent writer, and I'm still learning. Even my wife, who has always been a great singer, I don't think that's quite the case because I think that's mostly because she has always loved doing it and grew up with a musical mother singing to her all of the time and such. Not that I don't doubt anything at all is natural, I just think this is bullshit. But still, the guy has his heart in the right place, it seems, so I won't harp on it too much.

Hot pink-toenailed boy in J. Crew ad sparks controversy

Young boy wishes to join Girl Scouts

For these two, I actually don't have a lot to say. Just that it's bullshit that people even worry about the rules set by society for gender being broken in the first place. Seriously, it's no big fucking deal if you let people live their lives the way they want. To not want that for them otherwise creates a mass of unhappiness one way or another. Trust me, I know. I'm a ginger lesbian liberal atheist metalhead nerd who was raised mostly by her own cousin and had a shitty father who now resides in prison, so it should be obvious my life has most certainly not been easy.

But I will say, for the Girl Scouts story in general, it's nice that they are willing to accept those who identify as girls regardless of their biological sex characteristics, but at the same time, the whole idea of having a Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts, each with their own gender role-specific activities, is a highly sexist idea anyway, so I'm glad they're moving away from that bullshit.

The no-kids-allowed movement is spreading

But when you want to talk about bullshit, this is one of the biggest bullshit ideas I've heard in a long time. The no smoking idea at least had some form of merit, because it not only physically harms people, especially those who are highly allergic to smoke such as myself, it harms the environment. People say it's not a lot compared to emissions from cars and such, but it is still highly harmful considering so many people smoke cigarettes. This isn't to say I'm against marijuana legalization, but cigarette smoke in particular is highly toxic. Anyway, the point is having kids around isn't going to harm you unless they're hitting you or something, in which case the one child should be dealt with, not all of them. They're limiting natural rights by allowing this, not just of the kids, but of the parents of kids as well, since that limits their entry as well because sometimes parents just don't have a choice of where and when they can and can't take their kids. That's a lot of fucking people, and that might even be my wife and I included someday. But all in all, if all something is doing is simply annoying you, get the fuck over it. I know it sucks, but that's the only way you really can deal with it. Or leave, but that's, you know, your choice. Wouldn't want to force that, now would I?

And lastly:

ways-your-job-is-killing-you

This is being posted simply for interest. This is shit I've realized a long goddamn time ago, but I guess we need articles like this to present to dipshits out there who somehow don't realize some of these problems. Seriously, when it comes to businesses and jobs and such, this is just the icing on the cake, too. Imagine if they could take a few minutes out of their oh-so-busy schedules to sit the fuck down and relax and think for a while, and see just how much more bullshit they can realize. That's another problem is quite a few people in this country work too fucking much (even eight hours is a little much, because a lot of people don't realize the human mind wasn't built to handle that kind of pressure, hence stress and such), or at least have it in their minds that they do, so much that they don't have time to pick their own noses and can barely take a minute to soak in the big picture. Should say a lot, really, so I'll leave it at that.

Seventh Generation of Video Game Consoles, and the State of Video Games Today

2011-09-08T09:05:00.002-05:00

I said I would do this eons ago when I talked about the sixth generation, but I won't be talking about it in terms of which console is better like I initially planned, because, quite frankly, the 360 and PS3, both good systems, have similar game libraries, with about the same amount of deviation in terms of exclusives, and I can't really decide which is better. They are, however, both better than the Wii, which I might discuss a bit.

What I'm really going to do is talk about the seventh generation in general, and to get started, I'll post a video I found bitching about how incredibly bad this generation is.

Now, despite generally agreeing with him, I'd like to make a couple of counter-points.

First, his comment about the red ring of death. I agree that it sucks, and I'm sure the heat sink has something to do with it. However, I can't help but think that it's not just Microsoft's fault (not saying it isn't their fault, either, but bear with me). Most of the time I heard about my friend's systems getting that error, I investigated to figure out what was going on, and I figured out that my friends weren't cleaning their systems in any way, or were leaving them in some kind of enclosed space, or left them on for a really long time (one of them even left it on for days with a disc running inside). Naturally, they kept getting errors as they continued to either fix their systems or buy new ones. My family and I, on the other hand have had our 360s for five years, and we've not had a single problem, and we didn't suffer from the same aforementioned circumstances as our friends. Because of this, I can't help but think that lack of proper care from the owners of the systems had something to do with it. However, I still have heard cases of the system simply malfunctioning anyway, but that was something I didn't hear often, so it's not like it wasn't an issue, but I think it was a bit blown out of proportion due to a lack of knowledge on the customer's part.

Second, he recommended companies get some slight profit from the used games bought at Gamestop or other various other stores (but usually Gamestop). Problem is, any game that has been used is typically bought by the person wanting to sell it, and it's understandable they might want to make a bit of a profit off of their purchase if they decide to sell. It happens anywhere, not just Gamestop. We've been doing similar things at yard sales for a long time now. Of course, the company doesn't get a profit. That's how it has always been. However, I will also note that Gamestop still has fault in this issue, because, while they might sell used games at okay (sometimes even good) prices, they buy games to sell for jack shit. They will seriously sell a game for about thirty or forty dollars after buying it for under five. That's fucking pathetic.

And not really a counter point, but the region-locking issue has existed for a long time before this generation. Every generation, or at least most of them, had that issue.

Otherwise, I want to point out one particular point he made and emphasize it: Metroid, a legendary game series with a few of the best games ever made, jumped the shark this generation. That should say a lot. Granted, it had a couple of arguably bad or okay games, but they kept to the Metroid series and such, and weren't really that bad. But with Other M, they fucked up royally. Hopefully, if there's another game in the series, it won't be like that game.

But still, that didn't ruin this generation, it's just an example of how bad it generally is. A big thing that helped ruin it was companies catering to the casual audience. I'm fine with casual gaming to some extent, and I didn't used to think that it was really a big problem because it got more people into gaming (for a short period of time anyway). However, I eventually came to realize that it is a big problem considering not only does a lot of the crap that's released now not only caters to casuals, but also typically doesn't qualify as a "game." What you have instead is software that helps you exercise or dance or something similar, something you can do for free or cheap without buying this extra shit. Or, if it is a game, it's some tacky sports game or party game that, for the most part, sucks (Wii Sports and its sequel were the only two that could be considered fun in any way).

Which leads me to the Wii. The Wii's game library is quite lackluster, even if it included several of the cool games not released in North America. Sure, the Virtual Console kind of makes up for it, but even that's missing quite a few grand titles, especially in terms of the Nintendo 64. But even discounting the all of the crap, I feel the need to say that even the few good games released here are lacking in terms of quality. Even that Super Mario Bros. 25th Anniversary package was a big fat disappointment, because it was simply a ROM of Super Mario All-Stars for the SNES with a crappy booklet and a disc with a few songs from several games throughout the series. I can tell it didn't even take much time for them to put together. Even Sonic got better treatment, and he's been sucking since Sonic R was released way back in the mid-nineties. Just makes me think they're not trying very hard any more. If not for the Virtual Console and a couple of pretty good games, and if not for our Gamecube's hardware issues (only the first two controller slots work anymore), I probably would've sold the Wii a while ago.

But otherwise, even their best franchises are getting worse. I already mentioned that Metroid jumped the shark, but Legend of Zelda is pretty boring anymore and is no longer interesting, Mario has been getting more linear and less fun (though I'll give that series credit for still being decent), as well as being put in crappy side games (even Mario Kart is losing steam), F-Zero games have been pushed to the side, possibly forever (I hope not, because that was one of the few really good Nintendo licenses left standing), Star Fox may soon be dead if Star Fox 64 3D doesn't perform well enough, and I doubt it will (Command wasn't good, and I doubt the series will improve beyond the original Star Fox 64 or the original Star Fox again even if it continued), the last Pilotwings was boring, and I don't know about Kirby because I haven't played the new game, Epic Yarn, but Kirby's games have typically been really good. I will, however, say that I do like the latest Donkey Kong game, but otherwise, his games have tended to suck in the past several years as well. Also, despite any complaints I have of the game, Super Smash Bros. Brawl was still a pretty good game overall.

So overall, I'm getting sick of Nintendo, but honestly, it's not just them. Most of the game series I've been into in recent times, including Fallout and Mass Effect, have been getting worse, particularly Mass Effect, which I no longer anticipate much. I'm also sure that, by now, pretty much everybody is getting sick of Assassin's Creed. I at least hope so, because it overstayed its welcome and got stale fast.

Anyway, moving on from that boring discussion. Ultimately, when I first thought about how sick of video games I was becoming, I wondered if it was just because I was growing out of them. My wife expressed similar sentiment (getting sick of video games, I mean), so I figured that was the case because we're both really close in age and we're getting older and talking about having children to raise, and we have been playing for about as long as each other. However, I was reminded of my cousin, who still buys and plays games, and she's several years older than we are, and when I asked her, even she said she was getting sick of video games, too, but none of us could put our fingers on just what was wrong. Of course, we figured out we weren't the only ones, and that there are a legion of gamers getting sick of the various crap happening.

Nowadays, we know why, and it's mostly because of the reasons mentioned above, whether in the video embedded or here on my blog. Gamers generally seem to agree: this is probably one of the worst generations of game consoles yet. I don't know whether the next generation will be any better or not, but things are looking bleak, if anything.

Another interesting point to that, though, is the fact that Duke Nukem Forever received mainly negative reviews from critics, which is sad considering the game is actually pretty damn good. It's certainly not amazing, but it was a breath of fresh air after encountering so many bad or dull or uninteresting games released in recent times. However, what I thought was interesting was I remember one reviewer said it was too much like a game released over a decade ago (oh wow, a game in development since 1997 playing like a game released in 1997, what a coincidence). But that made me think, "If anything, that just makes it more awesome." And then I had a bit of a revelation.

Because of what I thought I started thinking about no longer buying video games released after this generation passes, and my wife agrees. She even suggested getting rid of a few things, which I might go along with as well, but certainly not everything. No more new game consoles, no more new games, no more online gaming (unless it's free and still available), no more of that. Not only because it's becoming expensive, and not only because my wife and I already have a shitload of games, but because we prefer retro gaming. We're not even really too into this generation any more, either, but there's still some cool stuff hanging around. From now on, if anything, we'll either buy something retro if we ever feel like it, or maybe buy a PC game once in a long while. But still, we won't be buying much of anything any more. Even my cousin and her wife are wanting to jump on that bandwagon with me. We've realized we just prefer playing old games, because a lot of the best stuff ever made was released before this generation, though I will say Fallout 3 definitely ranks way up high among them, and I'd maybe consider Borderlands for that honor as well.

But you know what's weird about that? Any time I mention my plan to another gamer, they react like It's a weird thing for me to do. Quite frankly, no matter how you look at it, it can be considered more of a smart decision than anything else. I encourage anyone who wants to keep buying games to do so, but at the same time, this shouldn't come as a surprise at all to anyone, least of all other pissed off gamers. I mean, it's not like I'm going to stop playing video games any time soon either way. I'm sure I'll still be playing as long as I can, and even if I don't, that's okay. I have more interesting things I can do, like fuck my wife. But still, I love playing all sorts of games, and so does my family, so I'll keep playing anyway.

Anyway, sucks to see this generation suck so much, but the signs seem to have been popping up within the previous generation (that was a pretty good generation overall, though). For me at least, this generation has been the death of video games, and I'm honestly fine with that. It's actually nice to move on from it after so many wonderful years. I encourage others to do the same, but if not, I wish you luck in your gaming endeavors, and hope it eventually works out for the best.

We're Married!

2011-08-01T12:37:00.013-05:00

Yes, I'm still alive, and I couldn't be any happier than I am now. My girlfriend and I, after being together since Kindergarten, have finally married. Nobody predicted that we would have lasted together this long, not even the both of us, but I'm glad we're still together, because I don't think I could've found anybody better than my wife (and that's another exhilarating feeling is that I get to tell people that she's my wife now).

Obviously, since we've been with each other for so long, we've been through a lot together, and there's not a lot we don't already know about each other. Whenever I am having a hard time in my life or sick, she is always there for me, giving me hugs and kisses and taking care of me, and has always been willing to lend a sympathetic and empathetic ear, and I've always returned the favor. Whenever we're apart and doing separate things, we've always felt empty. Not that we aren't willing or able to go on or anything like that, but we've always preferred to be in each others' company, and we never get sick of being around each other. Even to this day, people tend to comment about how they rarely ever see us apart for more than a few minutes, and regardless, they don't typically see us apart. (unless one of us happens to be working at the time, but neither of us tends to go out if that's the case). I guess we both have some form of perpetual separation anxiety, heh.

Anyway, I just wanted to make that announcement real quick before I go back to bed with my wife. I might give more details about the wedding later, but I'll at least say for now that it was mesmerizing and fun, and now that the wedding stuff is over, I'll probably get back to writing blog posts more often. If not, oh well, but I will post again. If I don't ever post again before I announce that we've officially started a family (the time I anticipate I'll likely stop posting here), assume I'm dead or forgot my password or something. 'Til next time.

Inception

2011-02-26T00:02:00.001-06:00

I'll be blunt. This is one of the most disappointing films I've ever seen in my life. I expected something at least somewhat brilliant, not because of the praise, but because of the premise. I've always enjoyed reading The Lathe of Heaven by Ursula K. Le Guin, one of my favorite novels of all time, and I figured this movie would be cool, too, because it deals with the metaphysical aspects involved with dreams.

What I got instead was pseudo-intellectualism. Why do I say that? Because this movie just says stuff like "This is the way it works," without explaining why. I know Soft Science Fiction does that, but even that stays within the boundaries of reality to some degree. This film doesn't. It's not even hard to create a story based around dreams while still being realistic. This shit isn't even hard to study, either. Just takes a bit of basic knowledge about sleep psychology and you're good to go. I'll explain a bit.

First off, simply put, there are four stages of sleep, each getting deeper, then a little higher again before going into a stage called R.E.M. (Rapid Eye Movement) sleep, which is your dream state. It paralyzes your muscles, so you can't move during sleep. And there is only one state. One. There is no such thing as multiple levels of dreaming. It's just R.E.M. sleep. That's it.

But that's not all. The imagery in your dreams is brought out through this part of the brain in the limbic system near the center of the brain called the hippocampus, which helps control short and long-term memory. Since the images come from your memory, you can only bring up what you've experienced in the past, meaning you can only dream of what you know. And since you are unconscious during the R.E.M. state, you can't think of anything to create within your dreams. This also means dreams have no celestial meaning or anything like that.

And I'm just basing this one on logic here, but considering the fact that you obtain dream imagery from your mind, wouldn't it actually be easier to install a memory than to take one out? After all, I'd imagine all one would have to do is plant a chip on the hippocampus or inject something into it or something like that, and wallah! New dreams. Now extracting them. . . I've no idea how we could do that.

With just that knowledge, you can pick this movie the fuck apart. I usually enjoy it, but it irritates me here because it happens to often, and considering people praise this movie, I hope nobody follows its stupidity.

Besides all of that, this movie didn't even blow my mind, something else I was expecting. Maybe it's because I've read enough of Philip K. Dick's work to not be surprised by this kind of thing anymore, but I found this movie to be incredibly predictable either way. I saw almost every single twist and turn in the story coming from more than a mile away.

Anyway, I don't recommend it unless you want to turn your brain off, don't care about sleep psychology, and haven't read a Philip K. Dick novel or short story or The Lathe of Heaven yet (probably not necessary to follow that, but it's probably better to). In fact, yeah, fuck this movie and go read a more mind-bending and amazing book instead.

Girl becomes first to win state wrestling match

2011-02-16T01:01:00.000-06:00

. . . Because the guy she was going to face forfeit.

http://rivals.yahoo.com/highschool/blog/prep_rally/post/For-first-time-Iowa-girl-wins-a-state-wrestling?urn=highschool-322846

*Sigh*

Honestly, if I were in her position, I wouldn't accept that. Not the guy forfeiting. I wouldn't force him to wrestle if he didn't want to. I mean, I wouldn't accept that victory. I'd feel like shit for not being able to prove myself, especially for an honor like this, being the first ever to win.

Thanks for the disappointment, dude.

The Time My Girlfriend and I Fell In Love

2011-02-04T23:22:00.000-06:00

I have explained how my girlfriend and I got together, and even our first kiss and all. However, I have not yet told the story of when we truly fell in love with each other.

After about a week or two together (we were still little girls, of course), my girlfriend's family took us to some place, and my cousin and her family heard about it and wanted to come along, my cousin bringing her then girlfriend along as well. I can't remember the place or anything, but there was music playing and people were dancing. Not long after arriving, my girlfriend's parents and my cousin and her family were encouraging us to dance together.

My girlfriend got excited about it, but I was nervous. My girlfriend grabbed my hand, and we both headed out to the dance floor. Everyone else followed with their respective partners. Soon after we got on the dance floor, "That's All," the version sung by Johnny Mathis (something I figured out later on) started playing. For those who have never heard it, here it is:

Best version of the song (besides when my girlfriend sings it, of course), and I don't just think that because of the reasons stated later. Only thing he screwed up on was when he said, "And a love time can only destroy." It's supposed to say something along the lines of, "And a love time can never destroy." Otherwise, it's an incredible rendition of a brilliant song.

Anyway, this is the song we had our first dance to. During this song, my girlfriend and I looked each other in the eyes, never looking away, except when we kissed a couple of times. This is when we both fell in love with each other. It's not just my sentiment; my girlfriend agrees. That was the definitive moment. From what we heard from everyone else, that's what it even looked like. So I'm not just glad that my girlfriend and I experienced that moment, but that the rest of the group did, too.

Of course, my girlfriend and I later learned that was the reason they brought us there. We also learned that it was my girlfriend's mom that requested that song be played before we all danced to it, because that is one of her favorite songs.

It is for this reason that we have chosen "That's All" as "our song." We don't know how we will have it played at our wedding, but it will be what plays while my girlfriend and I have our first dance. My cousin even raised the idea of singing it for us, which we may actually want, because she has a great voice, and generally knows how we like to hear the song.

Anyway, I thought that would be a cute and romantic story to share with anyone who happens to be reading this, and I felt like typing it up because my girlfriend and I are real excited about getting married this summer, so we started getting nostalgic, talking about stuff like this. We even just held and kissed each other for a while after hearing "That's All" the other day.

So I'll say this for the umpteenth, yet certainly not the last, time: Sweetie, I love you. So very much. For now and evermore.

Christmas

2011-01-14T22:47:00.000-06:00

I know we're past Christmas, but I just felt like talking a bit about random Christmas stuff. I guess I'll start off with my experiences.

Of course, my Christmas times were not as bad a lot of poor kids out there who are abused or really poor or anything like that. However, considering I grew up mostly middle class (really poor now, but happy), I was still not having good a good Christmas, at least where my parents are concerned. Since they are (or were, in my mother's case) Conservative, they thought I should be a typical girly girl, and mostly bought me clothing, make-up, dolls, and an easy-bake oven, just to name a few things. But I mostly got clothing. I remember crying the first Christmas that happened, which was during my First Grade year. They knew I didn't like those kinds of presents, but they didn't care. Everyone else was nice about gifts, though. I told my girlfriend's parents about it and got me at least one thing I wanted. Not something too expensive, just something to help make me feel better, which it did. They got me a toy dinosaur, which I played with often. My cousin and her family were the ones who got me my Nintendo 64 along with Super Mario 64, which I still have and play with fairly often today. It's also, to this day, my favorite game console ever.

Anyway, don't get me wrong about gifts. I realize that's not what Christmas is all about. I'd seriously be fine with not getting presents. I'm fine with just getting hugs and "Happy Holidays" and "I love you." Maybe sipping hot chocolate while eating popcorn while watching a movie with my girlfriend. Maybe just going to see my cousin and her girlfriend. Something like that. What I don't like is blatantly not soaking in what someone tells them. If I say I don't want a particular gift, don't get it for me. That shows to me you don't care far more than not getting me anything does. Besides, if I'm not going to use it or anything, why bother wasting money on it in the first place? Well, usually, if I do get a gift I don't use, I donate it to charity if I can. Otherwise, I have to wonder why they'd even try.

And, kind of off subject, but my dad was really bad with toys anyway. Not just buying them, but his attitude on them as well. He thought, once I reached the age of thirteen, that I didn't need the toys I had anymore. While I was hanging out with my girlfriend and my cousin, my dad threw a lot of my toys in a big garbage bag, including that dinosaur toy I described earlier. I didn't care for more than half of them, since they were those Barbies and stuff like that, but there were still a lot that I didn't want him to throw away. After my cousin dropped off my girlfriend at her house and took me back home, we noticed that garbage bag out front, which we thought was unusual, so we looked inside. Sure enough, there were my toys. Yet another time I bawled my ass off. My cousin lifted the bag, put it in the trunk of her car, and hugged me until my dad came outside and started bitching at my cousin. My cousin, after she realized the argument was getting too heated, quickly got both her and I into her car and left. Besides the toys she knew I didn't want, which she donated to charity, my cousin kept the toys with her from then on, and she still has them to this day. However, once my girlfriend and I get a decent place with enough room, I'll have them again.

Anyway, besides all of that, I really have to wonder why people even consider giving clothing for Christmas. That's among the worst gift ideas out there because it's probably the gift with the most hassle to it. A lot of people are picky about what kind of clothing they wear. Even if you get something similar in style to what they wear, they still may not like it. Not only that, but you also have to consider if the clothing will fit. Even if you ask what size clothing the gift receiver wears, the clothing still may not fit. For some odd reason, even if, say, a certain pair of pants claims to be a certain size, it may likely feel tighter on you than another pair that claims to be the same size. I've had that happen quite a few times. So considering all of this, clothing will likely need to be returned or exchanged. And to top it all off, clothing is certainly not typically cheap. It's not always the most expensive item on the list, but the bill can rack up pretty damn quick and often leave you with only a few items (unless you buy from a thrift store or something, but that's not what I'm talking about, obviously).

