Limiting Likelyhood of Laser Lights Lamentation

I know, it's been a long time since I last posted. I just haven't had the gumph to do it lately and I apologize profusely. Today, I want to talk about laser pointers being pointed at airplanes.

Don't get me wrong. Those who know me know that I am not a big subscriber of conspiracy theories. I pretend to believe some of them because they are just too funny not to, some of them actually have some credence (such as the auto manufacturers and oil companies) and the rest are bunko. But here we go.

Apparently, there has been an increase in the number of laser pointers being shone into the cockpits of airplanes. I mean the big ones. They even had video of them on the news on CNN. Now, spending a night where I had difficulty sleeping, I found my mind wandering and it settled on this topic and I got to wondering. (Hmmm, I wonder as I wander. Ehhh.) How?

No, seriously, How? I'm not exactly Daniel Boone with a gun, but I'm no slouch either. Even with that, I don't think I could hit a car on the interstate doing 65mph with a laser, let alone track the car as it drives down the road. Yet these people are somehow pointing a laser at airplane that is up to six times the distance away and going eight times as fast, with No visual cues as to whether they hit the target. How are they doing this? How are the capable of hitting a spot the size of a compact car mounted on the top front of a vehicle 6 miles and further away traveling at better than 450 mph. I don't want to know so I can do it myself, I want to know so we can find out if it's not being over reported or something.

One video I saw had it shining from a stationary location, with no apparent movement from the aircraft. Granted, that could have been a helicopter, but if it wasn't, why didn't the ground move? At 450+ mph, the scenery on the ground would be going by very fast.

Is this simply a case of "let's shine the laser in the general direction of the aireo-thingy" (because people who do this, in my humble opinion, are complete idiots) and see if we can freak those thingy drivers out?" Or do they all have really powerful scopes with laser pointer mounted and calibrated? Or, could it just be possible, that the government is overstating the number to further scare the population?

Maybe I'm just being an idiot and can't see the answer. Anyway, y'all chime in and give me answers. They don't have to be serious either.

Peace up

Gott spielt verful nicht mit dem Universum A. E.

Finding Fault with Facebook "Friends."

OK, I'm back after a long hiatus. I have been thinking of something to say, anything, and my mind has been uncharacteristically blank (many of you who actually know me may be thinking "uncharacteristically?"). I've decided to write about Facebook Friends.

It's not that I am disappointed by the title or the concept, it's just the same thing I have stated several times and decided to test it. You may consider this a social experiment on the dynamics of digital relationships.

Here's the thing: I have long held that there is a game going on in Facebook. I am not talking (or I should say writing as I am not actually saying anything) about Farmville, Starfleet, Mob Wars or any of the others. I'm talking about the Friends game. It was touched on in an episode of Southpark and I am continuing it. Here's how it's played.

It's a simple game and the rules are comically easy. All you have to do, is add more people to your friends list. (S)He who has the most friends on their Facebook Friends list, wins. There is no prize, just bragging rights.

My theory is that in actuality, Facebook Friends means nothing and this is my thesis and the proof (or disproof) will be contained in the results of the blog. Let me make perfectly clear that I am in no way emotionally harmed by the results of this experiment (except that I know family members won't respond properly and for that, they should be ashamed).

Now, here's where my "Friends" come in. All of you who read this should respond. Not only that you took the time to read this inanity, but I also want you to respond with how many of your "Friends" you actually know and correspond with. This response SHOULD be in Facebook, as that is what the social venue is used for and it is currently on trial. I currently have 32 friends. I know, I lose, I only have 32. What a sad sick little man (I have no-one's pity).

See you in the funny pages and I'll try to write more often.

Peace up

Charles

Gott spielt verful nicht mit dem universum. A. E.

Men Can't Be Raped

I know, no alliteration. It's getting hard to come up with them, so . . .

Anyway, here is the problem I'm talking about. In the news, there are several men that are accusing some pastor of manipulating them into sexual encounters. There has been a great deal about this in the media and two things jumped out at me. One was that the pastor's lawyers claim that it is just a scheme to get money and his congregation believes it almost wholeheartedly. The other (and more disturbing) is the mockery they get from some people wondering how a grown man can be "manipulated" into a sexual encounter. The problem here is that if they were women, people wouldn't be questioning the claim or situation nearly as much.

It seems to me that in today's society (and for a very long time now), men cannot be raped, or in any way abused. People seem to think less of the man that this has happened to, or even think that it never happened because "it CAN'T happen." If a woman is charged with any crime that involves a male accomplish, the lawyers claim that she was manipulated into doing it and people buy it easily. "Oh, the poor dear. She can't make decisions of morality by herself and has to have a man do it." Puh-lease. Also, we cannot be hurt as readily as women by words.

In the seventies, a movie came out that touched on this very subject. It was called The Man Who Cried Rape. In the movie, the man was forced into a sexual relationship at gun point. wee learn later that it wasn't a real gun, but he didn't know that. When he made the claim, it was greeted with scorn and ridicule, as well as claims that he must be gay,, because he had to complain about it. Women would say "now men know what it was like for women in the past." That is no excuse. Other shows dealt with domestic abuse that had the woman physically abusing her family, husband included. Again, met with scorn and ridicule. "How can a big man be beaten up by a woman, the wuss."

It seems that the world thinks all men are aggressive whores who can beat up on anybody and would if needed. They don't consider the fact that A: They may be particular about their choice of sex partners, B: They are faithful to their current partner. C: They do not want to hit anybody, especially a woman. and D: Men are just as human as women and can suffer the same sensitivities and fates, even if we don't want to admit it.

I believe that it is high time for society to look at these claims with a little more credibility. That we should find an accusation by a man every bit as likely and terrible as if a woman made it. Men are not all the imposing, martial sluts that we are made out to be in the media and we can be overpowered, manipulated and cowed, even the largest of us. We are taught (at least I was) that it is wrong to hit or verbally abuse a woman, yet it is OK (and sometimes even funny) for the reverse (see Andy Capp, Beetle Bailey and Blondie). This has to stop.

Peace Up
Charles

Gott spielt nicht verful mit dem Universum. A.E.

Game Review: Mass Effect 2

OK, I know this is a little overdue, but I just thought I'd pop it up here. When it comes to video games, I prefer those with a good story. The same qualifications I have for most of my movie preferences. When I first played Mass Effect, I found it to be a very enjoyable game with a good story, nice game mechanics and great graphics. The fact that the story changes due to your choices and classes (I haven't fully played with that) is a definite plus. Replay of the game was just as good as the first time, as you get to become more powerful and you can play with that "different choices" thing. Yes

Then came Mass Effect 2 and I was, well maybe not "excited" but close enough. Sure enough, the story was excellent and added on to the original. Your character's development didn't really seem to have anything to do with the development of your character in ME1, like Baldur's Gate 2 built on BG1, but other than that, it was good.

Then I met the replay.

I was disappointed.

Not only do they cap the experience at level 30 (which is like 3 levels higher than achievable in the first run through), but you don't get chances to add more weapons like you do in the first run through (unless you buy the downloads online which I have). For instance, there is a place in the game where you get to increase your A: Assault Rifle, B: Your Shotgun or C: your Sniper Rifle. In the first run through I chose the Assault Rifle. I got to keep this new weapon in the replay, but when I got to the place, I did not get the choices again. Which meant that re-playing the game really had no purpose, other than simply to play the game and then you might as well create a new character. They even TELL you that you should replay before importing into ME3. Why? Either I'm missing something or BioWare dropped the ball on this.

Another problem is your "squad." They really have few powers and are bulky to control. They have a bad tendency to run forward practically forcing you to get too close to be effective (at least forcing ME to).

On a side note, I'm currently P**Sed because I have the game on the hardest setting and get get past the fight shortly after the weapons choice thing.

Still, if you like first person shooters and you like to take a little control of the character, the ME line is an excellent line of games. I recommend it, but then I recommend a lot of stupid stuff, so there you go.

Peace up

Charles

Gott spielt nicht verful mit dem Universum. A.E.

The Anus of History or Human History has Hysterically Hammered Humans

Some of you are going to say "but Charles, that's the ANNALS of history." To those people I say "shut up and read the post."