As for Christmas now, though, my family celebrates it usually by giving gag gifts for each other and playing a game while handing them out (a "Which Gift Will You Get" kind of game). We each buy joke gifts (a maximum of three and a minimum of one depending on the number of people playing) and pick a number. Whoever has the lowest number has to go first, and gets to pick any gift they want. As the game goes along, the next person can either trade the gift with another person before them, but cannot trade afterward until their turn comes again. The game is over, obviously, once all of the gifts have been opened and traded.

To demonstrate the kinds of gag gifts we get, we all typically get gifts from just about anywhere, but my cousin has an obvious trademark at this point: Spencer's, possibly some other dumb gift sources. Spencer's has always been one of her favorite stores to go to, which I think should say a lot about her personality. She doesn't normally get anything really bad there, but she tends to find something that's fun for a least a little while. This year, I ended up with something she bought: two rolls of Sarah Palin toilet paper, which I'm thinking she may not have actually found at Spencer's. That one made me laugh the hardest for sure. She also got a screaming slingshot frog, which my girlfriend ended up with, and the What the F*ck game, which my cousin herself ended up with due to a trade. The latter is supposed to be an alcoholic drinking game, but we just drink whatever we want whenever we play. Also, my cousin left an unexpected surprise in the bathroom next to her and her wife's bedroom. Her wife tried to use the toilet paper, but figured out it wouldn't rip. Turned out to be yet another gag item my cousin got from Spencer's. They both laughed about it, but my cousin's wife said she'd find a way to get her back somehow for that. I have to wonder what will happen. And I've got to admit, it was hilarious hearing the way my cousin's wife reacted to the gag toilet paper.

By the way, before anyone complains about the way my cousin treated her wife, her wife knows my cousin well enough to have somewhat known that something like this was going to happen. If anything, she likes that about my cousin.

As for non-gag gifts, we just go out and splurge a bit, if anything. Otherwise, we just spend the whole day together doing whatever we feel like doing.

But now, I feel like talking about one more little thing before ending this post. I feel like discussing this "War on Christmas" bull shit. I don't know the everything behind it, but I definitely find it ridiculous that people get upset over what to say to others. I don't care if you say "Merry Christmas," "Happy Holidays," or even "Happy Kwanza." It's a nice gesture no matter what you say. I, however, personally prefer to say "Happy Holidays," not because I'm an Agnostic Atheist, but because it covers the whole spectrum of the holiday season. If you get upset over that, then fuck you. Anyone can say whatever they want, because it doesn't have to be one way.

Also, just an FYI, Secularists can indeed celebrate Christmas, not just because of the origins of Christmas dealing with the Winter Solstice, but because it's just fun to do something like my family does around this time of year (or any time for that matter, but we still like doing this on December 25th). So yeah, I like celebrating Christmas in that regard nowadays. I obviously didn't use to enjoy Christmas much in the past, but I'm over that now and am having a lot of fun. I hope you are, too.

Best Thanksgiving Ever

2010-12-06T20:19:00.000-06:00

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.

Thanksgiving Plans/About My Girlfriend and Her Family

2010-11-12T23:33:00.053-06:00

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.

Correlation Does Not Equal Causation

2010-11-09T14:34:00.000-06:00

Case in point:

http://www.cracked.com/article_18866_5-reasons-women-are-as-shallow-as-men-according-to-science.html

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.

What Feminism Really Is

2010-10-30T02:06:00.000-05:00

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).

Banning Teens From Trick or Treating

2010-10-27T01:25:00.047-05:00

http://shine.yahoo.com/event/momentsofmotherhood/how-old-is-too-old-for-trick-or-treating-2403664/

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?

Cheating in Online Multiplayer

2010-10-18T18:21:00.000-05:00

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.

Local Multiplayer Vs. Online Multiplayer

2010-10-16T19:27:00.006-05:00

Local

Pros:

-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.

Cons:

-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.

Online

Pros:

-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.

Cons:

-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.

The Fifth Element

2010-10-15T17:55:00.001-05:00

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.

The Walking Dead

2010-09-26T16:26:00.075-05:00

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.

What Liberalism and Conservatism Really Are

2010-09-21T23:41:00.006-05:00

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.

Metroid: Other M

2010-09-12T01:31:00.006-05:00

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.

Glenn Beck's Tea Party Rally

2010-08-28T18:20:00.002-05:00

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_dc_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.

Galambosianism

2010-08-28T00:21:00.023-05:00

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.

Marvel Ultimate Alliance

2010-08-27T11:26:00.001-05:00

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:

Deadpool
Ghost Rider
Silver Surfer
Iron Man
Moon Knight
Human Torch

Second Tier:

Luke Cage
Spider-Man
Wolverine
The Thing
Ms. Marvel
Thor

Third Tier:

Mr. Fantastic
Iceman
Spider Woman
Daredevil
Doctor Strange
Storm

Bottom Tier:

Colossus
Blade
Black Panther
Invisible Woman
Elektra
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.

TV Show's Name Causes Controversy

2010-08-10T14:01:00.000-05:00

http://tv.yahoo.com/blog/advertisers-asked-to-flee-from-bleep--1457

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.

P.S. SHIT PISS FUCK CUNT COCKSUCKER MOTHERFUCKER TITS!

Hot Tub Time Machine

2010-07-14T02:15:00.008-05:00

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.

Just One More Response to Certain Bone the Fish Members

2010-07-10T23:11:00.026-05:00

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:

http://www.bonethefish.com/viewtopics.php?2926

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:

http://zeldalily.com/index.php/tag/bonethefish/

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. Bonethefish.com, 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:

http://www.bonethefish.com/viewtopics.php?3033

http://www.bonethefish.com/viewtopics.php?3540

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.

Second:

http://www.bonethefish.com/viewtopics.php?3882

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.

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

2010-06-19T14:44:00.000-05:00

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.

The Worst Blow to the Unemployed

2010-06-18T13:10:00.002-05:00

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Outofwork-job-applicants-told-cnnm-3498252371.html?x=0

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.

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

2010-06-08T07:26:00.004-05:00

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: http://www.bonethefish.com/viewtopics.php?789&page=1

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: http://www.theonion.com/articles/repeal-of-dont-ask-dont-tell-paves-way-for-gay-sex,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 (http://www.onlineschools.org/blog/broadcast-television/). 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 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jumping_the_Shark). 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.

Neglected Mario Characters

2010-06-02T08:37:00.003-05:00

http://www.smbhq.com/nc/

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.

Busy

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.

Why I Usually Don't Watch Mixed Martial Arts/Short Rant on TV

2010-06-02T07:23:00.004-05:00

Well, I actually don't watch TV very much nowadays, even shows that I like, maybe unless I'm eating. I don't because I have various other things that I'd much rather do, like do something with my girlfriend, cousin, etc., play video games, read, write, or watch some Science Fiction, or play around online (Hell, you can find stuff for most TV shows online anyway). Otherwise, there's work to do. :(

However, even if I do watch TV, I don't like to watch certain things, like HSN or QVC (although they can be nostalgic for some odd reason), Nickelodeon or Cartoon Network (maybe unless it's old stuff, but I can watch that online anyway), Fox News (especially not that), or Mixed Martial Arts, just to name a few. But of all of those, Mixed Martial Arts seem to be the most interesting-looking of them all.

It's mainly because of the advertisements. The TV stations advertise Mixed Martial Arts very well for sure, and it's not like they're all bad, but the advertisements for Mixed Martial Arts, particularly UFC, are quite similar to those shown for NASCAR. What they do is they purposely show you the most exciting parts of the show just to suck you in. They show you a lot of action, but they don't show you the parts where the guys just stand around and do barely anything for minutes on end. That's literally how a fairly large number of matches go, at least in the UFC.

My other criticism lies in the fact that the fighters don't actually utilize very many martial arts. There are mixed martial arts, sure, but there aren't very many of them, which is kind of deceiving. Upon first hearing the phrase "Mixed Martial Arts," I initially thought, "Holy shit, that's such an awesome idea! I wonder what they'll come up with. Maybe mixing Kung Fu with Muay Thai, or Capoeira with Judo or something." But no. There is Muay Thai, sure, but there's also Wrestling, Boxing, Judo, and one or two more fighting styles that are typically thrown in (can't remember them at the moment). Either way, there's really not as much mixing going on here as you'd probably like. This means that the fights look generally bland, and not just because of the standing around mentioned earlier. Even when they manage to connect hits and stuff, it's still not always that exciting, especially if they're holding submissions, because they tend to hold those for-fucking-ever, unless broken out of or tapped out of.

So yeah. Fun. I'll admit, it's better than NASCAR and Golf, but I'll stick to my Bruce Lee and Jackie Chan movies, thank you very much. Hell, I still prefer Pro Wrestling over this, and even that's gone to shit.

In fact, TV in general seems to have gone to shit. Other than South Park, which you can watch for free in high quality online at the South Park Studios website, there's really not much to watch on TV anymore. On your local stations, what's usually on is a bunch of Realistic Fiction shit that takes hardly any thought to come up with, and those are mostly Cop and Hopsital Dramas. BO-RING! Rarely do I ever find something genuinely and consistently great anymore. Even the more interesting shows have been lacking, like Lost (stopped caring), Heroes (got dull and much less racially diverse), and even that fucking Terminator TV show was a disappointment (I should've known about the latter, though). It sucks that some of the best of the more recent shows aren't around anymore, either, like Mad TV, a show I'd been watching since I was about nine years old thanks to my cousin. I'll admit, that show was ultimately getting worse, but it was still fun to watch, and up until it's cancellation, was the only show left that I tried to watch consistently every time a new episode was on.

By the way, anyone who likes the new V series should stop watching that and check out the old 80s version, because, from what I've seen, the older version is superior (one of the best TV shows ever) and is already finished, so there's no need to wait for more new V episodes. Oh, and the DVDs are pretty damn cheap, too, and if you do end up buying them, be sure to get at least The Original Miniseries, which has the first two episodes, and The Final Battle, which has next three. Trust me, the first two episodes end on a bit of a cliffhanger, so make sure you get the next three. I haven't seen V: The Series yet, but I'll probably start watching that with my girlfriend soon.

P.S. As for what I typically do watch on TV (when I eat, I mean), I usually just turn to Tru TV and watch those shows with real police videos and stuff, or GSN and watch whatever game show is on. Otherwise, I'll watch stand up comedies, or maybe a movie if it's at least decent, particularly those shitty B-movies on Scy Fy (horrible name and a stupid decision made by the network, by the way). And if I can catch them, I'll watch Judge Judy, because she's hilarious since watching her is like watching a woman who seems like she's on PMS every day of her life, and Jerry Springer, the most socially diverse TV show ever, as well as one of the most nostalgic since my cousin used to watch it during the height of its popularity (not every day, of course). By the way, if you want the best or most interesting Jerry Springer shows, the best day to catch them is usually Friday.

Oh, and my all time favorite TV shows are The Twilight Zone, Star Trek: The Next Generation, The Outer Limits, Tales From the Darkside, V (the 80s series), Ed, Edd, 'n Eddy, and Courage the Cowardly Dog. I have the complete Buck Rogers series and the complete Firefly series, but I have only seen two episodes of Buck Rogers (great so far, though), and have not even started Firefly yet at all, so I don't know about them.

EDIT: I still haven't gotten around to watching V: The Series, but I watched a few more episodes of Buck Rogers, which is pretty damn cool, but I still have a ways to go on it. On the other hand, I finished every episode of Firefly. Excellent show, definitely recommend it.

Why Discussing Gender Roles Matters to Me

2010-06-01T19:32:00.015-05:00

This is an idea for a blog post that I've had for a while, but after noticing a comment in the following article I recently read, I felt like finally getting around to talking about this. Here's the article:

http://www.cracked.com/article_18529_6-absurd-gender-stereotypes-that-science-says-are-true.html

That article's generally bull shit, but I didn't feel like going into full detail about it. What I'm really going to argue against is this specific comment by chsirish73:

"Hey, everyone that's getting so angry, the article is based off of scientific research and states on average that these things are true. Also, the article is written by a woman, so everyone that's getting so upset and saying that it's biased against women isn't making any sense."

Most scientific studies done on the differences between men and women are highly questionable. Those studies tend to generalize a whole spectrum of people, and people can easily justify what they say because they claim that it's science that says so, like there's no way any sort of experiment could possibly be biased or conducted improperly. The big problem with the generalizations is that there is typically an exception to the rule, hence is what my girlfriend and I tend to be. In this case, if there is an exception to the rule, then the study is not reliable, and therefore, you shouldn't trust the findings within.

For instance, if you want to test the hypothesis that all heavy things sink, you'd try to put a bunch of heavy objects in water. Turns out, most heavy things do sink. However, once you try out a big log, it floats. Suddenly, your hypothesis isn't correct, and a new one must be made because of this astounding new discovery. This is how science experiments works. It's not correct to continue saying that all heavy things sink if not all of them do.

And the other problem is, like I said, people trusting this "scientific research" because it is just that (in their eyes, at least), including the woman who wrote the article I linked to. This causes a great number of problems that are involved with believing these stereotypes. This is the very thing that causes any sort of anger or hatred against a particular group of people. This, of course, causes inequalities among the human race. In this case, it does for women more so than men. Why?

One big reason why is because people consider women to be biologically inferior, including other women. This encourages them to justify any sort of disproportionate treatment of women, such as leaving them at home to be housewives because they "can't handle the work environment like men, and are naturally homebodies regardless." But one of the worst atrocities in this country is the lower payroll that women receive on average, and this is for almost any job you go to. It's not just because women tend to have jobs that are lower in position than men do, since this happens with women who are in the same position as men as well. But what's the justification for this? Typically, the answer is, "Women are biologically inferior to men," or something along those lines. This is said regardless of women's overall job performance, even if it's better than men's. Check this website out for more info: http://www.womensmedia.com/new/Lips-Hilary-gender-wage-gap.shtml

Also interesting to note is that lawyers have been using women's premenstrual syndrome as a defense for their actions, as if women become savage beasts every time they're on PMS. Sadly, this argument has been working out for them so far: http://www.nytimes.com/1982/07/12/style/premenstrual-syndrome-a-complex-issue.html?sec=health

And it's not just a problem having to deal with work or economics otherwise. It's also a big social problem, particularly in relationships. The first article showed the popular book Men Are From Mars, Women Are From Venus, written by John Gray in 1992, which ultimately has separated the sexes more than it has brought them together. In part because of this book, people still to this day tend to claim things like, "Women complain about problems because they want their problems to be acknowledged, while men complain about problems because they are asking for solutions." Like neither party would ever want or take either side's point of view. Of course, John Gray admitted that what he was writing was about stereotypes, and shouldn't be applied to the individual. The problem is, most people have been doing that. Any time a generalization is made, that generalization will spread, and the people who have that generalization applied to them may actually adapt to that generalization. There is a Sociological theory that I want to name related to this very thing, but I can't remember the name. I'll update this post as soon as I find out the name.

Also interesting is the fact that women who serve in the military don't receive as much respect as men who serve: http://www.newsvine.com/_news/2009/12/14/3629959-back-from-combat-women-struggle-for-acceptance

Although most of the problems tend to fall upon the women, men also have their fair share of problems as well, though that's usually due to social stigma. From what I understand, just a few things that are part of the cultural norms for men are not being allowed to express their emotions (otherwise, they're gay, and that's a bad thing), they're told not to wear skirts or makeup (unless you live in the 1980s, of course), and they're told they're the ones that have to get a job and support the family, among various other things. This, of course, limits freedoms. For what reasons, I can't tell you, but one thing I can easily come up with is tradition (we've always done it, so let's keep on doing it), which is really more of an excuse than it is an argument.

This is obviously a serious problem, and that's why I find it so important to let people know about just how our traditional gender roles are breaking us apart. What gets to me most is that most people don't even recognize that they're accepting these stereotypes blindly. Please, don't fall down into the slippery slope on the way to hatred and bigotry. Accept people for who they are or who they want to be. This is necessary for America to be a free country.

Sixth Generation of Video Game Consoles

2010-05-01T17:15:00.001-05:00

I originally wanted to just talk about the Gamecube, but figured I would be talking about all three system in the process anyway, so I changed my mind. Since I initially wanted to talk about the Gamecube, I'll start with that.

I consider the Nintendo Gamecube to be one of the most underrated video game consoles ever. Most of the people I know personally think it's okay, but I hear more people outside of my group of friends and such call it one of the worst pieces of shit ever made. Yeah right. I mean, people are entitled to their opinions, sure, but it seems like a quick judgment call considering there have truly been far worse consoles, such as the Panasonic 3DO, the Philips CD-i, and Nintendo's very own Virtual Boy. There are more, but the Gamecube doesn't even fucking touch those consoles in terms of total suckage.

I agree that it's certainly not the best game system out there, but I still like it a decent amount. Most people will complain that the system didn't have very much third-party support, at least not like the Playstation 2 or Xbox did. This actually was not a completely bad thing, since that meant the Gamecube had more exclusive games on it. Not that the other consoles didn't, but that meant the console was made more unique. See, the thing that usually sucks about third-party support is that you tend to get the same games on all or most of the game consoles, so typically, you only needed the game on one console. What I usually do in that case is pick the best system that has that kind of third-party support (where the same games are usually on the other consoles). I decide that by figuring out the best exclusive game lineup. Otherwise, if all three systems had the same kind of support, then you'd need only one system, not just to own, but to sell in stores.

But quite a few people also tend to complain about the Gamecube's exclusive games library as well. With a few exceptions, such as Metroid Prime and F-Zero GX, the game had a reputation for having a lot of "kiddy games." Of course, this doesn't necessarily mean that the games are bad. If you're going to use that logic, then that would mean that all of those games you used to play as a kid suck now, including classics like Super Mario Bros., Kirby's Adventure, and Star Fox. I'll even use more recent examples: how about Banjo-Kazooie, Ratchet & Klank, and Super Mario Galaxy? Who cares if they're "kiddy" or not, just play some fucking games. You're only limiting your fun factor by accepting that kind of behavior.

I don't care if I'm having fun, this game still sucks because I'm an adult.

But even with all of that clumped together, the system was still criticized for not having online play. There's LAN, but no online for about ninety nine percent of it's games, Phantasy Star Online being the only one I can think of with online capabilities, which I've never played before. Nintendo didn't start really supporting online games until Mario Kart DS was released in 2005 on the Nintendo DS, and before that, Nintendo was adamant about not supporting online games. Nintendo's president and CEO, Satoru Iwata, even went as far as saying (back in 2004), "Customers don't want online games." Yeah. Sure. That's why over a large number of Xbox users were on Xbox Live at the time, probably even more than that. And that number was growing fast.

To be fair, though, I prefer just playing with a group of friends. I guess that could be due to the fact that it's what I've done ever since I was a kid, but there's a greater sense of closeness, and the lack of anonymity makes it less likely for those fucking moronic racial, homophobic, misogynistic, and ultimately pointless insults (among other things). Besides, I love it when my girlfriend and I give each other hugs and kisses while playing games.

I guess the last big criticism I'd like to touch on is the Gamecube's multimedia abilities. Since the Gamecube uses discs that are half the size of regular discs, it doesn't play movies or music. Why this is a complaint, I don't know. It's a fucking video game console. It plays video games. Although it's nice if video game consoles have multimedia capabilities, it's not necessary to have them. There are various other things that you either already have or can easily obtain that can give you those multimedia features, and sometimes it's actually more convenient to do that instead.

Ultimately, most of the complaints that people have (at least the ones I hear) about the Gamecube are kind of ridiculous. I get that people don't like the system, but here's a big problem with the people I've met that don't like it. I'll usually ask them how many games they've played, and possibly what games they've played. I'd rarely get an answer that went above five games, and the games were usually games that either truly did suck, or games that were otherwise found on the other game systems. Other than that, people would usually just cite "what they heard." Which, by the way, video game magazines were rarely nice to any games on the system. Sometimes there was even an obvious bias going against the system in some magazines, Game Informer being a great example simply because they usually only give good scores to what's popular. Here's an article about it (which also talks about how the magazine criticized what is arguably one of the greatest games on the Gamecube): http://www.jivemagazine.com/column.php?pid=2589

I don't care if I'm having fun, this game still sucks because it's not popular.

And you know what . . . a big, highly anticipated Mario game not being popular? What a fucking moron.

Even though I think the Gamecube is the most underrated system, I still don't think that it was the best one released during the last generation of game consoles. That would be the Playstation 2. It's not because the game library is the largest, it's because it has a lot of great games in general. Of course, quite a few of them aren't too great or even anything special, but there are still a lot of pretty damn good games on the system. And you know what the crazy thing is? It's the less popular games that are the better ones for the most part. Even if they're not the best, they're at least the most fun to play.

Any problems with the console that I have are minor, even to the point where I can't even think of a big flaw besides what I mentioned earlier. It's one of my favorite game consoles ever, though it still doesn't quite take the top spot. If you had to get one system out of the three from the last generation of video game consoles, get the Playstation 2. Nowadays, it's pretty cheap getting one, and the games are typically cheap now as well. There are a lot of great games for ten dollars or less used at game stores like Gamestop, though some might go above that.

And, of course, the worst video game console of the last generation is the Xbox. I've never actually owned an Xbox, but I've played my cousin's a lot, and she had owned a select few exclusive games and rented quite a few others. I got a chance to play all of those games, the ones that my cousin owned being the best games on the system. After playing many other games on the system, I can easily say that the system is one of the most overrated video game consoles ever (though it's not a total piece of shit), much like the Gamecube is one of the most underrated. Because of that, I feel people got things backwards the whole last generation.

I really have no idea why people liked this system-oh wait! It's because of Halo. Good game (and just that, a good game), but defining a whole system just based on that one game? I know a shit load of people who did that. It was fucking irritating. Like with the Gamecube, I'd ask people what they played on the Xbox. Once again, I didn't hear much beyond Halo and some third party games also available on the other two systems. But that's the thing. It's not necessarily their fault. The other part of this is that the Xbox's game library was full of third-party games found on other systems, with a few obvious exceptions. And even most of the first party games on the system were okay at best.

It's for that reason that my cousin sold all of her Xbox stuff. Well, her second Xbox anyway. Her first one malfunctioned to the point where, although it would turn on, it was practically unusable for some reason. Since it couldn't be fixed, she smashed it up. Of course, she bought a second one, which was starting to show signs of another malfunction just before she sold it.

Now the only way we can get one back (if I wanted one, which I don't), is through Amazon or something, because of Microsoft's excellent idea of immediately dropping the original Xbox's support right after the Xbox 360 came out. Real fucking smart, Microsoft.

But if there's at least one redeeming factor about the Xbox, it's that it was able to incorporate your music into some of the games released for the system. That means you can listen to Slayer while you kill a bunch of people, thus setting a proper tone. Or Brittany Spears, whatever floats your boat.

Perfect for Mortal Kombat or Grand Theft Auto.

But after these consoles had pretty much run their course, Microsoft got better, but how much better? Return soon to find out, when I take a look at the consoles released during the seventh generation of video game consoles.

My Top Ten Favorite Albums

2010-04-10T23:11:00.183-05:00

It's about time that I talked about music in some way. What better way than to show off some of my favorite albums! I do have one rule I have set up for my list: only one album is allowed per band. I am doing this because a decent chunk of the list (probably most of the top half even) would be taken up by one band, the one that has the top spot on the list. Also, I am still looking for more music to listen to, so this list will very likely change. Either way, I guess you can get some kind of idea of my tastes in music, which, although it's obvious that I'm a Metalhead, I listen to more than just Metal, though my tastes don't normally stretch too far beyond the Rock genre, a band like Depeche Mode (though there are more) being an exception. And just before I get started, I just wanted to note that every album I list here, even as honorable mentions, has what I'd like to call a "perfect track record," which means that every song on the album is good (or at least decent), at least they are to me.

#10

Sepultura-Arise

I had a hard time choosing between this album and another in the honorable mentions, which I'll point out to you later. But I chose this album because of it's uniqueness, since it seemed Sepultura started getting more experimental with their music with their album after their other masterpiece, which is also in the honorable mentions. It was kind of a risky move for them to experiment like they did, but boy did it fucking work well. It still maintained an extremely hardcore edge while being fresh. This definitely increased the replay value of the album. So check it out, you may get addicted to it.

Best song: "Arise"

Worst song: Not counting "C.I.U. (Criminals in Uniform)," probably "Meaningless Movements"

#9

Live-Throwing Copper

Although I'd known about these guys for a long time, I actually didn't start listening to this album until I turned about fifteen years old. My girlfriend listened to it and told me how good it was. I was surprised to hear about how good it was, so I felt the need to check it out. Sure enough, although I didn't like a couple of songs initially, I thought it was awesome. Eventually, the songs I didn't like grew on me, so now it's one of my favorite albums because of that (yes, even the hidden track, "Horse," grew on me). Otherwise, it wouldn't even have been an honorable mention.

Best song: "White, Discussion"

Worst song: "Pillar of Davidson"

#8

Dishwalla-Pet Your Friends

This is an album my girlfriend bought. We both figured it would be good, but neither of us thought that it would be as incredible as it is. Of course, if you've heard "Counting Blue Cars," you've heard one of the best songs on the album, but the rest is also amazing. An underrated classic in my eyes.

Best song: Tie: "Counting Blue Cars"/"Moisture"

Worst song: "The Feeder"

#7

Slayer-Show No Mercy

As much as I love Slayer (at least their earlier stuff), there's only one album that I wanted to even consider putting on this list, and that's this one. I don't know why, but it just kicks so much fucking ass even though it's not as hardcore as their later work. A couple of songs get old fairly quick, but the ones that don't are almost as addictive as lesbian sex.

Best Song: Tie: "The Antichrist"/"The Final Command"

Worst song: "Crionics"

#6

Death-Human

The first Death Metal album I listened to, and easily the best one so far. A lot of Death Metal albums I tend to listen to sacrifice good harmony and all that for technical proficiency, which isn't the worst trade off, but when you compare those albums with this album, which has both, I'd rather throw those fuckers away and just listen to this instead. Although I've listened to more crap in the Death Metal genre than good stuff, this album has always kept my hopes up that there's another great Death Metal band out there making good music. It's just too bad Death disbanded. R.I.P. Chuck Schuldiner.

Best song: "See Through Dreams"

Worst Song: "Cosmic Sea"

#5

Helloween-Walls of Jericho

Even as a standalone album, Walls of Jericho is already incredible, but the 1988 release, which includes the Helloween EP and the "Judas" single, makes the experience so much better that I increased the spot this album landed. An epic album made even more epic. Great decision on their part for sure. Because of that, I'd strongly suggest not getting just the original release. Get the expanded version. Seriously. You won't be disappointed.

Best song: "Judas"

Worst song: "Gorgar"

#4

Metallica-Master of Puppets

You probably knew this was coming. As much as I dislike Metallica now, I just had to put this on the list anyway because it's such a fucking masterpiece of Metal music. In fact, this is, thankfully, the first Metal album I heard. I first heard it when I was little when my cousin showed it to me, and it blew my mind. It changed my perceptions of music forever, since I started listening to more hardcore stuff within the next few years, and helped lead me on the path to learning how to play guitar (though what ultimately got me into it is coming up on the list). Of course, I don't expect Metallica to ever play anything this great again, but it sucks that they'll likely never even get close. Fuckers.

Best song: "Disposable Heroes"

Worst song: "The Thing That Should Not Be"

#3

R.E.M.-Murmur

Another album my girlfriend showed me. She showed this to me not long after we met, and didn't care for it too much at first, but it grew on me pretty fast. She played it a lot because she liked it so much, and, of course, would sing to the songs (or at least try to because the lyrics are so surreal).So cute. But besides that, I still treasure this album otherwise simply because it truly got me into Alternative Rock. After all these years, it's still the best Alt. Rock album I've ever heard, and I doubt it'll be beaten out.

Best song: Tie: "Moral Kiosk"/"Pilgrimage"

Worst Song: "We Walk"

#2

Joe Satriani-Surfing With the Alien

This is the album that inspired me to start playing guitar.Every time I listen to this album, I'm still amazed and think, "Wow! Just fucking wow!" Or something along those lines. I mean, I'm amazing at playing the guitar now, but I still can't catch up with Joe Satriani, though I'm still determined. So he's obviously my favorite guitarist. Besides the proficiency, there is still incredible songwriting to go with it, so it just doubles the amazingness of the album.

Best song: "Lords of Karma"

Worst song: There is no worst song.

#1

Rush-Signals

Yes, I'm dead serious. I really do think that Rush's Signals album is the greatest album I've ever heard. I'm sure I'll be getting a lot of backlash on that, particularly from Rush fans, but I can't help but pick an album in which I feel every song on the album is a masterpiece of music. Every single track. To be fair, I had a hard time picking which Rush album I'd feature, but I ultimately think this is the best one. I can't explain why, but even the very weakest point of the whole album is simply fucking amazing. Of course, not an odd fact, but this is my girlfriend's favorite album as well. We love listening to it together, still quite often for almost as long as we've been together.

Best song: "Digital Man"

Worst song: Again, there is no worst song.

Honorable Mentions

Onslaught-Power From Hell

Before buying this album, I figured it would kick a lot of ass. I didn't expect that it would kick as much ass as it did, though. The only reason it's not on the list, though, is because the songs tend to get repetitive. Not too bad, but enough to be bothersome sometimes, particularly "Lord of Evil."

Best song: "Witch Hunt"

Worst song: Tie: "The Devil's Legion (Both Parts)"/"Lord of Evil"

Metallica-Kill 'Em All

I almost didn't even put this one in the honorable mentions section, but I figured I would, partly because I wanted one other Metallica album in it. I didn't want Ride the Lightning in it because of "Fade to Black" (overrated piece of shit song), and the worst song on this album is okay enough. So here's the second best old Metallica album in my eyes.

Best song: Tie: "Metal Militia"/"No Remorse"

Worst song: "Jump in the Fire"

R.E.M.-Reckoning

Like Murmur, I initially didn't care for this one much, either, but did get a lot better after more listenings. The best song on this album is better than the best song on Murmur, but the worst song on this album is worse than the worst song on Murmur, so this one is the honorable mention, but it's almost as incredible as Murmur.

. . . Murmur.

Best song: "7 Chinese Bros."

Worst song: "Camera"

Ronnie Montrose-The Speed of Sound

I actually discovered this one through Pandora radio a couple of years ago. I heard the best song on the album, thought, "Holy shit, this is one of the most fucking epic songs ever!" and just had to check the rest of the album out. Of course, the rest of the album couldn't match up to that song, but it was still a great listen.

Best song: "Mach 1"

Worst song: "Monolith"

Rush-Grace Under Pressure

I thought this album wouldn't be anything too special before listening to it, since I figured Rush definitely would've gone downhill after their epic masterpiece, Signals. Sure enough, they didn't get much worse! I didn't love it at first, but after three listenings, I was real into it. The worst song on the album took a pretty decent amount of getting used to, though.

Best song: "Kid Gloves"

Worst song: "Red Lenses"

Rush-Moving Pictures

I almost chose this one over Signals, but there was a big reason I chose Signals instead. This album had two extremely popular songs: "Tom Sawyer" and "Limelight." Don't get me wrong, they're good songs, but I'm utterly sick of hearing them, and I always skip them while listening to this album. Otherwise, this album is wonderful.

Best song: "Red Barchetta"

Worst song: "Limelight" (for the people who like that song, check this album out, because everything else on it is better)

Rush-Power Windows

Although I've always liked this album, it took me about a year to consider it one of my absolute favorite Rush albums. I can't tell you why, but I assure you, the change in style of music does not make this album worse than most Rush fans would probably make it seem. The songwriting is still epic as ever on this album, so I definitely recommend at least checking it out.

Best song: "Emotion Detector"

Worst song: "Mystic Rhythms"

Rush-Vapor Trails

I initially didn't care much for this one, but like, heh, Murmur, it grew on me. It took a lot longer than Murmur did, though. More than half a year if what it took for me to like at least a majority of the songs on the album. It's especially shocking considering this is one of their more recent albums, back in 2002. I thought Rush's creative juices had mostly run out after hearing their Godawful Test For Echo album (their worst album). But now, because of this album, I still have high hopes for Rush.

Best song: "Earthshine"

Worst song: "Ghost Rider"

Sepultura-Beneath the Remains

I almost chose this album over Arise, but I chose Arise because, after listening to this album for a while, may start to seem like it's sounding the same. I'd still greatly recommend listening to this album, but I'd suggest listening to it in small doses so your brain doesn't rot.

Best song: Tie: "Mass Hypnosis"/"Inner Self"

Worst song: Can't decide

Stone Temple Pilots-Core

I'm not a fan of STP, but I do love this album. This is the only album they've ever released that I've really liked, at least that I've listened to, but it'll probably always be the case. I wouldn't have even listened to it had my cousin not shown it to me, but I'm glad that she showed it to me, because otherwise I'd just completely dislike STP . . . which I still kind of do, but I have no hopes for them anymore. Still, this one's great.

Best song: Tie: "Sin"/"Piece of Pie"

Worst song: "Dead & Bloated"

Testament-The Legacy

This is the album that almost made the list. I consider some of the riffs on this album more badass than the ones on Arise (in fact, this album has some of the most badass riffs I've ever heard), but the song quality otherwise was a little worse, since certain parts of some songs were kind of generic.I still consider it a classic Thrash Metal album, though.

Best song: "First Strike is Deadly"

Worst song: "Apocalyptic City"

-------

So there we go. All of my favorite albums, which is a list that's subject to change. Of course, there are more albums that I really like, but these are the ones that are on my top tier. I think I'll do a list with my favorite songs soon. Maybe. Stay tuned for that.

I'm in a Relationship

2010-04-07T16:44:00.002-05:00

This post is somewhat inspired by a person commenting on one of my posts, which I'm glad somebody finally noticed my blog and everything, but just for future reference for anyone out there (not just the person posting, anyone, for that matter), I'm posting something my girlfriend said in my comments section recently so everyone can see:

"I cant tell whether you were hitting on my girlfriend or not at first, but this goes for anyone else who wants to in the future. Shes a lesbian who has been taken since she was five and always will be taken. Im not mad or anything. I just wanted to point that stuff out."

Seriously, it even says in my "About Me" section that I've been in a relationship with my girlfriend ever since Kindergarten, which has been a very long time. I won't say how long exactly, but it's been far over a decade. It'll keep going that way. We rarely get into arguments, we've never broken up or even thought about that possibility, and it's not going to happen. Even so, and this is just for the guys out there, even if we did break up, remember this extremely important fact: I AM A LESBIAN! See this post for reference of just how much of a lesbian I am: http://redheadmetalhead.blogspot.com/2009/09/first-time-i-had-ever-seen-penis.html

That means, guys, that you have no chance in Hell of ever being with me. Ever.

Even so, strangers over the Internet have an even smaller chance. I'm more likely going to be with someone I know in real life. If I wanted to get out there and date someone over the Internet, I would more likely go to a dating site. But again, that's not going to happen because I plan on marrying my girlfriend. Hopefully soon, but we will just whenever we can.

Like my girlfriend, I'm not mad, either, but I wanted to point this all out to people who even want to consider hitting on me in any way so you don't waste your time. If it happens again, I'll either link you to this post, or I'll ignore you, maybe even delete your post if it's causing too much of a cluster-fuck in the comments section. I'm sorry if I sound like a bitch talking about this subject, but I get this shit in real life as well. There have even been some morons that have still hit on me even if I told them that I'm a lesbian.

None of this means that we can't talk or you can't read my blog or anything, it's just a reference for people who obviously, for whatever reason, haven't read my blog enough or at least my "About Me" section.

Political Compass

2010-03-31T16:34:00.003-05:00

http://www.politicalcompass.org/

I thought this was ultimately a pretty good test to take, though some questions may be a bit confusing, but the test-makers apparently wanted that. Either way, I'm not surprised by the result that I received.

I'm sure it's not a surprise for anyone reading my blog, either (like anyone is reading it anyway). I'm sure if I took it again, I might get slightly different results, but it'd still be around the same area anyway.

Burger King

2010-03-27T11:11:00.003-05:00

Today, I will tell you the experience I had working at Burger King. To begin with, I actually didn't mind the work. Well, somewhat. It's definitely not the worst job you can find, though.

Most of what can be done is pretty easy, but the only problem can be either remembering what to do sometimes, drive through sucks, and closing sucks. I mean, closing anywhere sucks, but closing a lot of places doesn't hold up to closing a fast food restaurant. That's the worst possible experience you can have working fast food, and it's necessary for every employer to do so at some point. Actually, I had to do it three nights in a row. During my first week on the job. During the weekend when the place is open longer. That was not only making me tired, it was making me incredibly physically weak (much more than most people would think, by the way, so please don't give me shit about that), thus bringing down my ability to work. And you know how complaining about something at a job like this works. Don't like what we do? Well, now we're going to lower your hours, put you on your more inconvenient shifts (besides closing time), and put you on a position that sucks worse than your ideal position/the one you're best at.

Either way, though, my hours were reduced the next week. I actually welcomed that fact with open arms because I need a little more a rest after that excruciating first week. Hell, they gave me five more hours than what I asked for anyway, so I figured that balanced things out. However, my hours kept getting reduced for the next couple of months until I was "terminated" (I like that term better than "fired," so I'll use that instead). I was terminated from the job because I "wasn't fit for fast food." Why this is bull shit is coming ahead.

First off, once again, my hours kept getting lowered. I gradually went from thirty-five hours a week (more than what I signed up for) to two. Two fucking hours. It wasn't much before then, either. Now, if you want to complain about performance, that's a big factor in determining that. You know what, of course I'm not going to be fit for the job if I'm barely working there. Because of what they were doing, I was losing touch on how to do things, even making certain sandwiches. That's probably the biggest reason why I wasn't "fit for fast food" as they said.

Now, here's another big thing. I know the business is called "fast food" for a reason. I understand that perfectly. However, that does not mean that literally everything has to go the speed of fucking light. I'm not sure if this is the same for everyone else out there, but at the Burger King where I worked, they expected me to finish mopping the entire kitchen and behind the front counter within just a few short minutes. This is something that's not possible if you want to actually clean the fucking floor, and you should considering that you're dealing with food and want a more sanitary place, not to mention the possibility of people slipping all over the Goddamn place. I know there are work shoes for that, but it can still happen, especially because you have to wait a while before you can get work shoes in the first place. Either way, I think they should allow more time for that kind of thing. It's important, quite frankly. I understand not being too picky about the floors, either, but you don't want to be way too sloppy, which they kind of are. But even for the most important part when it comes to being speedy, the food, they still have high expectations a little too high. I was eventually able to reach their mark (thirty seconds or less) for about two days before the third week hit and I started slowly losing touch. But, you know what, you can still fucking have fast food even if you take a little longer on orders. I know people are hungry, but it's not like waiting an extra ten seconds or more (if I make a mistake, for example, which happens somewhat often to every employee who isn't a fucking android) is going to kill them. Even if it takes a minute longer, it's still faster than every other kind of restaurant out there. It's still fast food. Hell, if anything, this company-wide mentality is just feeding more into the quite high level of impatience in this country anyway. Great job for helping out on that issue.

Oh, and that's another reason why closing sucked, too. They expected you to finish closing within and hour. Normally, this isn't a problem, but I swear, there was so much shit to do within that time, particularly if you where the one cleaning the broiler. That alone takes up most of your time, but then there are various other tasks that . . . well, I can't even remember them all now, but it was fucking awful either way. Hell, I should tell you about the worst night I had working there. The second night I closed during the first weekend. I worked with the second bitchiest manager and an employee who, although was fairly nice, yet expressionless, didn't do nearly as much work as she should have (that night, at least). Neither of them were helping me out much that night. I didn't even want to complain to the manager because, again, she was the second bitchiest manager, so that would've backfired on me. She noticed and didn't even do anything about it anyway. Anyway, the manager was doing her thing until the very end, and the other person washed the dishes and did one other minuscule thing, then just sat and read some shitty book the rest of the fucking night. I had to take care of the umpteen other things that night that weren't even supposed to be my responsibility because of her, which led to us staying an hour over our "limit." Normally, although I'd be pissed, I'd expect to be fine considering it wasn't my fault that happened. However, everyone apparently thought it was. I have no idea why, but I have a feeling one of those two (likely the manager) just said I was and thus I was blamed for it without further evidence to prove otherwise (or even to prove their own case, but I was just the trainee, so they would've trusted them more anyway). That really had me pissed off, and I did complain about that. Nothing. I mean, at least I wasn't punished, but that was such bull shit that I wanted some good out of it. Oh well.

But here's another bull shit thing that happened. This time, it involved the highest manager there, so there was nothing I could do about it. I was helping the cashier person at drive through, giving the food and drinks to the customers and stuff. Pretty easy position, probably the best besides the spec bar (for chicken or fish sandwiches or whatever), the fryer, and the broiler. Anyway, there was a customer who was complaining about not getting the onion rings he ordered. I asked the manager what I should tell him. I can't remember what she told me, but I repeated what she said to him, and he kept complaining. I remember that it was a stupid thing she told me anyway, so I understood why he kept complaining, since I would've as well. At that point, the manager took over, which is what she fucking should've done in the first place. After a short exchange, though, she apologized for what I apparently did, claiming, "I'm sorry, she's new here." That pissed me off, because I knew that I ultimately did nothing wrong whatsoever. If anything, she did, not me. Putting blame on others like that is obviously not a good thing for a manager to do, since that drops morale. I have no doubt that she does that sometimes, and if she does, I hope she at least gets her ass demoted for doing that.

I guess another thing I feel like mentioning is this ridiculous mentality that I'm sure is common among bosses/managers. It's the mentality that makes them think that, since their employees are there to work, they should work the entire time, even if there's absolutely nothing to do. At all. Even if there's truly nothing, they'll tell you to take out the trash even if it's only about a third full, mop a second time (which, in retrospect, might actually help, but still), or even just put a fucking sticker on something or mark it otherwise. I mean, God damn it, is it really that fucking important that you literally have to search everywhere to find even the tiniest little fucking thing to do? Even if there isn't, what's that point then? What would they make you do at that point?

But the last major problem I had working there was this little rule that they had which was extremely contradictory. It had to do with our breaks. Here's the thing: the managers choose when you can have your break. This is fine since you'd think they'd know best for a job like this anyway. However, my managers sucked shit at picking when I could have my only break, and it would typically be about an hour and a half into my shift no matter how long I would be working, or sometimes even before the first hour hit. That's terrible, and there's really no good reasoning for that. I remember even asking them why they did so, and the highest manager told me that it was apparently the only time they could possibly give me a break, which was total bull shit because there were at least three times later on that day in which nothing happened for quite a while, and one or two people could easily handle business in the kitchen (if there was any), and another could've taken a break if they needed one or something. Hell, one of those points I remember was longer than half an hour, which was as long as our breaks typically lasted. You can't tell me that I couldn't have had a break during that half hour. Total fucking bull shit.

But that's still nothing compared to the truly contradictory rule they made up. Smokers had the opportunity to get special little breaks just so they could go out and smoke. During my first couple of days working there, I figured I cold have one, too despite not being smoker, since I'm sure they were moral enough to give everyone a good share on that kind of thing. That turned out to not be the case, though. I had the bitchiest manager there bitch me out about sitting down for hardly even a quarter of a minute before being spotted and told to get back to work . . . which, once again, there was nothing to do anyway, which is why I decided to sit for about five minutes, or until something happened, like an order popping up. She literally told me to put a sticker on something. That was it. She even told me that only smokers get those little breaks. This was the most unfair thing about working there. Why would anyone even consider this? It, if anything, only serves to encourage employees to smoke so they can have a little more freedom at work. Not only that, but it's stupid to consider the "needs" of a smoker over everyone else like that. It's discrimination is what it is, and I fail to see how they get away with it. What a fucked up rule.