Others of you are going to say "but Charles, that's the ONUS of history." To those people I say "Shut Up And Read The Post."



And then there's the smart one that says "Yep, he got the whole Anus of History thing right." To THOSE people, I say, "SHUT UP AND READ THE BLOODY BLOG ALREADY!!!"



And then there are those that say, "what? No Chocolate. . ."



CHOCOLATE, now please, can we get on to the post?



Thank you. When I say "The Anus of History," I say it that way, because that's what history is. It is the last part of humanity. Yet it creates more toxic waste than the rest of said race. History blows big freekin' farts.



I like to claim that women are the cause of most wars. I would like to apologize to the women and clarify that. Women have been the cause of most wars, that were not caused by History. I'm not misogynistic, I'm just stating a fact that men will do anything for women, most especially kill each other. But this post isn't about women, it's about history.



The Old Testament tells of how Abram and Sarai had no children so Abram knocked up his slave, and then God said "Abandon the slave and your responsibility to the resultant child and have a son by Sarai." Abram did so, changed his name, and skipped out on all the child support. (We are supposed to revere this bum by the bye). The people that he abandoned eventually became the nation of Islam and have hated the Jews ever since, spawning wars. This is the greatest, in-depth example I have, but not the greatest cause. Wars have been fought over "formerly ours" territory, insults my great-great . . . great-great grandfather received from you respective grandfather's goat Elijah. I mean, a simple review of history shows just how much history has had to play on the creation of wars.



The disparagement between India and Pakistan is over a single, insignificant and worthless chunk of land because "it once belonged to {our side}". Incidentally, land is the second greatest cause of wars. World war 2 was (partially) started because the Germans lost WW1 and had to suffer sanctions. Christians have persecuted Jews because of what the leadership of the latter killed the leadership of the former. The argument against the last 2 could be said that it was the ACTION that caused the war, but that would be logically fallacious.



Fighting against an action is a personal thing. We logical people would not go and beat up on the grandson of the bully we knew in elementary school. It also, logically, makes no sense to beat up somebody for something they did 30 years ago, but that can happen. Still, in the latter, you are beating up the perpetrator, not their progeny. Of course, this argument goes against the best selling book of all time. The Old Testament (Current Testament according to the Jews) states that the sins of the fathers shall be visited unto the seventh generation. Or something to that effect. In other words, God is allegedly telling us to fight over history. And we do.



Now, the really Anus part of this is that history changes. I don't mean "our perspective of history changes," I mean it actually changes. When I was growing up, there were certain truths in my life. Gravity pulls things down. I before E except after C. Thomas Edison invented the light bulb. Blacks were treated as second class citizens before the 60's (and later.) The last 2 are history, yet are still "fact." Or are they? There is now coming to light "official and irrefutable documentation" that Edison did not invent half of what I have learned he invented. How is this possible? How is it that these documents can disappear until the people who could possibly refute it are long dead? Plus, if you watch movies and television, they show blacks being treated as full equals in the 20's 30's 40's etc. in an ever increasing amount. Most would tell me "shut up, it's just Hollywood," but it IS a re-write of history. Our children are growing up with these images and thinking WOW, all men have been treated equally throughout history, that's cool! Well, it WOULD be cool if it was true. But it's not.



This is how history gets re-written, through "previously undiscovered" documentation and depictions on the media. If you cannot see the problem with this changing/whitewashing of history, then you have forgotten the credo of "historians." Those who do not study the mistakes of the past are doomed to repeat them. I am afraid that some day (and it may be long after I am dead) we will be in a society where one race/creed/color/religious group is fettered and subjugated to another right here in the good ol' USA, because it "never happened before" and no-one sees the signs that it's happening again. It is my belief and hope that we remember what has been done in the past accurately, yet do not call the the descendants of said history to pay for the errors of their forefathers. Even if history DOES get re-written (and it will again and again) let's not hold one responsible for the actions of his neighbor's uncle's step-daughter-in-law's parakeet.



Peace up



Charles



Gott spielt nicht verful mit dem Universum.

Muslim Mosque Makes Many Miserable

OK, I am going to start expecting y'all to weigh in on my posts, so that we can have a good argument. I'm sure that we have both sides of every fence that reads mine (and if not, I know 3 people that can always argue opposite of anything). I am purposefully NOT stating anything on the "other side" so as to make a valid argument.