Oh, and the managers would complain if I was even one minute late. This is a problem relating just to me, but all of the clocks were completely out of whack. Even the clocks at the job weren't set properly. One clock would be two minutes ahead, another six ahead, another one minute behind, etc. And I knew my clock was spot on. So whenever I would look at my clock and, say, be two minutes early, the manager would look at the clock that's two minutes ahead . . . except it would switch while I'm entering and signing in. But because of her sense of time because of her fucked up clock, I was apparently marked as being late. But you know what, what's one fucking minute anyway? I know there may be payroll complications or something, but come on. Why complain otherwise, especially if the clocks aren't trustworthy? Even if they were, that's quite low to complain too much about one minute. I don't know about any of you, but I hate that kind of perfectionist attitude. Besides, I'm not a fucking moron. I know being late is bad (if you're too late, that is, but not one fucking minute). I don't need a lecture on something completely obvious like that. Quite honestly, I don't think most people need that.

But now I want to be fair. There were a couple of things I did like. Quite a few of the coworkers were really cool. There were even a couple of other nerds there, which was refreshing, but I never saw them again after being let go. Also, even though the management was, as a collective, a total piece of shit (and ultimately the only thing I hated about working there, since they caused almost every single problem), there were two nice managers. I didn't usually get them as often as I would've liked, though, but when I did get them, working was quite a bit easier. And, to be fair, there was at least one position I really did suck at regardless of how much practice: cashier. I suck that badly at Math to the point where I can barely work a cashier job. I've been reluctant to try for that position ever since because of that. To me, that was one of the most stressful positions, and I was so happy that I was let go of the cashier position that I felt the need to let every one of my coworkers know of my joy to be free of that position. Everyone else thought it was one of the easiest positions, but I'm quite adept at English as opposed to Math. Excellent in one, shit in the other.

Otherwise, the job sucked shit. It didn't naturally do so, though. Most people tend to hate fast food jobs, which I can understand, but for me, it wasn't the job itself. It was easily the managers that fucked up my experience for me. Them and them alone. Otherwise, if the management were better, I probably would've worked there for longer than just two and a half months. I doubt I would still be working there by now, but it would've helped to have had that job longer, since I simply couldn't get another one for quite a while (about seven months, I think).

But anyway, now I want to talk just a little bit about the quality of the product there. I used to love going to Burger King. I loved their chicken tenders, then I switched to chicken sandwiches with lettuce, cheese, and ketchup. By the way, I don't like the taste of beef, which is why I don't eat hamburgers. I'm a fairly picky eater, but I don't like being one, trust me. And for those assholes out there who think I can control what I like and don't like to eat, trust me, just like with my sexual orientation, I simply cannot choose what I like to eat. Otherwise, if I could do that, I'd be eating anything, including beef products like steak and hamburger. Simple logic, people. That's all it takes. Anyway, after a while, I started to get sick of Burger King and tried chicken sandwiches at many more places. I figured out my favorite place for getting them: Wendy's. Because of Wendy's, I have not gone to Burger King to eat in about a year and a half's time, maybe longer. I'd still eat at Burger King instead of McDonald's, though. McDonald's isn't too bad, but it sucks shit compared to Wendy's. Hell, I think, if I remember correctly, Wendy's is a little cheaper anyway (than both of them, I mean). Correct me if I'm wrong on that, though. Either way, it's worth it eating there instead. But not even Wendy's is my favorite fast food place. That'd be Little Caesar's. A large five dollar pepperoni pizza that's ready practically right when you come in the door. It doesn't have the best tasting pizza (that would be Piccadilly's), but it's by far the best for it's value.

Anyway, I'm glad I got that rant out there. That calmed me down, and now I won't have to write all of this crap again. I'd suggest possibly coming back to this post at some point, though, because I may edit it with a new point I may have forgotten or something, but for now, it'll do fine.

The Gay Agenda

2010-03-27T02:22:00.016-05:00

For those who don't know, the Gay Agenda is a conspiracy theory started by Conservative Christians (particularly the Family Research Council) that makes the claim that media is manipulating the public to become more accepting of homosexuals. I've heard more extreme versions of the viewpoint saying that the government (or whoever) is sending guns/weapons to the homes of LGBT people in an effort to start some kind of revolution or something.

When it comes to conspiracy theories, I've heard crazy shit, stupid shit, plausible, yet unprovable shit, and some proven to be true shit, like Project MKULTRA. However, what I usually hear is a mixture of all three of the former, which is generally why I don't try to follow conspiracy theories/theorists, at least not too much. In fact, theorists have consistently almost as bad Conservatives/Christians when it comes to arguing prowess, at least whenever I argue with them. It's not like some of the things they talk about can't be defended well, at least in some cases, but it's really just that they've typically sucked at defending their positions very well, and even if they do site sources, they tend to be flawed in one way or another. So for anyone encountering a conspiracy theorist, be nice to them (especially in face to face encounters), but be careful in trusting everything they say.

Like many conspiracy theories, this one is propaganda meant to scare people, but unlike the other ones, this one can easily be seen by rational and logical human beings as completely fucking moronic. In fact, I'd have to say that this is one of the most ridiculous conspiracies I've ever heard in my life.

I'm a lesbian. I qualify for having weapons sent to my house so I can start a revolution. So where are they? I've received nothing, though I guess I can't prove it just by saying they haven't come, so to attempt to prove otherwise . . . you know what, where the fuck did they get that idea in the first place? You know they just made it up, but imagine they wanted to prove it. What lengths would they go to do prove their case? They do, after all, have the burden of proof thrust upon them. You'd practically have to see the weapons in the mailbox, their homes, the packaging going through the mail, etc. to prove it. You also have to take into account the post offices and their employees. You'd have to have a lot of people who trust you and know what's going on. Remember, just because they work for the government doesn't mean that the government controls everything about them and what they do directly, especially off the job, and especially not every single employee. That's just too much to swallow.

On the other side of the conspiracy, we have just the general acceptance thing, which, although is more believable than the other part of the conspiracy, it's still not really an issue, quite frankly. Of course Conservative Christians are going to say something bad about LGBT people. They have a track record of doing so. What else is new? Why believe them anyway considering this? It's more believable to think that this is all biased towards an actual agenda to make sure gays either don't obtain or even lose rights that they should have. Thankfully, it doesn't seem to be working well, because most people don't believe this bull shit. For those who do . . . grow the fuck up.

Prom

2010-03-24T17:19:00.000-05:00

I wanted to talk about prom because of this:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100323/ap_on_re_us/us_lesbian_prom_date

Reading that story got me reminiscing on my past experiences with the prom. To be honest, I've only been to one prom, and that was during my senior year. Of course, I went with my girlfriend, and we actually had a decent time. We didn't even care to dress nice or anything, we just went with all of our friends at the time to have fun. My girlfriend and I even got our pictures taken while we kissed. I was surprised that they let us do that. And most of all, nothing bad happened like with this girl in the news story. That's something we thought could happen, but nothing did, thankfully.

Otherwise, during prom time, we would just gather at one of our places and we'd have some kind of movie/TV show marathon, game night or something like that. Either way, we had lots of snacks provided. It was the ultimate night for a nerd hangout. Prom night wasn't the only night we did this, but it was usually the most anticipated night because that meant we had a better excuse to stay up later than usual (at least during the school year), thus we could do more stuffs. Nowadays, we just do stuff like that whenever we can or like. Well, we did even the year we actually went to prom later on that night. We went to where my cousin and I lived and had a ball just doing whatever we felt like.

As for the news story, it's ridiculous that a school will cancel a whole fucking prom just so a lesbian can't go. Just not allowing her to go would've been bad as well, but what they did was far worse because the meant nobody was able to have fun because of some bigoted assholes. But that's not apparently what everyone thinks. Just read what this asshole said in the comments section:

"It's sad that one person can ruin it for everyone. A minority of one telling a majority what can and can not be done. Like prayer before a sporting event - one complains and it's no longer allowed. Thank you ACLU (Americans Criminals Lovers Unions) for destroying this great nation."

He doesn't understand that it was the school that ultimately caused all of this trouble for canceling the prom in the first place, not the lesbian for just wanting to go and have a good time in her own way that essentially wouldn't hurt anyone. Besides that point, he complains about minorities complaining to the majority. What's moronic about this is that he doesn't seem to care about minority's rights one bit. That's not what a free nation does is forget about the minority. If anything, a free nation needs to concern minority rights if it wants to be as free as possible. Also, it's a Communist viewpoint because he's talking about the greater good, hence the majority rules over what the minority wants. This is ironic, because I can tell that he's a Conservative for that last sentence ripping on the ACLU. Conservatives typically bash the ACLU (some of their actions can be questionable, but they're ultimately a good organization that typically stands for the right things), and he even claims that they're destroying "this great nation." To be honest, although I'd rather live here than most places, this country still sucks shit in quite a few areas, including LGBT rights, and it's partly because of right-wingers like this asswipe. Of course, I don't mean all right-wingers (my history teacher in college is a smart Conservative, for example), I just mean dipshits like this guy, the people who consistently watch and, more importantly, the people on the propaganda machine known as Faux News, and the Teabaggers movement going on now, just to name a couple of prominent examples. I swear, I know there are bad left-wingers as well, but I rarely ever see them hold a candle to the ridiculousness of a bad right-winger.

Anyway, I guess the last thing I want to discuss is the idea of the school prom itself. I am all for teens getting together to have a good time with dancing and stuff like that. What I'm against is the schools using taxpayer money for that idea to hold it themselves. If anything, that should be an independently held event, whether at the school or not. All it really does is waste more school money on prom instead of learning material and causes a lot of kids to go batshit insane and influences them to neglect any studies (if they have any, which we didn't, but still), which admittedly could be stopped by parental intervention, but still causes problems even for the ones that do because it's not a guaranteed working strategy simply because of the social influence by the other kids at school. That and they may be too late in being able to help anyway. Although schools typically spend money on worthless crap, the prom is probably the most useless thing that money is wasted on, but not by much.

Despite my viewpoint on proms, I still did enjoy myself at the one I went to. The thing is that it got boring after about an hour. I have a hard time seeing how the people who go to the prom can stay for so damn long and keep enjoying themselves. Personally, and this is with my girlfriend as well, I can only take that kind of thing (particularly dancing because I'm the only person on the planet who doesn't like to dance) for only so long before I get bored out of my fucking mind. It was the same way with most of my friends in the group, which is why we decided to leave for my place to play games and stuff.

And even though I did enjoy myself, I still think we shouldn't have proms sponsored by the schools. It's a big fucking waste of time and money that we can absolutely do without. However, while we still have them, we should give anybody who wants to go the right to go. Well, unless the school was flooded with pools of acid around that time, but unless something bad like that happens, don't fucking cancel prom just because somebody you don't like wants to go. It's unbelievably immature, though I guess that's nothing new with a school board.

Super Smash Bros. Series

2010-03-05T13:11:00.005-06:00

I should have done this a few months ago, but now I am finally getting to the last of the game series that started about a decade ago. Out of the three series that I'm reviewing, this one is by far the best, even though there are only three games in the series so far. That's because they're among my favorite games ever.

This game is a fighting game with popular Nintendo characters duking it out. What could go wrong? Well . . . as time would tell, not much! Speaking of time, even after a decade, this is still one of the most addictive games I've ever played, and I still play it somewhat often to this day. Most of my friends would rather play other games with me than this one, including the other two games, so I'm usually stuck playing it with my girlfriend on the same team, or I play alone.

Playing alone is fine with this game. It's still fun, but a common complaint that I hear is that the game is more fun in multiplayer, since the single player experience is mostly the same every time. That doesn't mean it's impossible to enjoy single player, though. You can do what I did once: beat the Very Hard mode all the way through without losing a single life or using a continue. You can also go to Training Mode, which is the most fun mode in all of the single player mode, especially because of the glitches. Otherwise, I agree that the single player experience is lacking in comparison to the multiplayer mode.

The use of items made the gameplay more interesting. It could make or break your possible win in a match, but you can turn them off. It's great to have that option, just in case, say, it's your first time playing, and you're facing a hardcore expert like me at the game (by the way, I haven't lost a single game for about five years now, and that person beat me only one time out of several). In that case, you'd want the options on, because I would win for sure otherwise. I'm not trying to brag about it, since I suck shit at several other games, and I have been defeated before. In fact, the only game that I can think of that I'm undefeated at (for thirteen years, by the way, and I'm sure there's more games) is Star Fox 64, though I haven't played a huge amount of multiplayer in that like quite a few other games, and people have gotten close, my cousin being the closest by just a small fraction of a health bar.

There is a great variety of characters. Even the Luigi, who is similar to Mario, has differences, though I think he is worse. This is one of the few games I know of in which just about every character is good, except for Jigglypuff, and I personally don't like Donkey Kong much, though he can still be put to good use if played properly. In fact, here's how I rank the characters:

1. Captain Falcon

2. Samus Aran

3. Yoshi

4. Fox McCloud

5. Kirby

6. Mario

7. Link

8. Pikachu

9. Ness

10. Luigi

11. Donkey Kong

12. Jigglypuff

That's just my personal preference, though. Look around enough and you'll find a lot of different lists.

Anyway, despite it's one big flaw, it still has aged very well. I mean, if I'm still playing a game a decent amount more than a decade after it's release, that's saying a lot. It seems to have more staying power than probably any other game that I've played, at least so far. That means it's the most addictive game ever, more than Tetris, more than Mario Kart, more than motherfucking Goldeneye 007 (or whatever multiplayer First-Person Shooter you prefer). I've played some other games from longer ago even today as well, but I don't play any of them as often as this one. I'm not saying this is my favorite game of all time, but because of this factor alone, it's among at least the top ten, maybe even higher.

Oh, and it has one of my favorite commercials ever:

This game is basically like the last game, but with plenty of differences to separate it into it's own game. Typically, sequels are more often than not as good as their predecessors, but many people would probably make an exception with this game. I'm not sure if I would, but it's still an incredible game worth buying.

This game has more characters than the previous game, 25 total. However, there is one common complaint about them: six of them (Dr. Mario, Ganondorf, Falco, Young Link, Pichu, and Roy, though it's seven if you want to count Luigi) are what many people call "clones," which are characters who, although are different from their counterparts in the sense that they're more powerful, yet slower, jump higher, but moves slower, etc, and have different appearances, they have the same movesets. I find this okay to some extent, since Captain Falcon, although still a great character, became worse overall, and Ganondorf surpassed him in greatness. In fact, I think Ganondorf can be the best character in the game if used properly, and depending on the stage choice, since he sucks at the moving stages like Icicle Mountain. I guess Captain Falcon, and a few other characters as well, got worse, but it's understandable considering this game's physics are different. Anyway, sometimes the cloning didn't work, particularly with the worst character in all three of the games combined: Pichu. Yes, he/she is worse than Jigglypuff, something people thought wasn't possible. Now I don't think it's possible to beat Pichu in that category. Well, maybe it is possible, but it'd be a difficult feat. Anyway, he's a copy of Pikachu. Pikachu's not a bad character, so you'd probably think Pichu wouldn't be bad, either. Well, he/she wouldn't be the worst if it wasn't for one big factor: he/she hurts himself. You read that right. He/She fucking hurts himself with his/her own attacks! He's/She's already one of the lightest characters in the game, as well as one of the weakest in attack power, so that's just another kick in the crotch for him/her. That's why Pichu sucks shit.

As good a fighter as he/she looks.

There are a plentiful amount of stages as well. The only ones I have a problem with are the moving ones, like I mentioned above. It's not just because of my personal preferences in fighters, since I like to use Sheik and Falco as well. It's the fact that they practically make you worry more about trying to avoid death, because if you stay still, you lose a life/point/coins/even the fucking match. It's irritating, so I avoid those stages, and thankfully, most people I know do so as well. Also, they only included three stages from the previous game, which is fine, but they could've chosen better courses than they did, at least Hyrule Castle. That was my favorite.

Despite any sort of criticisms about the game, there is one thing that has improved a lot: the Single Player. There are more modes to play, including the mode from the last game (which is now more varied), and two new modes called Adventure and All Star. It's all pretty cool stuff, especially Adventure.

Otherwise, there's a shitload of various content as well, such as individual challenges in Single Player and trophies to collect that showcase various things about Nintendo games and stuff. It's challenging getting them all, but ultimately worth it.

Considering all of this, I'm not sure if it's better than the original, but it at least is well worth playing in it's own right. I would strongly suggest getting both games, because, whether one's better than the other, they're both among the greatest games ever made (at least, I think so).

This is the most recent game in the series, and there hasn't been another announced yet, so this'll be the last one reviewed. Before I get started, though, I should mention that people went batshit crazy over this game. Why? Because of the speculation of what characters would be in the game, ranging from the highly plausible (people talked about Pit and Sonic before they were officially announced) to the absolutely ridiculous, such as Professor Oak, Tom Nook, and even a Goddamned Tetris Block. I remember people even joked about Barney being in the game, just to parody the ridiculous ideas going on at the time. It was so bad that people even fabricated massive menu screens with characters they wanted to see in the game. This one is the worst I've seen so far (it even includes music from the previous game): http://hugeselection.ytmnd.com/

I mean, seriously, why would anybody think a Nintendog would be a good fighter against the likes of Bowser and Ganondorf? It's just a cute little dog, not a Kung Fu master. Just think of how much Pichu sucked. If anything, that's a candidate for being a worse character than him.

Great fighter.

And, of course, we can't forget Slippy Toad, the guy who constantly asks for his buddy Fox McCloud to save his ass throughout the whole game. The very same guy who annoys people so badly that they just shoot him down themselves to ease their pain. Good reason to replace him with the Sandbag, but he's not a good fighter. But wait, there's even worse! I spotted Beltino Toad not far from him! What the fucking Goddamned Hell! Slippy's bad enough, but Beltino, his father? Jesus fucking Christ almighty.

Fox, get this guy off of me!

Oh, and I should also mention that there are four versions, yes, you read it right, four fucking versions of Mario in that picture! Chef Mario, Paper Mario, Dr. Mario, and finally Mario Mario. Holy shit, isn't two enough? Hell, I think one is enough . . .

These are all different. Add them now!

Okay, I'm getting off track. That all started, though, partly because of an April Fool's Day joke run in the magazine Electronic Gaming Monthly about how people can unlock Sonic the Hedgehog and Miles Tails Prower. They said you had to defeat twenty enemies in Cruel Melee, which was impossible for me to do. In fact, I used to have that issue, and I don't know where it went. I remember the cover featured the game State of Emergency, which, though it was apparently hyped, I never cared to play it (neither did anyone else I knew), and it was quickly forgotten about anyway. I remember getting it for the Metroid Prime beta stuff, which was pretty cool.

This was the issue.

Okay, I'm getting off track. Well, when it comes to the clone character aspect from the last game, the creators mentioned that there would be no more clones. Sure enough, there are. This time, there are thirty five characters, with, once again, six clones (seven if you count Luigi). So they broke their promise. However, they kind of made up for it by getting rid of the more useless characters in the last game: Dr. Mario, Roy, Young Link, Pichu (hooray!), and, sadly, Mewtwo. Personally, I thought Mewtwo was awesome. Thankfully, they put another Pokemon in the game that was somewhat like him, but . . . it was Lucario. With so many Pokemon to pick, they could've picked something much better than him. Lucario's not even popular enough for the game (or, he wasn't until he was in the game). They could've at least chosen Blaziken, or Hitmonlee (a lot of people pulled for him for good reason), or motherfucking Deoxys. You know, good fighters. Not just some random Pokemon. He doesn't fight too bad, but he wasn't the ideal fighting Pokemon most people had in mind, really. Hell, I think he's worse than Mewtwo because he doesn't have a kick ass tail to use during battle. Oh well. Whatever.

Would easily kick Lucario's ass.

There's also a problem with Samus. There are two forms to her: Varia Suit Samus, and Zero Suit Samus. That's a good idea to have, but here's the problem: there are only two methods for getting Zero Suit Samus, and they are through a Final Smash Ball, and pressing the D-Pad up and down really fast, which takes a lot of tries to do, and ultimately, if you're fighting real time, isn't worth trying at all. I'd love to choose one or the other an easier way, but it's not possible. Thanks a lot, asswipes. By the way, I noticed that if you use Samus' sideways kick, and pause at just the right time during the kick, and move the camera to the right position, you'll notice that Samus' ass and head are on the same side. Quite a way to twist a body, huh? I mean, I like flexibility, but . . .

Okay, I'm getting off track. Now I should probably talk about the stages. There are quite a few great stages to choose from. I'd say that, if this game improved at least one thing from the last game, it's the stage selection for sure. It even includes some of the better stages from the last game. You can even choose which music that plays in the course (though it lists what you can play for the course, so it's still limited) and how often it plays. There is also what I think is one of the most fun features in the game: a stage builder. I wouldn't have expected one in a Super Smash Bros. game, but it works pretty well. The only problem is sometimes connecting some of the pieces, since some items take up room even if it really doesn't/shouldn't. Otherwise, you can make some pretty damn cool courses. My favorite one that I made is a giant cube that fighters jump into and fight in, trying to knock each other out of the hole at the top where they came in. It's fun watching your opponents flying around the cube at high percent damage. There are plenty more clever ideas you can use though, like I also made a course that's just four small platforms in a large area (because I'm sadistic like that :P), and a course just consisting of falling blocks, and a course with a bunch of elevators, and a course . . .

Okay, I'm getting off track. Now I should get to the Single Player modes. There's still a great variety of things to do alone in this game, but there are some differences. The biggest one is an adventure mode called The Subspace Emissary, which isn't too bad, but it seems to me like the story was the winner of a fan-fiction contest or something. It's fun to play otherwise, though, especially once you beat it, because you can use whatever character you want at that point. Otherwise, most of the modes from the last game are intact, though they included a Boss Battles mode (which I personally don't care for), they changed Home Run Contest up a bit, making it more possible to hit the sandbag further, yet making the process a little less fun for some odd reason, got rid of Race to the Finish in Classic mode, and changed the Break the Targets mode to just five different levels instead of character-unique levels, which was kind of disappointing. Otherwise, Single Player is still pretty fun, but definitely a downgrade from the last game.

There are even more extras in this game than the last one, with not only the inclusion of the stage builder as I mentioned earlier, but also stickers that you can put on the bottom of character trophies to change their stats (make them stronger, faster, etc.), play demos (really short ones) of classic games (although I don't necessarily consider Ice Climber a classic because it's okay at best), and view photos and replays you've saved, among other things that don't quite matter, unless you're a collector, then you'd like the Chronicle, listing every game Nintendo ever made (at least in America, I'm not sure about Japanese games like X and Mother). However, the Trophies section has downgraded a bit, because you can't zoom in on your obtained trophies and view them in greater detail like in the last game. I liked doing that in the last game. Viewing trophies of stages in a way you wouldn't normally see them while playing the game, pretending you're inside vehicles, and, of course, getting a great view up Peach's dress, which, yes, both my girlfriend and I did. We thought it was funny and cool at the same time. Oh well, you can still do that multiplayer and take pictures of it.

Pictured: why I don't wear dresses and skirts, and why you at least shouldn't in a fight.

But overall, this is still a great game, but I don't think it's the best of the three. I'd still suggest getting it, because it's changed enough. If anything, get this one for the multiplayer, because that's where it's at here for sure. Well, that and I almost forgot to mention that you can go online and face people as well. I haven't played online yet, but I've seen people play, and it seems that there aren't a lot of people using the fucking wave dash techniques and shit. I'm sure there are some people who do, but it seems most everybody plays normally, and it actually seems like I could beat a lot of them as well. For online games, I wouldn't think that'd be the case, but it might be for this one.

-------

Despite the fact that the series is a decade old, there have only been three games released, but their greatness makes up for it. I have to wonder if more will be released. I even wonder if there'll ever be a handheld version. Now that would be pretty damn cool, being able to play one of the most addictive video game series ever anywhere. Or here's another idea: bring online capabilities to the other two games. Or here's another idea: Add Mega Man, Black Bull, Ridley, and, of course, motherfucking Scorpion as playable characters. At least Scorpion. Please.

Actually a great fighter.

Okay, I know I'm being unrealistic like those other guys, especially with Scorpion, but those first three can and I think should happen. Mega Man is another highly popular third-party character, I'd love to see another F-Zero character in the game, and Black Bull would probably be the best one overall (and please, not Samurai Goro, 'cause he sucks), and lastly . . . come on, it's fucking Ridley. Practically everybody and their umpteenth cousin (even my cousin, by the way) hoped that Ridley would be a playable character. Didn't happen. Great way to disappoint us, Nintendo. Leave out Ridley, yet leave in fucking Jigglypuff and add another non-worthy Pokemon to the roster. Great strategy.

Worthy

Not worthy

By the way, had R.O.B. ended up not being a good character, I would've complained about him as well, though it's still an odd addition.

Yet another brilliant idea that most people will like.

And Goddamn it, I'm getting off track again!

Well, I'm finally done with this trilogy post that I planned. Yay, another burden off my back. I guess I could do more posts about game series that I've played, but I'm taking a break on that. I don't know when, but I will do more. Next will probably be the Mario Kart series, another fun one, or Turok 2 because I've been feeling nostalgic about it. After that, I don't know, but for now, I'm done.

Why I Don't Believe in God

2010-02-28T00:12:00.008-06:00

I'm not just talking about the God of Christianity, Yahweh, but any concept of a God, at least by the standard set by most religions. Of course, there's no solid evidence for or against either position, but I personally don't believe in a God because, through logic, I've figured out that there's more evidence against the God concept, which makes me an Agnostic Atheist.

Though there are quite a few arguments I can make, there are seven arguments that ultimately solidified my position.

1. People who are Christian, whether they've read the Bible or not, will know the story of how the world was created in that book. The first passage (Genesis 1:1) in the NIV Bible says, "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth." The problem with this is that the Bible fails to explain what happened before God created the Heavens and Earth. Where did God come from? How could God appear if there was nothing before Him, including himself? How can something pop up out of nothing, even God? I know God is supposed to be all powerful and able to do almost anything, but I'd imagine that's one thing that not even He could do. It's impossible. If you think it is possible, explain how.

On a non-related note, the passage only mentions the Heavens and Earth. What about the rest of the solar system? Why just be Earth-centric?

God's undivided attention placed here.

2. Although the Bible is claimed as the word of God, it was ultimately written by men (same as any other religious doctrine, for that matter). You can tell just by the misogynistic nature of the book (http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/women/long.html). But just think about it: a book written by men who claim it's the word of God. Don't we call people who talk of things like that crazy, or at least liars? We do so typically because it's easy to lie about that kind of thing. Anybody can easily say they talked to God, and we tend to get different results from the different people who make this claim. It's no different with the Bible (http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/by_name.html). So if we don't believe those people, why believe these guys?

Claimed he talked to God, who told him 9/11 was allowed to happen because of homosexuals, among other things.

3. Although God interacts directly with the characters, telling them to do things and even doing things to them, he does not do this in our day and age. If anything, people claim he only does light touches, such as answering prayers. Why is this? Why go from ordering a guy to build a giant boat and throwing fireballs at a city to fulfilling a prayer asking for a raise in paycheck? While I'm on that subject, how is it possible to keep up with 6.6 billion people on this planet? On top of that, how about loads of other lifeforms on other planets in loads of other galaxies? Anyone who has played The Sims enough can easily tell you that taking care of one family is hard enough, let alone even a fairly big crowd of people.

If you don't tell these people to do literally everything, chaos will ensue, hence the trash on the floor, the kid's hand in the toilet bowl, and the mother wanting to go to bed during the middle of the day.

So imagine trying to control all of these people's actions, including getting food and drinks, finding their seats, throwing away their garbage, and going through security and the ticket taker.

And then further apply it to these tens of thousands of galaxies, which is just a small chunk of the universe.

4. This point kind of is like the third, but with a twist: if God has the ability to interact with the characters in the Bible, and since we know he has the ability to at least show himself to us, why doesn't he? That would not only prove his existence, that would solve various other problems as well, though it could also cause more. On one hand, it could stop many religious wars and terrorist activities, though they'd still be around. On the other hand, people would be more compelled to follow an authoritative form as the main source for morality, which means morally repugnant things, such as cannibalism, rape, slavery, and ritual sacrifice, just to name a few things (which are all approved of in the Bible, by the way), would be morally acceptable to the people as well (or else).

5. There are several quotes in the Bible about nonbelievers, and their punishment for not believing in God. If God is interacting with people in the Bible like described earlier, would there be any need to add that sort of thing to the Bible? If people in the Bible are so sure that what they're saying is right and can prove it with the book as some sort of a historical document, why even worry about people not believing what is written? Some of the stuff that was written happened around the time they wrote it, or was otherwise viewable by the people living around that time (hence the Romans were mentioned in the Bible), so there's no point in mentioning it if what you're purporting is true and you have witnesses to claim that it is. To mention this lets me know that people back then, who witnessed all of this, were able to claim it as all or mostly not true.

6. The Problem of Evil, a philosophical and ethical conundrum. The premise of the argument/criticism is that it attacks the claim that God is all good. The problem with that claim is that evil does exist in the form of various torturous and freedom-limiting things in the world, which contradicts that good nature. If God really existed and was all good, none of this evil would exist. Not only that, but since God created everything, it would seem right that he created evil as well. He even created Hell, after all, which is an evil place for evil people.

Created by God

The theory also involves a story in the Bible, the Book of Job. In the story, Job has been given many great things by God and praises Him every day. Satan, noticing this, bet God that, if he took away all of those good things, Job wouldn't praise him anymore. God accepted the challenged, took away all of those things and even did more bad things, such as give him sores and throw fireballs down to Earth (something else that doesn't happen in real life). Job still praised him through all of that, and God said, "see, I told you, he still praises me." Of course, what God doesn't realize is that Satan truly won (not the bet, but he won in a different way). Satan caused many a rational person to ask, "Why do bad things happen to good people?" and, "Why does God allow bad things to happen?"

In fact, Epicurus said it best:

“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?”

7. Faith is not a virtue. It allows people to believe stupid crap without any sort of proof, such as the Earth being flat. Evidence is required when making a claim. Believers fail to deliver enough evidence required for belief in a higher being: showing us God Himself (if God is indeed male, that is). This means that believers have the burden of proof thrust upon them, and they fail to deliver simply because they can't possibly do so.

All talk...

That's all it took for me to change from a Christian to an Agnostic Atheist: logic and some reading/studying, but mostly logic. For me, it wasn't a hard change, since it was like learning that Santa Claus isn't real, but I've heard it is for a lot of people. I wonder why that is. I should find out, but for now, my brain needs a rest.

Blacks an Endangered Species?

2010-02-23T15:02:00.003-06:00

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/06/us/06abortion.html

Okay, first off, their statistics only cover Georgia. Not the whole country, or even half of it, just Georgia. That means that the claim that blacks are an endangered species is far-fetched. Get more data, please.

And although I'm at least glad that there was a reason given other than some typical Conservative/Christian ideology, it's still fucking racist, even though the idea was put out there by blacks themselves (apparently). It's especially stupid to believe the conspiracy that abortion laws are apparently targeting blacks when anyone can choose (they're not forced) to get abortions.

Of course, they're trying to use their statistics as argument against abortion. they claim that a lot of black women getting abortions is leading to a decrease in the black population. While I won't dispute that claim, I'd imagine things would be worse if abortion was made downright illegal. The mortality rate was higher in this country before abortion was made illegal, because women would either die through the birthing process (i.e. the best reason to have an abortion), and would have unsafe illegal abortions (either getting severely injured or even die from it). I've heard some even killed themselves, but I can't remember where I heard that. Maybe my Social Problems class.

I can see how abortion can cause a problem, though. I've seen that mentality out there that women think they can and should use abortion as a form of birth control at any time. I'm all for women's rights on this issue (of course, why wouldn't I be?), but at the same time, I see abortion as being a health practice. I can understand certain situations, too. You've been raped, and you'd be further traumatized by having the baby? Okay, sure, go ahead and get one. There are several reasons, including economical ones, out of your control that make you unable to take care of the baby, and you didn't mean to have one in the first place because of that? Okay, go ahead, I guess. You didn't expect to have a pregnancy because you knew you can't support a baby anyway and having the baby could ruin your life? Well, all right. You had sex and got pregnant on purpose, and you can take care of the baby, yet don't want to? Well, that's where I have a problem. At that point, there's no good health/situational reason to have an abortion, so I don't see a reason why it should happen. That's the kind of thing that should be banned, if anything, not just abortion in general. But see, that's the problem I see with Conservatives on issues like this. They see one problem among a whole spectrum, but they want that whole spectrum gone just because of that one problem instead of having the one problem easily fixed. And I know I just generalized, but I see it so often that it's rare to see it happen the other way. Seriously, I can't even recall a time when that hasn't happened.

Despite said problem, there is another that people pulling for abortion can't control: terrorists. Religious terrorists. Christian terrorists. Not kidding, for those of you who are Christian and are reading this. Your side is just as perfectly capable as Al Qaeda, quite frankly, and I mean no offense in saying that. It's just a fact. Just to help show that it is a fact, did you know the Ku Klux Klan is a Christian terrorist group? Not only that, here's some of the stuff that's been going on in terms of anti-abortion violence: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-abortion_violence_in_the_United_States#United_States

I can understand why people would be compelled to think that way after seeing statistics like that, but they need to be smarter and do more research before they go blithering on about this kind of thing. That's a dangerous way to think, especially nowadays. Otherwise, we get premature judgments and bad shit tends to happen. Like making abortion illegal again would essentially cause bad things to happen. This explains why: http://www.livestrong.com/article/13934-nine-reasons-why-abortions-are-legal/

By the way, that first commenter in that last article is ridiculous for not at all considering women's rights on this matter. That person is a great example of a person who doesn't do much, or even any, research. Most people in that section don't seem to have any idea what they're talking about, really (partly because they are pro-life based on logic without research, but even the pro-choice people, sans one or two, don't argue well, either), but the first commenter is a prime example of what I'm talking about here. So fuck you, you insensitive assholes, and especially fuck the person who insulted this as just feminist propaganda.

The Time I Almost Went to a WWE Raw Show

2010-02-21T22:11:00.006-06:00

Well, technically, it was still the WWF back when it happened (before the other WWF sued WWF for the name WWF), but that's when the corporation was doing better anyway; the Attitude Era. That was around the time it was not only at it's most popular point, but arguably even at it's best ever otherwise. Considering this, and the fact that I was a big fan at the time (with thanks to my cousin), I was extremely excited to learn that WWF was coming to the city nearest me for a Raw taping. I wasn't quite “can't keep my feet on the ground” excited, but I really wanted to go see some asses getting kicked. Even seeing the heels had me excited.

Yes, even seeing Triple H had me excited.

What made my excitement jump up further was that my cousin said she was possibly going to bring me with her to the show. She and the girlfriend she had at the time were wanting to go, and she was hoping that she'd have enough money to take me with her. My girlfriend didn't mind watching wrestling, either, but she didn't care as much as I did. If anything, she encouraged me to go with or without her, so I didn't feel bad about going without her after she told me that. Anyway, there was still a possibility that I wouldn't get to go. That didn't bother me much at the time because I knew my cousin would try either way. I also learned that a few people I knew from school said they were going to see the show as well, including a close friend of mine at the time from the next grade up.

A couple of my schoolmates ended up not being able to get tickets (tickets sold out), but my cousin, her girlfriend, and my good friend got to go. However, my cousin was unable to get me a ticket, and I couldn't get one any other way. My parents certainly weren't going to help, considering they thought it was bad enough that my cousin let me watch wrestling in the first place. So I ultimately wasn't able to go to the show, but I was kind of close. Disappointing for me, but I got to see the whole show on TV, which was unusual since I normally had to go to bed before the show was over. I even recorded it on VHS. After viewing said VHS tape a few times, I was barely able to spot my cousin in the audience, since she could only be seen for a very brief moment and was small on screen. That means I was almost on TV, too. . .

As for the show itself, it actually turned out to be worse than it usually was. For starters, most of the big stars/my personal favorites either weren't there or just gave promos instead of wrestled a match. For example, Stone Cold Steve Austin was, according to my cousin, actually there. She saw him, but he wasn't on the show other than a clip. Also, my favorite wrestler, the Undertaker, only gave a promo, not even in the ring. If I were there, I would've wanted to see him wrestle the most. The only part of the show that was decent was the match that had The Rock facing somebody (can't remember who). Other than that, the show was kind of a stinker, so, really, I didn't miss too much.

Indeed the only thing cooking that night.

My cousin said it was more fun being there than watching it on TV, though. She at least got to see her favorite wrestler, Chyna. I'll admit, I would've loved to see Chyna wrestle as well, regardless of whether the match was good, but at the time, I didn't think too much of her, probably because she was a heel at the time.

But alas, that was the only time within the Attitude Era that the WWF came around. After that, I lost interest for a while, found it again, and now, in some way, I'm losing it again. I still watch wrestling, but not nearly as often as I used to. If anything, I watch for certain wrestlers, or I just watch TNA. Hell, sometimes I even watch independent promotions. But I'm glad that Sheamus won the WWE Championship, because I'm sick of seeing John Cena's smugly ass face next to that Goddamn belt. Er, I mean, I'm tired of seeing him in the spotlight constantly.

Yes, I can see you, and the sight's not pretty.

I could write a whole new post about the problems that WWE has now, but I at least wanted to discuss how I almost got a see a mediocre show during it's greatest time period. Hell, WWE's so bad now that most of the time my girlfriend and I try to watch nowadays, we're usually either throwing popcorn at the TV (not for dickweeds like John Cena and Randy Orton, for how bad the show is), or just change the channel.

The only redeeming part of the show.

Actually, I'll mention one thing about a particular showing: I literally threw a book at the TV once during a show because Al Sharpton was guest hosting, which was a stupid move by the company. That wasn't why, though. There were advertisements going on every now and then during the show (endorsed by Al Sharpton, of course) that advertised something to do with blacks (can't remember what exactly) being the last civil rights hurdle in the country or something like that. Total bull shit considering I can't fucking marry in most states. That's a much larger civil rights hurdle right there. I changed the channel after seeing it appear a couple of times.

One thing that doesn't come to mind when you think of wrestling.

But would I go to a showing nowadays? Probably not, maybe unless there was something really promising. Or if the Undertaker is showing up to fight this time, and at that point, I wouldn't care who he'd face or how bad the match turned out to be.

Valentine's Day

2010-02-14T15:33:00.002-06:00

. . . Is a crock. Allow me to explain why.

First off, simply put, celebrating love has nothing to do with the people this holiday is based on. They were just your typical martyred saints is all. Why that connection was made, I have no idea.

Either way, I have to wonder why people thought it was a good idea to dedicate a holiday to celebrating love. Why just celebrate love one day a year? My girlfriend and I consider every day Valentine's Day. In fact, we'd rather not even consider that. We just love each other every day is all we need, and we're happy.

That doesn't seem to be the case for a lot of people, though. Nowadays, partly because of advertising, media, and social influence, a lot of people expect gifts, whether it be something as small as flowers, or candy, or both, to expensive things like cell phones and laptops. It's gotten so bad that I even remember a commercial for some Crackberry that said, "Show your partner your love by getting *insert product name here, then insert list of unimpressive features here.*"

I've gotta have it. It's that important.

Of course, I love to buy video games and movies and books, etc., but I wouldn't expect my girlfriend to get them for me to show she loves me. All I need to do to show my love to her is show her that I care for her, trust her, respect her, share things with her, hug her, kiss her, fuck her, and she does all the same for me. Every now and then, if anything, we get each other something, but it's not for any special occasion. We do so mostly as a nice gesture, and we tend to do it randomly.

Also, this holiday obviously doesn't have the single person in mind. Sure, single people can still send valentines and stuff to people, but then again, they can do even better by surprising the person they like by doing so on any other random day (except for April Fool's Day). Otherwise, the holiday, if I remember correctly, was intended to celebrate a couple's intimacy, thus leaving the single guy/girl out, and there are plenty of people still left out regardless.

That's all of the points I can think of at the moment, but I will say that, although I don't care to celebrate Valentine's Day at all, it does make me hungry for candy. I actually do feel like getting a bunch of candy now and sharing with my girlfriend later, especially some Reese's. That's our favorite.

Why I (Apparently) Don't Understand Video Games

2010-02-07T17:25:00.002-06:00

Psychologists have done it once again, and what I mean by "it" is that they once again used a completely illogical method of doing experiments and research.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-17852_3-10129243-71.html

In particular, I'm attacking this bit here: "His research shows that video games stimulate the parts of men that so many other activities just cannot reach: the need to conquer, stomp on, dominate, crush, destroy, maim, annihilate, and turn to ashes and dust.

Women, apparently, understand video games, but their neurology doesn't house the same desire to conquer, stomp on, etc., etc."

As a woman who has played video games ever since she was four years old, who is in a relationship with another woman who has been playing video games since she was five years old, has a cousin who has played video games ever since she was four years old, and has had many female friends who've played games since before they were ten years old, I can easily say that this is complete, one hundred percent bull shit.

This is a big reason why Psychologists need to take a look into Sociological studies. Often I see Psychologists trying to find Psychological or Biological reasons why men and women have different personalities. If they even take ten minutes to study what Sociology has found out about Gender Roles, they wouldn't study shit like this, or say shit like this, or even slightly consider shit like this, because it's Gender Roles, which are taught and learned behaviors (and that's been proven time and time again), not neural impulses or testosterone or estrogen, that shape the way each sex acts. Otherwise, if all men and women were the same, there would be no such thing as a tomboy like my cousin or myself. Just in that last sentence, I debunked this (as well as many other) article's findings, but sadly, some people still ignore logic like that. I have no idea why. Maybe somebody should do a study on that. Maybe it's because a lot of people don't like to admit when they're wrong.

But it's not just a gender roles thing, and the true reason most women don't play video games has already been highlighted by another blog post of mine that I made not too long ago. What I posted there is really as simple as that, and doesn't really need to be studied, just at least thought out logically, but it seems the people doing this study seemed to not want to think of alternative reasons and just say, "No, this is the one reason and that's that." If anyone had to do any sort of study on this, though, they should poll a lot of women on why they don't play video games. Even that may not help a lot, but it's still a lot better than shitty studies like this. It's ultimately judgmental to just assume things even based on studies (flawed or not) without taking in various other factors, or even just talking to the people you're talking about in your study, asking them why they do things, say things, and feel things.

And you know what, not every game is violent. I mean, sure, some of the more fun ones happen to be violent, and I love shooting dinosaurs and playing a specter ninja beating the shit out of people, but a game like Tetris or The Sims does not qualify as violent, and plenty of men and women play those games as well. Games can be fun regardless, simple as that.

I could say more, but the last comment in the comment section said well enough what I was going to say anyway, and at the moment, I'm feeling like playing Destruction Derby 64 or making out with my girlfriend or something, so just go and read that.

Speaking of comments, though, I must say that, although I only looked at the first page of the comments, the comment section seems to be devoid of intelligence, understanding, simple logic and common sense, except for the last two comments. Just read them and you'll see.

Now excuse me while I go play Destruction Derby 64 while I'm making out with my girlfriend.

Why I (Apparently) Was Bullied

2010-02-02T23:11:00.001-06:00

First off, let me just say that I love Psychology, I think it's extremely important, and through it's studies, we have figured out a lot about ourselves, more than we could've imagined without it.

However, there are still many exceptions, such as this article that I read today, which literally almost made me cry, and I'll explain why:

http://www.livescience.com/culture/children-social-rejection-100202.html

As I said, I love Psychology, but some studies, their approaches, or at least their conclusions, sometimes can be downright ridiculous if you apply logic. Sometimes you don't even need to know a lot about Psychology to be able to criticize certain studies, such is the case here. Sometimes studying Sociology help, though, since it seems to me that sometimes Psychologists don't seem to pay much attention to Sociology's findings, which are, in my opinion, much more fascinating, and can discredit a lot of Psychology studies. In this case, however, it's not necessary to know a lot about either one. Arguing against this study just takes pretty simple logic to denounce, particularly for people like me who were bullied.