Here goes.



In New York, there is a building, 1 block from Ground Zero, that Muslims want to turn in to a mosque. There are several people who do NOT want this to happen. They are right. It is too close to Ground Zero and is an insult to the memory of those who died on 9/11.



Those that want to construct this mosque have no sense of propriety. This seems almost like an invasion: Islam attacks and destroys our buildings, replacing them with their own. Now, I am sure this is not the case, but the implications are too close to that appearance. Can't the Muslims see this? Don't they realize how the families of the victims must feel?



I know that it is from a different faction of Islam (which brings to mind other arguments not mentioned here) that attacked us and that the claim is that Islam is a peaceful religion, but past events and actions indicate an opposition that this claim. Now, it seems they want a mosque to celebrate their victory. Can't they choose a different location for their religious site? They claim it's not a religious site, it's an "education" site. Yeah, right. A Christian education center promotes Christianity, we all know this. No religion builds an education center that's NOT designed to promote and teach about their religion.

It seems to me that after the victims' families complained about the mosque, they would have had enough empathy to say "OK, maybe we are putting it too close. But all they can say is "We need it here because . . ." Why? Why is it so vital that they can't put it someplace else? How many Muslims are living that close to Ground Zero that they need it there? Many people travel a long distance to get to church and even longer to get to (place religion here) learning centers. Just pick a different place. This isn't religious persecution, it's emotional. It's more of a "We don't want you rubbing our noses in it." Whether it is intended or not, that is the way it seems.

So, in conclusion, I feel that the Islam learning center should not be built where it is proposed, not matter what the President says (which adds to the claims that he is secretly a Muslim).

Peace up

Charles

Gott spielt nich verful mit dem Universum. A.E.

Democratic Society vs State.

OK, here's a tricky topic for discussion. In California (again) they are fighting over the gay-marriage thing. Now here's the problem I see and it's becoming an argument topic in my house. It's the fact that the courts can overrule a lawfully elected piece of legislation.

On the one hand: (My argument) This country was founded on the principle (as everyone knows) of rule of the people, by the people and for the people. Since it came from a time in Europe when the common man had no say in the laws and stipends in the country they were living in, Our for-fathers decided that the people could and should help to decide what was best for behaviour. This, of course, created the democratic republic that we now . . . enjoy?

On the other hand: (My wife's argument) This rule of the people at the time was for white, landowners only. A court over ruled that decision giving first, all white men, then black men and then women the right to vote. The court (read state) has the right and obligation to decide what is best for the country in situations where personal rights are involved, particularly because of the "majority rules" situation.

By the first rule, majority decides which is proper. In the California case, the majority decided that gay-marriage is not to be. The majority of the population, in a legally held ballot, decided this. Another case is the situation in New York City concerning the construction of a mosque near ground zero: The majority says NO.

By the second case, because the majority voted negative (in both issues) the personal freedoms of those who believe in the affirmative are being neglected. That, because they are a minority, they have no chance of getting their decisions through and this is Constitutionally unfair.

OK, My argument (I'm sure Loretta will weigh in) is that by letting the courts decide what is legal or not, we are putting the power in the government into the hands of the state. In an admittedly slippery slope situation, this COULD set the precedent for the state to take over, nudging the common man out, leading to a dictatorial state. Some high mucky-muck (like an elected president) could get it into his head and start to dictate what we are to do, say, or even think. OK, not what to think. But the POTENTIAL is there, if we decide to let the state overrule the wants and needs of the majority. We could also have some minority group, such as the KKK, use the precedents (that are already out there, by-the-bye) to get the courts (a minority themselves that have been known to be controlled) to pass certain . . . resolutions, to protect THEIR interests. This latter example is not such a slippery slope as the former.

IF we are to allow the courts to overrule the decisions of the majority, then what is the purpose of having a democratic society. The minority can now begin to rule, pleading rights violations. If that is the case, there is no longer any need to put anything up to a vote. We might as well have our judges decide who joins them on the bench, what laws are what, and who leads this nation.

Time to weigh in, folks.