It seems to me that the article is suggesting, in at least some way, that it's the kid who's bullied/rejected who is at fault for not being able to correctly respond to nonverbal cues. They go on to explain five tips, which basically tell the socially rejected kid's parents how to teach their child better social skills, such as telling them, "Help the child identify the cue they missed or mistake they made, by asking something like: "How would you feel if Emma was hogging the tire swing?" Instead of lecturing with the word "should," offer options the child "could" have taken in the moment, such as: "You could have asked Emma to join you or told her you would give her the swing after your turn."" What's ridiculous about this is the fact that these researchers are assuming that the kids who are socially rejected are rude little twerps, hence is why no one likes them. They're basically saying people like me were rude to the other kids, so they were fighting against that, so I would've ultimately deserved it, I guess (by the way, this is why I almost cried while reading the article). Yeah, it has nothing to do with any sort of group or conformist mentality; making fun of others because they're different. Different race, sexuality, sexual preference, etc. Let me tell you something. The bullies at my school still would've rejected me whether what they're saying is true or not, because I preferred girls to boys, and because I was the only kid in the class who had red hair and freckles. As my school days went on, they found more reasons, such as my sense of style, the group of friends I had, my fascination with Science Fiction (I'm a nerd, basically), I was (and still am) and tomboy, and, although my cousin was well-liked and respected by most of her peers while she was in high school, most of the students that saw her after she graduated thought she was a freak, and attributed that to me as well, since I hung out with her often and looked up to her. So yeah, my being bullied had nothing to do with anything these researchers said in the article. In fact, it doesn't apply to anyone I knew who was bullied. Not a single one.

But here's my other criticism of the article. They attribute the rejected kid's rejection to their bullying, but have they ever thought that it might be the bullying that's making them socially inept like that in the first place?

Ultimately, all of that makes me wonder if the people doing this research were even bullied or rejected as kids. I highly doubt it, otherwise they probably wouldn't have done research the way they did, especially considering there's a huge mountain full of evidence that could easily prove otherwise, besides my logic used here. I could pick the article apart a little more, but not only did I want to attack just the main point of the article, the comments sections has good criticisms on the other ridiculous points made.

P.S. If anything, the five tips shown at the end of the article should be used for the bullies as opposed to the bullied.

EDIT: After reading this article for herself, my girlfriend actually did cry. Nice going, assholes.

Why I Dislike Conservatives/Rant On Various Subjects

2010-01-26T22:24:00.009-06:00

I've bashed Conservatives in the past, but I haven't quite cemented why yet. I've said a few things so far, but I've heard that there's apparently a very wide variety of beliefs among Conservatives. I can believe it somewhat, but this Wikipedia article here states what they typically believe in terms of our society and it's current issues:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_conservatism

Conservatives are going to see most of those things listed as good things to believe in and follow, obviously. As for most of the rest of us, it's all pure bull shit. I've already said a shit load on LGBT rights issues, and I've already talked about secularism in my post about Atheists being the most hated minority in the country, so I'll skip that for now. I will say something about the rest of it, though.

First, I can understand why people are against abortion, but at the same time, we need it. That's right, need it. We do because it will go black market again, just like it was in the 50s and 60s before it was made legal. It will be harder for the women who need an abortion to get one, and the ones who did get them usually died or faced serious illnesses, since most weren't legal doctors, or weren't safe in their methods. Not only that, but women would've had to pay shitloads of money to even find the doctor, just so they could fucking die from the procedure they performed. Of course, this would kill both the woman and the baby in the process. So, quite honestly, abortions are much better off being legal. Sadly, a lot of people still don't understand this, but when I mentioned this in my Intro to Ethics class, most people in the class changed their opinions, so maybe there's still hope.

But speaking of Pro-Lifers, don't you find it ironic that they're for "saving the babies," yet they're also typically for the death penalty? What a big fucking contradiction. I actually don't have a whole lot to say on whether it should be banned or not, since I haven't done a whole lot of studying on the subject yet, but I know that quite a few innocent people die from the death penalty. Just imagine if your significant other were killed for a crime they didn't commit because of the death penalty, then have forensic studies later figure out it wasn't your significant other who did it. How would you live with that? How could things have gone differently had the penalty not been there? That person could've still been around and gotten out of jail to be in your arms again. But no. They're dead now. There's nothing that can repay you for what's been taken away now. So, if anything, I'm more against it, considering they're already in fucking prison anyway.

Now on to four different subjects in which Conservatives typically, "support the prohibition of drugs, prostitution, premarital sex, non-marital sex and euthanasia"

Okay, for drugs, I agree that drugs aren't good for a person, certain ones not even being good for the environment (here's looking at you, cigarettes). The most dangerous ones are currently banned, but there are other dangerous ones out there that are legal, most notably cigarettes and alcoholic drinks, and various other alternatives that people tend to find, even fucking cough drops. So why aren't those banned? Personal enjoyment? Medicinal purposes? Economical reasons? Those are reasons you could use for most other drugs that are currently banned. I actuall just finished watching a South Park episode tonight that I hadn't seen in a while ("Butt Out"), which was somewhat funny, but ultimately not a very good episode logically. South Park tends to do that, most episodes are okay when it comes to logic and ethics, but every now and then, they miss the mark, or are just plain stupid (here's looking at you, "Hooked on Monkey Phonics"). Anyway, they argued that tobacco products helped found our country and helped bring blacks over here as well. Fine, but does that mean we should keep having them just for that? I know I was arguing for having drugs legal earlier, but cigarettes are kind of a mixed bag to me. The episode questions second-hand smoking being real, but I'm quite sure it is considering I'm quite allergic to it. I could get a migrane within a short period of time just by being around a smoker. That and you have to consider the fact that cigarettes are not only the number one most preventable death in the country (http://www.webmd.com/smoking-cessation/news/20090427/smoking-is-top-cause-of-preventable-death), they are a serious hazard to our environment (http://www.treehugger.com/files/2007/02/smoking_environ.php). Otherwise, I'm fine with people's right to choose. My cousin said in Iowa, smoking is banned in all public places, except for maybe casinos and some bars. They can only smoke on private property. She also said that plenty of people are breaking that law and getting fined for it. And I'll admit, people should have a freedom of choice, but at the same time, if things get bad enough, we should do something about it. I don't know what exactly, just something. So ultimately, I'm mixed on the issue of cigarettes.

Then there's prostitution, which I'm actually all for making legal. Just like with abortions, it's going to be a black market thing anyway. At least if we made it legal, we could give prostitutes health benefits and protection, there'd be more comfortable and safer places for sexual practices, and there probably wouldn't be anymore pimps, at least not as bad as there are now. I mean, think about this for a minute. These women are willing to give their bodies for money just so they can make a living, including mothers doing so just so they can feed their kids, and sometimes even that's not enough for them to live on efficiently. That and they have total assholes as their bosses taking most of their money from them, or they're punished more than they should be for not being able to come up with enough money to give to them. They're basically sexual slaves used by those managers of theirs as opposed to employees. Don't you think they deserve more than what they typically get for going through that crap? By the way, I'm not just talking female prostitutes here. I'm talking both sexes being used for employment, if they'd like. That's the one thing I don't like about the typical viewpoint of prostitution, that it's a female thing. Fuck that.

I can't really say a lot about euthanasia, except that it's really supposed to be a passive alternative for those in pain and suffering (certain kinds of pain and suffering) who want to die, particularly the "vegetized" people who can't do anything, who I've heard actually suffer a lot while they're still alive and prefer to die. So why oppose it, I don't know. It's not like the people who do it are wanting to kill people just for the sake of killing people. The people who would do that should be jailed, but the practice shouldn't be banned just because of one evil doctor killing random people through euthanasia.

As for the non-marital sex thing . . . you know what, my cousin had a lot of that and she had no fucking problems whatsoever (and yes, as stated before, she waited a while until she felt she loved the other person enough, usually a woman, to do it). So fuck people who believe in enforcing that on others.

But that last viewpoint of Conservatives has to do with one of their most common beliefs: tradition. They believe that people should do things, whether moral/logical or not, just simply because it's tradition, which is extremely freedom-limiting. This is the main reason why I dislike Conservatives: they honestly believe that we should uphold values, such as keeping women as housewives and men in the workforce, traditional marriage (between one man, one woman), and various religious practices that were used a long time ago in a completely different culture that really don't (and shouldn't) fit within our society. It's a faulty morality system that's sort of like the appeal to popularity logical fallacy: let's follow it because all of these people did. That must make it right. Yes, let's not take a minute to think critically about pressing issues and just go with something we did in the past, whether it worked or felt right or not. And let's just not fix any problems we may be having. Let's just keep things the same whether it's convenient or not. Granted, I'm not against tradition/continuity entirely. For example, I'd like to keep our freedoms that we already have in this country. I don't, however, believe we should have to do various other sociological things, including how we raise our kids, just because that's traditionally how we've done things in the past.

So that brings me to the family values point. I'm against conformity since this is a free country, so I'll be raising my children neutrally when it comes to gender roles. Nor will I, if I were straight, be subject to stay in the house and take care of the kids just because I'm the mother. There's not a good fucking reason why I should. Between my girlfriend and I, I don't know who'll be the one to stay home and take care of the kids. It'd be nice if we both did, but I doubt that'll happen. I think we'll be fine either way.

But now on to the last subject: censorship. We have this thing called the first ammendment which allows us to say whatever we'd like, yet we have beeps on television cutting out socially constructed "bad words," people are told what to say or else they'll be fired (as is the case here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeff_Gerstmann) and parental advisory labels on album covers, as well as warning labels on movie and video game covers. There's no morality in limiting this. The Wikipedia article talks about censoring pornography, though. Yeah, great. Let's seee some action without actually seeing the action. Excellent idea. Might as well not fucking have porn at all. Granted, I'd rather not see a penis, but I'm sure most women would if they watched porn. Besides, kids aren't even allowed to watch or look at porn, and even if they did, unless they were shut out from it and taught by their parents to not appreciate the naked body, it won't have nearly as much of a negative affect on a child as most people would think. If anything, it hinders knowledge, and preventing them from seeing a penis/vagina will just make them more curious about what the opposite sex's private parts look like. Even though I'm a lesbian, even I was curious what a penis really looked like. Until I saw one and barfed. I doubt most kids would do that, though.

Anyway, I guess I should mention is another flawed morality system, one that's criticised by anyone who has a brain. Natural Law. The belief that anything natural is automatically right, and anything not natural is immoral. That means that a lot of medical practices, including abortion and euthanasia, along with even taking simple medication like IB Profen and cough drops, and technological breakthroughs, even me using this computer to type out whatever I feel like saying, is immoral to some Conservatives who follow Natural Law. Most importantly, this is another reason why some Conservatives who follow this are against LGBT rights, because thy think it's not a natural process and that they choose. I think, if you're smart enough, you can figure out why this whole ideal is ridiculous. If you honestly can't figure out why, I'll show you links about the Naturalistic Fallacy and the Appeal to Nature explaining why, since I could take up a whole new blog post about the subject:

http://www.fallacyfiles.org/adnature.html

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/logic.html#natural
And lastly, there's one more typical viewpoint among Conservatives. I very often see them concentrating on our own country to the point where it's even egotistical and selfish, which seems to be a big reason why most of the world hates us, which would mean that Conservatives are largely responsible for most of the world disliking our country. I could easily be wrong about that, and I apologize if I am, but I won't apologize otherwise, because it's fucking annoying and rude either way. They tend to complain about our own country's "problems," yet I rarely hear them talking about other country's problems, particularly with other country's rights. Also, they tend to complain about our country even if the smallest little thing happens to it. Let's say prostitution is actually made legal, or the death penalty made illegal. I rarely hear Conservatives, unless they are truly smart, criticise the passing or banning of the practice at hand. Usually, what happens is that they bitch about various other things that have nothing to do with the subject, which is a Red Herring logical fallacy. Instead of "The death penalty shouldn't be illegal because of this and that reason, blah blah blah," we get, "What is happening to my country? We're losing our rights, our family values, our God, etc. *bitchmoanwhinenagnagwhinemoanbitch*" I said earlier that South Park tended to be hit and miss, but with the episode "Dances with Smurfs," they hit the nail right on the head with what I was just talking about, particularly when it comes to Glenn Beck.

So that's generally why I dislike Conservatives. I've met some smart ones, but the people I usually talk to who are Conservative (you can usually tell if they are quite easily) are usually ill-informed, have moral and logical viewpoints based off of ridiculous concepts, are brainwashed (yet sometimes tend to claim everyone else is), or are just plain stupid (here's looking at you, Sarah Palin). Or a combination of all of that. Either way, I'd rather not follow Conservatism. It's not the worst path to travel, but there are certainly much better viewpoints and lifestyles that can be followed instead.

Why Most Women Don't Play Video Games

2010-01-20T17:45:00.005-06:00

http://www.sexygamebabes.com/

There's your reason why.

Seriously, almost every single woman I see in a video game is either highly sexualized, or gorgeous. It's normally incredibly unrealistic either way, considering, say, if a game is a Science Fiction space exploration Adventure/Action where you fight people/aliens in ships as well as using artillery and hand to hand combat. Let's call it Mortal Kombat Meets Metroid. You'd expect everyone, to wear something that protects them, like a space suit or armor like the kind that Samus Aran uses. Well, they usually do that for the men, but not the women. Instead, let's put the women in armored bikinis instead. It's certainly nice to look at, but when you get into a battle with Ridley or Shao Khan, you'd want to have something on to protect you. It's no wonder women are usually the weaker characters in video games. Well, that and the ridiculous social stigma that women are naturally weak and fragile creatures. They obviously haven't met Joanie Laurer.

Former Intercontinental Champion; can bench press 365 lbs.

And we can't forget the breast physics thing. Sure, the game makers make boobs bouncy and jiggly and all that, but they don't put in other breast physics, such as back pain, difficulty breathing, skin irritation, and difficulty buying clothing. Well, that last one isn't quite a physical thing like the rest, but you get my point.

Just like the Energizer bunny, they can go all day.

And speaking of Samus, let me just say that I idolized her when I was growing up, since she was a tough as nails woman who, admittedly always wore a bikini under her armor, but she still wasn't highly sexualized . . . until she started wearing what's called a Zero Suit. It's a skin tight blue outfit that she now wears under her armor. Granted, it covers more than a bikini, but the problem is that, ever since that switch, Nintendo has been sexualizing her more often. Thanks, Nintendo, for ruining my idol for me. Don't get me wrong, I'm still all for Nintendo Strip Poker, but I don't care for random ass shots just for the Hell of it (even though I'm a lesbian).

Fan service.

Oh, and they've been sexualizing Princess Daisy, too . . .

You know, for kids!

You know what, I may be a lesbian, but most women aren't. Most women aren't going to care if you can see Princess Peach's underwear in Super Smash Bros., and they most likely won't even play a game with a woman in a deliberately skimpy outfit on the cover. They especially wouldn't be touching a game like Dead or Alive Xtreme Beach Volleyball. Well, unless they were like me, but I doubt it, don't you? Hell, even I didn't care to play that game.

Perfect game to show your girlfriend.

Besides the sexualization, there's also another factor that deals with a different kind of mentality, one I've dealt with since childhood. It seems a lot of boys I knew growing up (or at least met in a pizza place somewhere) were usually surprised or even upset with the fact that I was (and still am) a gamer. I liked playing games just like they did, but sometimes would almost be excluded from playing games just because I'm female. There were more boys that I knew who weren't like that than the ones who were, but that kind of mentality was prevalent through most of my life until adulthood and a rise in the population of female gamers. Overall, that kind of mentality seems to be dying down, and it really should, because it's freedom limiting behavior.

Just like you. Live with it, she may be your only chance of getting laid.

Regardless of all of that crap, I'm the kind of person who plays games to play games as opposed to having any other sort of thing, like eye candy, get in my way. Hell, if I really wanted eye candy that badly, I have somebody for that already, and unlike some of the video games that I play, I can never get sick of her.

Update On My Cousin

2010-01-04T22:34:00.004-06:00

A lot of great things have happened within these past two weeks. My girlfriend and I finally went out to Iowa to visit my cousin. Nobody else in the family dropped by when we visited, it was just us, which I would've preferred anyway, since it's been a long time since I've seen her.

My cousin and her girlfriend didn't get married yet. They aren't getting married until Summer because the weather will be better outside, and my girlfriend and I will be off all Summer long (school-wise, at least). She told me what she was planning, though. She wanted an ultimately laid back wedding. She said that my girlfriend and I would be up on the alter with her (and maybe a couple of other people), that everyone can wear whatever they wanted instead of having to dress fancy, and wanted a unique alternative to exchanging rings, just to name a couple of things. That's coincidentally what my girlfriend and I have been planning on for a while now.

But there was a huge moment that happened while my girlfriend and I were there. Before we left for Iowa, my cousin told my girlfriend and I that, because of the fact that we could get into major trouble for having sex where we currently live, she was willing to let us have sex at her place. At first, we were against the idea, simply because we felt bad for some reason that I can't explain. After a while, I did change my mind, eventually convincing my girlfriend that if she didn't want to, she didn't have to, but if we got in the mood, that we shouldn't be afraid to hold ourselves back, because it'll be a long time before we get a chance like this again, and considering we've been together for more than fifteen years, it's about time we went further. She agreed, and she actually started getting horny just thinking about it afterward. At that point, I was sure it was going to happen. We certainly didn't have sex right when we got there or anything, but the day (technically night) after we arrived, we got in the mood. I won't go into detail, but I will say it was, to quote Stephanie Meyer, quite an incredibly amazingly wonderfully awesome experience. Actually, I should say experiences, because we had sex multiple times over the past couple of weeks.

So, yeah, we lost our virginity! In the morning after we'd first had sex, my cousin's girlfriend asked if we even fell asleep, telling us that she heard us (particularly my girlfriend). My girlfriend blushed and apologized, and my cousin replied that she shouldn't feel too bad because she saw it as me getting back at her for keeping me awake when I was living with her.

Well, actually, I will tell people something about one position that they should know. Trust me when I say that doing sixty nine is not as fun as it sounds. There's a big problem dealing with smelling your partner's ass, even if you don't want to, since you have to breathe through your nose because your mouth is busy. It's awesome otherwise, if you can handle that setback.

But other than that, all I've got to say is that Christmas was fun. We even got to go see Avatar in 3D while we were there. Awesome movie overall, and the 3D, unlike most movies, actually felt more realistic, instead of just using them for cheap "in your face" effects.

Oh, and on our way home, we saw one of the most ridiculous billboards we've ever seen. It was a an advertisement for some jewelry store claiming that it was a "woman's hardware store." If you don't realize why that's wrong on so many levels, then you must be brain dead or something.

Atheists are the Most Hated Minority

2009-12-20T22:26:00.007-06:00

The title is not just stating something that I feel, since I would've felt that, in our current society, it would be another group that I fit in: the LBGT community. Either that or immigrants and Muslims. However, that is, somewhat surprisingly, not the case.

http://www.goddiscussion.com/4755/discrimination-against-americas-most-hated-group-atheists/

http://www.goddiscussion.com/12038/atheists-are-the-most-distrusted-and-discriminated-group-in-america-a-new-look-at-statistics-law-and-the-military/#hide

http://newsjunkiepost.com/2009/09/19/research-finds-that-atheists-are-most-hated-and-distrusted-minority/

Seriously, if a family is kicked out of their home by a landlord just because they're atheist, then that is going pretty fucking far. Hell, considering I'm an Agnostic Atheist, that's pretty scary to me (though not as scary as the guy who had shit thrown at his house and death threats shouted out to him). It's hard to see how they were allowed to do this, though, considering the first amendment. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," is what it says. That means that being an Atheist shouldn't have a bearing on anything whatsoever. That also means that you can't control people with religion or based on religion whatsoever, either. So why is this allowed to happen?

One of the articles also mentioned several states not allowing you to become a state official unless you believe in a supreme being. However, I have found a video that states that kind of law is overruled by another:

That makes me wonder why the law is still in the books. It's practically useless.

The third article I posted asks, "Why the fear, why the hatred?" My answer is brainwashing. They're using the "Us Vs. Them," technique, which is probably one of the most effective brainwashing techniques out there, hence there are even football fans of different teams who get into pretty bad fights. Basically, higher up Christians (priests and the like), and the Bible itself, all talk bad about Atheists. I've even heard people call Atheists "evil" and "satanic." All without any sort of understanding. As an Agnostic Atheist, I can assure you whatever they tell you about Atheists is more than likely not to be true, going as far as stereotyping and even outright lying (hypocritically breaking one of their own ten commandments). In fact, if anything there's more evidence that Atheists are smart than Theists (http://www.answers.com/topic/religiosity-and-intelligence), and that the more secular a society, the more prosperous it is (http://camelswithhammers.com/2009/06/29/graphs-suggest-secular-countries-less-corrupt-more-peaceful/). Among other things.

In fact, did you know that a society is typically more religious than another if there are more churches? That's what causes religion to grow, after all. However, I cannot find proof online for this, but I read an article/study in my Sociology book about it. Speaking of books, here's another little thing I've noticed: whenever I ask Atheists, Agnostics, Deists, etc. why they converted from being a Christian (or whatever religion they had) to whatever they are now, they would typically answer (something along the lines of), "I read the Bible/Qu'ran/etc." That's kind of my story, too. I was a Deist for a very short period of time before I decided to read the Bible, just because I wanted to see how people were justifying their behaviors, since it seemed hypocritical to me that they said the Bible preaches good moral deeds, but people did bad moral deeds (like those kids who beat my girlfriend I at school) based on what the Bible said. So I read it. Not the whole thing, but I would flip through all of the chapters, searching for things that the Bible was saying that would catch my eye. Boy did I find some of the most evil stuff I've ever read in a book. Slavery, rape, cannibalism, killing children, ritual sacrifice, etc. All are approved of in the Bible. I never would've believed it had I not read it, but it's all in there. I dare anyone to go see it for themselves.

Considering how Christians are treating Atheists in this country...or, actually just about anyone, really, I can see how an Atheist society could easily be more peaceful. Considering I'm an Agnostic Atheist, a lesbian, a metalhead (they might think I'm satanic based on that), a Feminist (who truly supports gender equality as opposed to just women taking over or soemthing like that), and a ginger (I've heard some paranoid people consider gingers witches), I'm sure Christians would have a field day with me, hence is why my girlfriend and I were beaten up at school a few years ago. I can also easily say that I feel the Atheist's pain. This is yet another hurlde to pass, and I fear it actually may take longer and ultimately be harder to pass than homosexual equality and even racial equality, because religion in general, throughout history, has been, by far, the largest source of discrimination.

P.S. I've looked for over an hour to find evidence for that last claim I made, but, you know what, I shouldn't have to find it anyway. If you think about it enough, it should be completely obvious.

Obama Bows in Japan

2009-11-16T17:59:00.004-06:00

It's not like this topic is ultimately a big deal anyway, but some people made it out to be one.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20091116/pl_afp/japanusdiplomacyasiaobama

There's constructive criticism, there's disliking a person, and trust me, I'm not a big fan of Obama, either . . . but then there's just over-analyzing and misunderstanding.

Normally, I don't consider people who don't know certain things about another person's culture stupid, or anything like that. However, I will make an exception in this case because Conservatives (who are typically also Nationalists) obviously don't seem to realize that you greet people in Japan by bowing. It's common knowledge. Hell, Obama even shook his hand in the process, so what he actually did was he brought two cultures together. Either way, he's being courteous to the Japanese for knowing how to properly greet them there. Is that so wrong to be nice to others by showing respect towards their culture? Don't we expect that here? If so, why would you not expect it for others? Do unto others as they have done unto you. I also must stress that this is one reason (certainly not the only) why other countries don't seem to like America: lack of respect for others and their cultures. Not everyone does this, of course, but you can see it just by looking at all of our magazines. There's hardly anything in them that deals with international affairs.

Ther first sentence alone is pretty stupid: "News photos of President Barack Obama bowing to Japan's emperor have incensed critics here, who said the US leader should stand tall when representing America overseas." Yes, let's make sure that other countries know that we have authority over them ,or that if they attack us, we'll be ready to strike back. Let's never be nice to them and, you know, become friends. Everyone could be our enemy, so show no mercy!

I also like how one person said, "I'll bet if you look at pictures of world leaders over 20 years meeting the emperor in Japan, they don't bow." If anything, that means they didn't think to care about Japanese culture. Why would the American presidents in the past have not known about this? Shouldn't they be told? If they are told, why should they ignore simple advice? That's ignorant behavior. Not only that, but I must stress that just because the past presidents haven't bowed, that doesn't mean that Obama shouldn't.

But ultimately, either greeting is fine. If the emporer would've just done the hand shake, I'm ultimately sure he'd realise it would probably make Obama more comfortable (maybe), but Obama chose to go a whole other route, an ultimately more satisfying route, considering people can easily gain first impressions within fifteen seconds. I'm still not a fan of Obama, but he gets a thumbs up from me in this situation.

Carrie Prejean is a Fucking Moron

2009-11-12T18:50:00.005-06:00

Okay, first off, if you don't remember who she is, Carrie Prejean is the dumbass who, last year at the Miss America Pageant (an event I could rant about alone, though that's not the subject at hand), said that she didn't like the idea of gay marriage when she was asked by Perez Hilton, but that she meant "no offense." This is her full answer:

"Well I think it’s great that Americans are able to choose one way or the other. We live in a land where you can choose same-sex marriage or opposite marriage. You know what, in my country, in my family, I think I believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman, no offense to anybody out there. But that’s how I was raised and I believe that it should be between a man and a woman."

There's more wrong here than just denouncing gays and lesbians, though. She says that we're able to choose, when, in most states, quite a few people now can't (including myself). We are not as a free of a country as we make out to be, yet we say we are free. This is an example. Not only that, but she says "in my country, in my family." That doesn't mean that everyone else has to follow her fucking rules, especially considering she's a Conservative who favors restricting civil rights.

So genreally, her answer was inarticulate, and she deserves to lose for that reason alone.

Recently, she was on Larry King Live. Here's the video:

If this doesn't prove her ultimate stupidity, I don't know what will.

By the way, I hate it when people just ignore you, especially during an argument. It's one of the most rude behaviors I can think of.

No More Chocolate Milk in Schools?

2009-11-12T16:58:00.005-06:00

http://shine.yahoo.com/channel/parenting/should-chocolate-milk-be-offered-in-schools-544379/

ONE GLASS OF CHOCOLATE MILK WILL NOT MAKE YOU FUCKING FAT! Even if it's every day. In fact, I drink several glasses a day sometimes. Always have. And I've always been skinny. Hell, I drink so much milk in a day that, if I were to drink milk from my girlfriend's breasts (she has D cups, by the way), she'd run dry.

I must also, once again, stress that parent issue. I have a question for these people: what makes them think that it's not the parents fault for fucking anything anymore even "problems" as small as this one? I put problems in parenthesis because this is not a problem, and hasn't been for a long time, but now suddenly it is one for some reason? The soda machines in school thing is debatable, particularly since it's wasting school money.

And I can understand the point of view that, if chocolate milk was taken away from schools, then some kids who drink it probably would migrate to the regular milks no problem. However, these nutritionists seem to have this mentality that every kid drinks chocolate milk over the others. In my class, that's not what happened. More than half of the kids did drink it instead, but not much more than half. There were some kids who didn't like chocolate milk, preferred regular milk, or were like me, switching them around somewhat.

But even if they're taken out of schools, like soda, what's to prevent their consumption at home? Would you have no choice but to ban people with kids from buying those products, or would you have to go as far as banning them in general? Would you seriously be willing to get rid of simple freedoms like that? Fuck you. Fuck you for trying to limit basic needs like foods and drinks in any way. If you want to do that to your own kids, I won't stop you, but don't try and stop the rest of us. If I feel like chocolate milk, I'm drinking fucking chocolate milk, and I'll even share with my own kid(s) some day.

Man Fired Over Religious Button

2009-10-28T15:38:00.006-05:00

http://www.newsvine.com/_news/2009/10/27/3431641-fla-man-says-home-depot-fired-him-over-god-button

First off, I just want to note how ridiculous it is that some news sites have somewhat misleading headlines, just like with the robber who stopped robbing because a lady got him to pray. The title of that one went something like, "Prayer Stops Criminal." After reading the article, you figure out what really happens, and it's not nearly as much of a miracle as the headline makes it out to be. But even more, I hate how more Conservative (or otherwise Christian) news sites are likely going to blow this situation way out of proportion, or try to use it as evidence/proof of something, when it really proves nothing, and if you read my response, you'll see why.

Basically, a guy was fired over a button he wore that said, "One nation, under God." He also brought a Bible to read during his lunch breaks. There's really nothing wrong. . . well, I personally have a problem with the phrase, since it's only considering our nation as being the one God concentrates on instead of the whole world. That's why I also don't like the phrase "God bless America." Otherwise, it's not harming, and I can see complaints about being fired over it.

However, Home Depot mentioned something about only wearing company-approved buttons. If that's actually in their rule book or whatever (and I can imagine it was in there so people wouldn't wear buttons saying things like, "Fuck You," or various other offensive sayings), then I can see why he was at least warned. In fact, he was offered another button, a more neutral one that said, "United we stand," since the guy said he felt that they were getting worked up over him just showing his love for his country. That point of view is fine, and wearing that button would avoid any more problems. However, the guy apparently had a problem wearing that button for whatever reason he had (he denied wearing it). So really, if he was wearing that other button because he wanted to show that he loved his country, he would've taken that other button no problem, because that one does as well. Since he didn't, that proves that's not his real motive (I don't care what he says). Hell, even the civil rights guy in the article said that he'd have a hard time winning the case, partly because of what I mentioned above. I seriously hope he does, not because he's religious or anything like that, but because he's a moron for contradicting himself.

I'm sure that Conservatives/Christians are still going to completely ignore any of that extremely important info and sympathize with the guy, though.

Mario Sports Series

2009-10-20T19:14:00.003-05:00

Now I'm moving on to the Mario Sports series. I will not be reviewing the Mario Kart games, though. That'll be another post, another time. I am just reviewing the Mario Sports games starting in the late nineties with Mario Golf and on. Also, I have not quite played every Mario Sports game, particularly a couple of the latest ones, and, understandably, I don't have a Virtual Boy, so otherwise I'd start with Mario's Tennis first. Even if I have, I have not bothered to get too far in them all. The last thing I should mention is that just because Mario is in the game, that does not mean I'll be reviewing it. Anyway, let's get started.

I initially wasn't interested in this game enough to want to try it out, but my girlfriend did want to. I was ultimately glad we tried it. It was a pretty fun game to play . . . until we beat it. I can't remember if we beat it entirely, but we unlocked all of the courses and characters. If that's all the criteria for beating the game, then I guess we did beat it. We never got the ball in the furthest hole on the driving range, but I doubt that unlocks anything anyway.

Otherwise, what can I say about the game? It's golf. Well, okay, it has a lot of pretty unique courses. It also has a good selection of characters, although some are non-Mario series characters you likely won't give a shit about, but in this game, one character is stronger than the next. This means that everyone's immediately going to be picking the strongest motherfucker in the game, that character in this case being Metal Mario.

Who wants to play as that guy with the dorky brown hat?

Other than that, there are several modes to play, including ring shot and mini-golf. However, I personally have always hated ring shot, and minigolf's courses are just the alphabet, some numbers, and a couple of symbols. No windmills, no dinosaurs, no clowns that spit the ball back out at you, nothing that makes mini-golf fun.

Ooh, a three. Exciting!

The gameplay mechanics are pretty good, too, but it wasn't the first game to use them. I can't remember what was, though. Maybe Golf on the NES or something. Anyway, it's definitely a lot more simplistic than Tiger Woods PGA Tour games, and really concentrates on the necessary stuff instead of getting too complicated.

Who cares if this came first, it kind of sucks shit now because of Mario Golf.

Nowadays, it's not too bad going back and playing it once in a real long while, although my girlfriend and I haven't played it in about a year's time. It has a decent replay value, but it's nowhere close to Mario Kart, Super Smash Bros., or even Mario Tennis.

By the way, there was also a handheld version of the game for Game Boy Color, but I haven't played it, and I'm not sure if I want to. I'll explain why later. All I know about it right now, though, is that you can use it to connect to Mario Golf on the Nintendo 64 and transfer your characters over using a Transfer Pak.

Now this was the first game released that was truly addictive in the Mario Sports series. In fact, it's probably the only Mario Sports game that my girlfriend and I still play sometimes.

At first, I thought it was like Mario Golf in that the game was simply a tennis game with just a couple of mediocre features. It has the ring shot thing like in that game, but it also has an item mode, where you use items on your opponents like in Mario Kart. That is the mode that has the highest replay value since it adds the most variety. Otherwise, even the regular tennis is fun to play.

Also unlike Mario Golf, this game's characters are not stronger than the other. There's a great mix of attributes and skills, such as Bowser being really strong, and Yoshi being really fast. They make a great doubles team, and that's the team my girlfriend and I usually use. You can get stronger versions of every character if you beat all of the tournaments with them. I haven't done it with every one of them, but it's not annoying considering how fun this game is. Well, okay, the last tournament can be ridiculous, though. It's usually you against Bowser or something, and trying to beat that last character is actually sometimes even painful.

As usual, Wario still sucks shit.

Despite that, I'd easily have to say that this game is the best in the Mario Sports series.

. . . Or is it? Actually, I think it's tied with it's handheld companion. If anything, this one might be better. Sadly, this is one of those games that's often overlooked even by some big Mario fans.

This game is actually an RPG as well (Mario Golf for Game Boy color was, too, though). I'm not even a big fan of RPG games, but I definitely thought this game worked out very well with the RPG mechanics, getting experience points with matches and training and obtaining objects that change your skills.

Before you start the main game, you can select from two people that you can play, a boy and a girl, and a partner for doubles, once again choosing from a boy and a girl. What about the transgenders and transvestites? :P Anyway, they do start out with different stats, so it actually does matter who you pick. I don't remember what was different exactly, but I wouldn't doubt if the girl was weaker. Because, you know, girls are not as strong as boys. Bullshit! >:( Hell, if that's the logic they're wanting to use, then I guess that's why they don't have hermaphrodites. Think about it.

Best character in the game.

Speaking of characters, you can choose from all sorts of characters. Most of them are not your typical Mario characters, though. In fact, there are more regular people than Mario characters by a long shot. You'll notice a lack at first, but you can unlock them, and even connect Mario Tennis on the Game Boy Color to Mario Tennis on the Nintendo 64 using the Transfer Pak. You can even switch your characters from the Game Boy Color game to the Nintendo 64 game. However, for your character to match up pretty well against the characters in the Nintendo 64 version, you'll have to get them at an extremely really high level. My character is past level sixty (if I remember correctly), and I could only barely get past the Flower Cup with my character.

Otherwise, it's just tennis, but the gameplay is even better than the Nintendo 64 version overall. It's hard to explain why, but it just is. I will say, however, that playing matches in the main RPG mode is a lengthy process, the longest possible, so beating one person in a match takes a long time. I remember there was a time that it took over half an hour once. On the other hand, if you pick a match style like in Mario Tennis on the Nintendo 64, then the match tends to be too short.

Despite these shortcomings, this game kicks way too much ass for anyone to miss, even people who aren't Mario fanatics. I'd easily recommend this game and the Nintendo 64 counterpart to anyone and everyone.

This is the first Mario Sports game to come out after the Nintendo 64 was retired. I initially wasn't too exited about it, and didn't even play it until a couple of years after it came out. Ultimately, I'm glad I did get it, because it's easily the best Mario Golf game out there. However, I haven't gotten far into it, so I can't say too much about it, but boy is it fun. As fun as it is, I just haven't played it much. No reason, I just haven't.

Well, okay, Philip K. Dick has been one reason lately.

It is a lot more unique than Mario Golf, though. It has better courses with better scenery, better gameplay mechanics, the mini-golf mode is improved vastly, and there are special things you can use, like pipes to teleport your ball to another part of the field.

Other than that, I can't say much, but that doesn't mean that I don't recommend it. If you had to get one golf game ever in your life, get this one for sure.

But when it comes to it's handheld counterpart, I certainly don't recommend it. This is the most overrated handheld game ever. Hands down. The game got nearly unanimous praise, and I was excited to get it after hearing about how good it was. Boy was I disappointed.

I remember one critic said, "Aside from the quirks in graphics and music, there's almost nothing wrong with Mario Golf: Advance Tour" That's only part of the problem. I won't go too far into this, but how about gravity so bad that it's like your ball is jumping on the fucking moon? Because of this, I would constantly miss the fucking hole, and sometimes I couldn't even finish a hole it was so bad. The gravity wasn't good on Golf on the NES, but it's far worse in this game. The sucking fucking thing slides where you don't even expect it to go half of the God damn time, either. On top of that, even a one mile-per-hour winds can easily push your ball significantly off course. So quirks in the graphics and music? That's nothing compared to the game's other problems.

Interplanetary Golf may not be such a bad idea for a video game, though.

Otherwise, the RPG elements are pretty much the same as the other handheld entries, and people praised that as well. It's nothing new, quit acting like it is!

So yes, this is the first game on my entire blog that I'm saying truly fucking sucks. If you want to go ahead and buy it, be my guest, but I don't recommend doing so at all. This game is the reason why I don't care to try the Game Boy Color version of Mario Golf. It's not like I expect that game to suck, too, but considering how this game was more advanced and was praised more, I just simply don't care to try. I may get it if it's cheap enough.

I'm not sure if this game is as good as the first one or not. I've played it a lot to know that I like it, but it's at least pretty close to being as good as the original.

Either way, this game adds so much new stuff that it gets you addicted. New mini games, new characters (don't care for Wiggler, though), and a new system that gives you "power shots" that either use a more powerful hit, or retrieve that ball if you can't reach it.

Other than that, there's not much I can say about the game, but it's awesome.

This game, however, is not awesome. In fact, out of all of the Mario Sports games that I've played, this one is the worst, and that's for one problem alone: the computer players. They fucking cheat like crazy. The single worst thing that they do is that they pull constant double and triple plays, even if they don't really happen, I guess just to end the inning early and piss you off in the process. They also have the tendency to hit and catch mostly everything, including special pitches and hits that are usually very hard to deal with. So fuck this game.

This game is fun . . . for a while. It's cool beating up everyone in this game, but it still gets boring once you beat it. In fact, I got so bored with it that I flat out sold my copy. That's not to say it's bad, it's just dull, at least after a short while. Overall, really, it's okay.

By the way, Peach and Daisy's outfits are more skimpy than usual. Trying to go that route now, huh, Nintendo? Yes, such a great idea to sell out your characters in this fashion to grab more attention and sales. Even better, let's have Daisy and Peach . . . well, I think you already know where I'm going with that. :P

Inevitably going to happen. Seriously, they're perfect for each other.

Another handheld Mario Tennis game. I eagerly anticipated this one considering how incredible the last game was. I wasn't completely disappointed, but boy did I feel crushed. I wasn't expecting it to be as good as the original, and this game is still okay, but boy did the replay value drop fast with this game. Once I beat the junior league, I stopped and haven't played since. That means I don't remember much about the game now, but I do remember one of the most annoying aspects that made me stop playing: seemingly endless and pointless dialogue. Even after speeding it up, it took a few minutes to go through a character's monologue going on about nothing, which would even sometimes make my thumb sore from so much button-pressing.

Honestly, drug references in a Mario game? Really, why? Even if I wanted to, I wouldn't be able to in this game anyway.

No, I play space Tennis. Regular Tennis is for wusses.

Well, good for you, but please, stop holding up my own progress with your mundane, uninspired, corny losing speech.

Yes, please, shut up and play some Goddamn Tennis.

YES, PLEASE, THANK YOU! You're not the only one who's waited a long time, so let's go!

Also, I do remember that you can't add your characters from this game to Mario Power Tennis. If Nintendo could do it with all of their other games, why not this one? What prevented them from doing so?

Other than that, I would like to say more if I can remember more about the game, but as of right now, I can't say much.

Not since Super Mario RPG have Nintendo and Square Enix teamed up on a Mario project. They finally did with this game, but, of course, they had to go and make another Mario Sports game, and what better game than Basketball. On a handheld system. With two screens, one touch-sensitive. And yes, let's make the controls completely touch screen based and have no button options. Oh, and let's put in some overpowered Final Fantasy characters in the game as well. Sounds like the greatest formula ever, right?

A series I wouldn't think of ever meeting up with Mario . . . for good reason.

Obviously, no. Because of the controls alone, the game is fucking frustrating as Hell to play. Sometimes it doesn't read your moves correctly, and either does something else that you didn't want to do, or does nothing at all, which, either way, could fuck up your game royally. Not only that, but they decided to put in complicated moves that you can do to improve your scores and plays and stuff. However, it also overcomplicates gameplay to the point where you may not even care to use the techniques, and considering the horrible control scheme, it's best not to even try.

Harder and more irritating than it looks, and is relatively easy compared to some of the other moves in the game.

This still isn't the worst Mario Sports game, but it's among them.

-------

And this ends my experience in playing the Mario Sports games. I haven't played any of the other games because I've lost interest. If anything, I'd be willing to play Mario Strikers Charged, and I might try out the Mario Olypmics game just for shits and giggles, but overall, I don't really care anymore. Unless there's another Mario Tennis game, or another Mario Golf game that's unique enough, or something else that sounds interesting overall. Mario Wrestling or Mario Martial Arts would kick ass.

But we already have this anyway.

Or even better: Nintendo Strip Poker or Nintendo Extreme Beach Volleyball. For the Strip Poker idea, there'd be options for both sexes, but I'd obviously play with only female characters. Peach Vs. Daisy. Zelda Vs. Samus. Even lesser known characters, like Jody Summer Vs. Malon. Mmmm, Heaven. :) That could easily be a perennial favorite of both my girlfriend and I.

Anyway, just like with the Mario Party series, the Mario Sports series has lost a lot of merit. However, unlike the Mario Party series, the Mario Sports series still has some fire left in it, and I'm willing to give it a few more chances, even though I doubt that I'll ever be playing a Mario Baseball game again. Either way, I hope to see more good stuff again from Nintendo (so please release Nintendo Strip Poker!)

Time + Memory = Nostalgia

2009-10-17T00:21:00.001-05:00

To me (and my girlfriend as well, though she doesn't get quite as philosophical), this is one of the most mesmerizing subjects to talk about. Hell, sometimes it just completely fucks your mind up. I sometimes feel like I've lost place in the current flow of time and have gone back in it while thinking of the past, or I sometimes even lose all sense of time in general. I understand and accept that my life is moving on, and do still live for the moment, but I also miss a lot of what happened in the past. Not everything, of course, like me getting kicked out by my parents, or being beaten by other kids at school. But I miss a lot of other things, even the little bits, like building box forts. I haven't done that in ages, and I don't think I'd fit very well in the boxes anyway, not unless I shrunk myself by thinking of being small again.

It's odd how, as I get further along in my life, I feel like it's passing me by at a much faster pace than I originally presumed. When I was a toddler, I thought everything, including the world and the people in it, started when I was born. I thought I would never grow old, until I reached five years old. I realized I was aging, and I finally understood why everyone was reacting to me, saying, "my, you're getting so big!" At that point, I thought it would (metaphorically) take a real long time to reach the age of ten. It didn't. In fact, it felt like a few minutes passed by. Then I felt that surely it would take forever to reach the age of twenty. It didn't. Now it felt like that took a couple of years. Life is flashing by faster than I could have possibly imagined. I still can't comprehend why it moves so fast like this. In two seconds, my girlfriend and I will be living out in Iowa, married, and having kids (somehow). In another two, we'll be alone again, our kids will have moved out, having kids of their own, and our parents close to death. In another two, we'll be dead.

As I am aging, I find that I'm thinking more about this. I fear that it'll get so bad that my memories will be all that I remember. If not, I fear the possibility of dying, and living on more lives via resurrection in my memory, living my life over and over again.

As for the people I know, I'm thankful that I'm not the only one who feels this way. I'm not sure if I inspired her line of thinking or not, but my girlfriend and I talk about this sometimes. I've discussed it with my cousin lately as well. She gave the point of view of watching a child growing up, since she always used to watch me. I've got to admit, watching a future child of mine would be quite an experience. I have to wonder what my kid would be thinking and experiencing. I'm sure it's the same for them.

I'm definitely glad that I've been with my girlfriend for as long as we've been together, never separating. I will know her for the rest of my days. As for most of the other people that I've known in my life, that is not the case. I find it strange how I can know a person for one moment, and in the next, realize that I may never see them again throughout my whole life. Sometimes it makes me quite sad, even to the point where I cry a bit. Once again, I'm glad that's not the case with my girlfriend. I will love her for the rest of my days. However, I've known some great friends that I feel like I have now certainly lost for good, usually because they had to move away. I don't usually get upset about most of my former classmates from throughout my public school days, but I still have that strange feeling: I used to know you well and see you very often, and now you're gone away from me, possibly for the rest of my life. I have to wonder what they're thinking, feeling, and doing nowadays. I wonder how much has changed about each of them. We've just been out of school a couple of years, and they're already spreading like wildfire, some moving to states surrounding us, and even one I heard who moved across a few of them. Because of this, I doubt that I'll be hearing of them much anymore.

Speaking of my classmates, I'd like to just talk about them a bit. Not all of them were bullies to my girlfriend and I. In fact, most of the kids from early elementary school didn't mind us, and if anything, made fun of us out of pure jest, or because they didn't like us because we were nerds (we had a big group of nerds, which my girlfriend, a couple of friends and I started, and eventually grew to be a fairly large group) as opposed to being lesbians. Only the worst couple of them were nasty little buggers, and they eventually moved, and they never hurt us in a physical way. The ones who did pick on my girlfriend and I real bad were the newer kids from upper elementary/junior high on. The worst ones were obviously the ones who beat us. That rarely happened, and it only happened with some bigots who moved into the town, kids that not even most of the other bullies liked at all. They weren't punished (for a few months even) until the nicest teacher in the school finally saw very clear evidence that my girlfriend and I were beaten. Even then, all they got was a suspension for a week, which they liked, if anything, because they could just get to sit around and do whatever they wanted most of the time. The teacher tried to fight for a harder punishment, but to no avail. That's when the police got involved, and taught the kids a lesson in their own special way. That's when they stopped everything. We weren't picked on by anybody from that day forward, at least not like with them. In fact, the bigots were ordered not to even come near my girlfriend and I.

We were still ridiculed, but we were used to it by then. That was until a popular jock asked for us (the group of nerds) to help him with his homework after school. We didn't like jocks much, but the guy was actually decent, and we weren't assholes about it anyway, so we helped the guy. Not only that, we started playing games and stuff after we were done helping him. Not long after, his prep girlfriend broke up with him because she noticed he started talking to us, and he was telling her that we're not nearly as bad as other people made us out to be. Because of this, he became a member of the group, and would hang out with us until we all got out of high school. People ridiculed him as well, but not as badly as the rest of us, since he had a good reputation with the jocks as well, and still would hang out with them as well. We have talked to him a bit since then, but that was a couple of years ago, and we haven't seen or talked to him lately, and I doubt we ever will. He's basically one of those people I described above: those who you know well at one point, then at another, never talk to or even see again.

Besides people, places change as well, though not as much as people. That's what I like about them. Sometimes, I'll visit a place from my childhood, such as a park, and see that it's hardly changed, if at all. Every now and then, though, something does change. Ever since leaving the high school, my girlfriend and I noticed that it expended and tore down the playground we always played on during recess. That playground, to my understanding, had no problems with it whatsoever. All they wanted to do was add another gymnasium and cafeteria. They were fine with the ones that they had before, so I saw no point to it other than to waste taxpayer's money. That and my girlfriend and I can't experience a big part of our school time nostalgia anymore because of it. I remember when she and I got in trouble for making out behind the big slide. We didn't think we would be kissing much, but we got into it pretty quickly, and were spotted about half a minute later by our teacher. Most of the elementary school knew about it. Apparently, quite a few other kids saw us before the teacher did, and didn't care to report us. In fact, they moved on with whatever they were doing at the time. Goes to show that sometimes adults are overreacting, huh? Well, my girlfriend's parents certainly weren't. We continued making out at her place later that night. They could stop us at school, but they couldn't stop us elsewhere. :P

In general, though, it's crazy how much things can change within a short amount of time. I'm sure that, if you leave a town for several years and come back to it, you'll likely notice many changes, including where people are living now, and what's happened to them since you've left. I've got to say, though, that it's certainly refreshing to see that at least some things are kept the same, at least for a while.

In fact, this reminds of a couple of lyrics from a song in The Brave Little Toaster:

"Time flies by in the city of light
Time stands still in the country"

That makes me wonder if time is relative, if we, people, make time go by through progression and the idea of age. We think we're aging, thus we are. Alternatively, maybe time is flowing because we're doing something constantly, time progressing even if we lift a finger. I wonder, if everybody and everything (besides time) in the world/universe stopped, if time would stop right along with it. Silly ideas, I know, but they're fun to think about.

Anyway, moving on. Thankfully, we can capture moments on film now, whether it be on a picture or video camera. I only have one video (which was plastered over the movie Moonstruck, so every now and then, a bit of that movie pops) containing clips from various goings on in my life, encompasing my first day of school, a clip of me watching Mighty Moprhin' Power Rangers, playing with my dog (who is no longer around), and playing in my back yard (all in the same clip), using a plastic bat to play fake guitar along with a live Rush tape (A Show of Hands), a gymnastics session, and Christmas that year. It even has my girlfriend and my cousin in it. My cousin is in most of the clips, but my girlfriend is only in the gymnastics clip. In the video, you can see us hug and kiss for a quick little bit.

It feels odd watching it, though. I feel as if my past self died after the moments caught on film, and the film is the only evidence left. In fact, I feel as if my past self from even a nanosecond ago has already died (or is dying) as I'm typing this, and that my memory is my only proof. It's crazy thinking about how a camera can capture a single moment in time. It's like capturing time in a box and printing off, and that's the only way it can truly live on.

Otherwise, a nice idea would be is we could have a machine that can internally record our memories (maybe even our dreams) and pay them back to us any time. I'd love to see the time that I first met my girlfriend again. I'd love to go back to any time that the old school playground was still standing.

. . . Then again, after seeing the film Strange Days, I'm not sure if that's the best idea.

However, I don't encourage time travel. I'd rather not screw things up even if time travel was possible, which I don't think is the case, at least when it comes to going back into the past. If it was possible, I'm sure some asshole would've figured it out by now and could've used it to fuck up history. Maybe Adolf Hitler was from the future. Maybe that's what happened to the aliens at Area 51. Maybe that's what we evolve into in the future, or maybe they're a different species in general, who figured out how to travel through time, tested the machine, made a mistake, and ended up crashing. But I don't even think that kind of thing is possible. If two points of time can co-exist like that, then how do you explain the past still going it's course until the future, when that person in the future goes back? If that person went back in time and changed things, what would happen to the future then? Would it even be possible, if history changed then, that the man who went back in the future went back again if history changed? And what would really happen then? If the past changed after he went back, and he went back again in the future, wouldn't the past be changed even further? It really doesn't take much to change the future. I'm not into Chaos Theory, but I can understand even making someone stall for a second by bumping into them could have potential consequences. Also, how could the past, which did not previously feature the man from the future, feature him if it did not feature him before? If he's in the future, but not the past, how can it even be possible that he go back to it considering, if he were to arrive yesterday, he wasn't originally there yesterday? If we've already passed that point in time, there's no way to go back. It's all a great big paradox.

By the way, time traveling into the future is possible, but it involves preservation. That's really all it is. Otherwise, that's not possible, either.

I'll close with a quote that I've heard go around with jocks at my school, "Don't dwell on the past. Live for the future. Always think ahead." I agree nobody should live in the past, because if we did that, we'd have nothing else except for our early memories, and no new ones. The rest would be a shade of gray. However, I certainly don't want to live in the future, either. If anything, we need to think about our memories, because once a moment passes by, we can never physically go back to it again. Remember, the past is what got us to where we are in the first place.

Breast Cancer Awareness

2009-10-04T18:23:00.005-05:00

Okay, we're aware of that it exists. Enough with this ridiculous advertising. I swear, it's everywhere you fucking go. First, my girlfriend and I went to Dairy Queen and saw it there. Then we went to several local stores and saw them there. Then we both went to work and saw them there, too. What's with this obsessive breast cancer awareness? Wait, maybe it's because people want to save the boobies. Oh no! Lord knows what would happen if we lost boobies!

Of course, my girlfriend and I love boobs (my girlfriend's boobs are huge :D), and I don't mind saving them if they're in trouble, but here's what confuses me: why not cover every type of cancer out there and not just breast cancer? Breast cancer isn't even the most common type of cancer; skin cancer is, then lung and prostate cancer. I'm not even saying just cover the most common ones, though; cover all of them. Just try and find a general cure for cancer.

Also, I have a big problem with the fact that, not only is every company on the planet advertising about it, but they are constantly coloring everything pink in relation to this project. Why pink? "Der, 'cause girls like pink, der!" There's your typical sexist response. Not all girls like pink. I fucking hate pink. My girlfriend doesn't care for it, either, but she does love purple. In fact, there's only one girl that I've ever known who really liked pink, and I haven't seen her in a long time. If anything, I actually have a male friend who likes pink. It's not his favorite color, but he likes it nonetheless. No, he's not gay, or even bisexual. That's ridiculous.

This next point goes for all charities in general. If you want to donate to a charity, why donate so little of the money you make off of your products? I understand not all of it can go to the charity, but it's always something really small, like ten percent. I've even seen one as low as five, which is horrible. I know most companies that are doing this (which are usually the ones that advertise the most, thus are the biggest brands) have enough money going around as is, so why not donate more and spend less money on useless shit, like more advertising?

Also, has anyone else noticed how most companies went from spending charity money on AIDS to breast cancer? I remember a few years ago, AIDS charities, although not everywhere, were widespread enough to the point where everyone knew about them. Now we've shifted almost completely away from AIDS to try and tackle a subject not quite as dangerous or widespread. That and we didn't fucking find a cure for AIDS, damn it. Well, actually, I think I heard we might have recently, but it wasn't quite thanks to company charity, because this came long after that.

Women's Underwear in Stores

2009-09-29T14:24:00.006-05:00

I was in shitty fucking god damn stupid as Hell Wall-Mart with my girlfriend yesterday. Not long after I walked in, I saw the clothing section. What did I see? The women's underwear out front. Normally, I'd figure, "Okay, that's stupid, but if the men's underwear is out front as well, then I won't think about it much." Sure enough, as I walk through the store, I see the men's underwear in the middle, where it's not nearly as easy to see as the women's underwear.

This is certainly not the first time I've seen this. I was at Target a few days before that as well and noticed the very same thing. I've also seen this in various department stores, although some of them put the men's underwear out front as well (yuck!). However, while I was at Target specifically, I noticed a bunch of signs around the girl's clothing section with girls in somewhat sexy poses. Even the preteens! Yeah, go ahead and shake your ass at the camera and bring on the predators, baby!

Anyway, let me ask men yet another question: Wouldn't you find it embarrassing having to fucking grab your underwear right where everyone can see what you're grabbing for?

And here's my question for companies: Why do most of you put only women's underwear out front right where everyone can see it?

And Target, why are you showing sexually suggestive pictures of girls in their preteens? Are the leaders of Target pedophiles, or is it a careless woman who thinks it's cute, but doesn't see what men see? Let me tell you, ladies, that you might want to think twice about putting you daughter in those short shorts. You may not think much of it, but men do.

Anyway, not a long post, just something that I felt needed to get out there.

More School Hours

2009-09-27T13:29:00.013-05:00

Obama's at it again, and once again, people are loving this ridiculous idea, which is even worse than his idea of taxing soda. This time, he wants to add more hours into the school system, as if kids weren't busy enough. I've heard some schools are already making it mandatory that your child has to be in at least one kind of extracurricular, like sports or band. It's not like those help educate a child in the first place, but that's already there, and considering that, why add more school hours? You want the child to live at school? You want the child to see it's family in as little time as possible? I've even heard something about the child being "safer at school." That's such major bullshit that you couldn't shit out a turd huge enough to match the size of that bullshit. Yes, let's leave your kids around the bullies and the brainwashing class sessions longer. That works. Besides, although sometimes the teachers don't have enough time to finish stuff, more often they have plenty of time as is, at least if you concentrate on stuff that actually educates kids instead of concentrating on stuff like, "Did you know the pufferfish is part of this and that species and eats blah blah blah, etc.?" That's not educating a child, that's just random shit nobody's going to remember once they get out of school. Schools are not the Discovery Channel.

Obama is doing this to try and get kids more educated. He obviously doesn't see that school hours are not the problem at all. I already stated some problems above, but remember when I ranted about the grade system? Keep what I said in mind there as well. That's just one of the many thing we could go after to improve education. Like how about doing something about the school system's largest cancerous tumor: homework. Teachers give it out without even thinking of the consequences nowadays. Sometimes they give out way too fucking much, and I have to think, "Do you realize that there are several other teachers giving me homework, too? Do you not realize that this will take me until three in the morning to finish?" In fact, I'm going to tell you something interesting: my third grade teacher gave out no homework. That's right, absolutely no homework whatsoever the entire school year. Do you know what happened? I'm sure you're thinking that I didn't learn much, but I learned more in that class than any other year. In the later years, of course, I had more homework. Overall, I learned less, and I just plain became much more stressed. So, obviously, I have (at least somewhat) an anti-homework stance.

But, if you really do add more school hours, would you please, for the love of all that is wonderful in this world, please do everybody a fucking favor and finally get even more strict with the fucking moronic bullies in the school? Who gives a shit if they're a jock and play sports or not! Sports in school aren't necessary for education anyway, so why care if "you need him for the game?" In the real world, you get punished for crimes not matter what, just like several pro sports players. Also, if anyone has seen the movie Drillbit Taylor and thought how the bully got away with almost everything was unrealistic, trust me, it was actually very realistic. I had that happen to my girlfriend and I in school a lot, unless we were beaten. Even then, they sometimes got away. It truly does seem like bullies get away with almost everything nowadays, and we need to stop encouraging that behavior at all! Same goes for the parents. If you hear that your kid has done something awful (especially if you start hearing many cases of him doing something bad), don't just take that and think, "Oh, my kid would never do that. He's so nice here at home." I've seen that behavior often: nice at home, turns into the dark lord himself at school. Take action into his behavior for once in your lives!

And one last note I want to make to Obama. Do you really want to try and make our society more of a dystopia? Do you really want us Americans to move away from the American Dream of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness by putting progress, work, and the pursuit of a good salary over any of that? I honestly think that we Americans work enough as is, and that's one of the reasons why our happiness rating is so low compared to several other countries (last time I checked, Denmark was the happiest). And you want to feed more into that system that's one of the causes of unhappiness? Ultimately, it seems that we're missing out more and more on the wonders of life, and we've lost a good idea of how to get them back. Please don't let them get away from us.

P.S. If this plan of yours does come into play, I'd be more than happy to say, "Impeach Obama!"

Taxing Soda

2009-09-20T12:54:00.004-05:00

I've been mixed about Obama and his policies, but this new idea of his about putting a "sin tax" on soda is just plain fucking stupid. The strange thing is that I keep reading a bunch of articles about how it's such a good idea. I beg to differ.

1. Haven't we already increased taxes on things like cigarettes and alcohol before? Has that ever worked? Doesn't anyone learn from history's mistakes anymore?

2. If you're targeting obesity, why not tax everything that could be it's cause and not just soda? I know soda's apparently "not good for you," but neither is fast food, chips, just about anything made in a bakery or made with bread, artificial food items, and even certain fruits and vegetables, or at least eating them too much without eating much else. That makes just about all of the food on the market "dangerous" to our health.

Besides that point, why does everybody have to be skinny? It may be hurting people's bodies to be too big, but fat people aren't hurting skinny people, are they? They're not hurting the environment just by being fat, are they? Ultimately, it's their choice, just like the people who buy cigarettes and alcohol. Cigarettes and alcohol, though, are more dangerous than the so called "bad foods." They both can destroy the environment and harm the consumer (both even more than soda) as well as other people. Soda only has potential harm to the person consuming it, while cigarettes and alcohol are capable of damaging everyone. And remember, putting extra taxes on those items didn't work. Do you honestly think it will for soda, especially considering it's not as dangerous?

3. Did you know that the most advertised products on the market are the ones that are bought the most? It's obvious to figure that out, but think about this for a second: who advertises their products and businesses most when it comes to food? If anything, I'd do something about that instead. It may not be some incredible idea that'll work 100% (nothing would completely work, really), but even that would do better than a soda tax. It'd cure a lot of useless spending by the companies making those advertisements in the process (we already know that McDonald's exists), so we'd be making some kind of progress, anyway.

4. We're still in a fucking recession, and you want to increase taxes on something!?

5. I will admit that Obama's smart enough to request a drop in healthy food's prices, considering that was another reason junk food was prevelant: it's cheaper. That would work, if anything. But then don't put taxes on junk food. The price drop in health food should actually be enough. That's a much smarter idea than going after junk foods. Instead of incentive for getting away from junk food, give and incentive that encourages health food. In fact, encourage a balance of both, really, because it's been proven that every now and then, having junk food, then going back to health food, satisfies cravings. You need a mix, or else it likely won't work.

6. For people wanting to lose weight, the best way is actually to exercise. In fact, the bigger you are, the easier it is for you to lose more weight if you exercise. My girlfriend and I exercise together somewhat often, we still eat junk foods and drink pop, and we're still very healthy.

However, if you're having a hard time exercising, then you should probably figure out what's wrong with your routine. Some people, like me, can't lift things that are real heavy too often, or even run, or else our joints start to hurt (because I have arthritis), but there are other things you can do. My girlfriend and I usually go swimming and walking together. However, you don't want to do the former too much. Read the "Risks" section of this article for more details: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_swimming#Risks

Not all of that information is relevant to swimming exercise, but some of it is.

-------

Now, I may come up with more points if I can even remember if I had any more in the first place, but this'll do for now. I felt it needed to be said, even though nobody is reading my blog except for my girlfriend. I doubt people would pay attention to me anyway. People would probably call me a liar, a stupid ginger, a dumb lesbo, a radical feminist, an evil liberal, and a Satanist who practices witchcraft, because, you know, I listen to Metal. Out of all of those, I'm a ginger lesbian Metalhead, but other than that, the rest is obviously bullshit. :P

I'm really an individualist hoping for the freedom that America is supposed to have, and yet doesn't have. Censorship, senseless conformity, unequal rights (particularly for gays and lesbians nowadays), favoritism in the job market and in schools, too much concentration and importance on work ("I don't care if you're sick with something that could easily infect everyone here, you're still coming to work."), etc.

Anyway, I should close off this post now. I've babbled on longer than I probabbly should have, but it was fun.

I Miss My Cousin

2009-09-20T01:08:00.005-05:00

In my last post, I talked a bit about my cousin. That made me think about her a lot, especially considering she called me a couple of days ago and told me that, although she had to go at the moment, she wanted to talk with me every day from now on. She said she wouldn't even mind talking to my girlfriend, too, since she's known her for a long time as well.

So yesterday, we talked for a long time, since we hadn't talked to each other in over a year, maybe even longer. That was about the time she moved to Iowa with her Japanese girlfriend, who she's still with. I was glad to hear that they were still together. Her girlfriend is really nice. She told me that they wanted to get married, and that's why they moved to Iowa, but they haven't gotten married yet. She also told me that stupid dumb shit asshole motherfucking god damn conservatives wanted to try and get rid of the law allowing gays and lesbians to marry (already) because "they want to do what's right," or so they think. Yes, let's have a hateful God who approves of slavery and rape be our moral guidance. That and we just don't like it when things change, even if they're for the better. Anyway, they wanted to wait and make sure my girlfriend and I could see them. I told her we could go out there once school was over this semester.

My cousin then told me that she'd never graduated from college, but that her girlfriend had, so she was glad to finally be out of poverty. In fact, I'll tell you a story about that.

When I was sixteen, my parents kicked me out of the house, and I'd rather not say why. My cousin was the first to offer me her place to stay, and even if other people made offers, I would've chosen to stay either with her or with my girlfriend's family anyway, but I knew my girlfriend's family would've had a harder time financially with me there. Unfortunately, my cousin would've taken a hit as well, but she was able to support me a little better. I felt bad for her, though, so I tried to get a job. My first job was at Burger King. I'll rant about that place later.

Anyway, my cousin went through multiple relationships while I was there, relationships with all sorts of people, but at some point, she quit going out with men for good. She didn't find them as pleasurable as women, because she figured that she could do more with women than men.

The one thing that did kind of stink about living at her place, at least until she quit dating men, were the noises that came from her room while she was having sex with her then partners (she'd always wait a long while before having sex, though). My cousin always joked that she had a hard time sleeping that night, too. Once she started just going out with women, I slept somewhat easier. However, whenever my cousin started dating her Japanese girlfriend, it got a little harder for me to sleep again because of the distinct noise that she let out during sex.

Anyway, moving on. I told her that I'm currently living with my girlfriend, and she immediately joked by asking me, "Have you two fucked yet?" I laughed and told her no. She asked why, and I told her the walls are way too thin. She said it doesn't matter as long as you don't make too much noise, but then I told her that my girlfriend does, or at least she tells me that she does, because her mother told her that she was making a lot of noise while masturbating a long time ago.

Then we started talking about various geek stuff. I honestly can't remember how we got into that conversation, but once we got into it, it was basically over an hour of nerd talk, asking question like, "Have you played such and such game?" or, I remember one in particular being, "Have you seen District 9 yet?" My girlfriend and I don't usually get to see movies in the theaters anymore, but we really wanted to see that one, and we did. Now my cousin and I want both want to see Zombieland and Surrogates. The latter is based on a comic book series that I haven't read yet, but now I want to. It looks like both will be made of awesomeness. I would love to see the movies with her, but sadly, I can't. I don't think I'll even be able to see them with my girlfriend.

Then we said our goodbyes and hung up. We talked again today as well, but the conversation wasn't quite as long, and we talked about, of course, sex. It's on her mind a lot, but I guess she got my girlfriend and I in the mood tonight considering we looked up lesbian porn. Oh well, it was fun.

But now I actually feel like seeing her again. I even wonder if she's changed her appearance at all, though I doubt it. All I know is that both my girlfriend and I would give her and her girlfriend a great big hug when we see them again, and we will.