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.
Wednesday, September 8, 2010
Wednesday, September 1, 2010
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.
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.
Thursday, August 19, 2010
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.
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.
Tuesday, August 17, 2010
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.
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.
Monday, August 16, 2010
Preposterous Police Pursuits Pose Peculiar Problems
While watching the news today, I saw yet another California police chase, LA of course.
I think that the best way to plan a bank job in CA is to have someone whose only job is to get the police to chase them. If they keep it going more than 5 minutes (and they don't even have to go that fast, they will have half the police force after them, leaving the bank unattended. This is because California has no problem squandering their resources. Yet they dare to call the rest of the US wastrels.
In this particular chase, a pickup was being chased, at high speed, down I10. In the end I counted 3 choppers and 24+ cars. WHAT!!!! The pickup had a flat tire and eventually stopped. Then started again. Then stopped, the driver got out and backed halfway to the police. The walked (I mean casually walked) back to the pickup, got in and started off again. Apparently 24+ police officers cannot keep 1 man from getting into a damaged car.
I get disgusted whenever I see these chases and am reminded, once again, why I will not live in CA. The CA police are so deficient in their jobs that they need 4 times the normal amount of people to do any particular job. I cannot understand why they could not pull some units in FRONT of the car and block it from continuing on. These officers should be ashamed of themselves.
Then again, it IS California. This is the state that has seen some of the some of most ridiculous things ever. The movies as example. one out of every 20 are good. Not a good sign of intelligence. Then there's the OJ trial. I hold that OJ isn't guilty because he was not proven so, that goes with the rules. But the prosecution SHOULD have been able to prove his guilt, except the fact that they are too inept.
Now, I know that it is probably like this because its "what the people want," but that is the stupid, "activist" people. The ones who try to change the US into a "kinder, gentler nation." Instead, we're changing it to a weaker, dumber nation.
So, I don't want to see any more police chases in LA, unless it's in a movie, where the cops are all gung-ho shoot-em-up, take-no-prisoner cops that actually get things done. The cops in the movies are more effective than the real cops in the very city the movies are filmed, go figure.
Peace up
Charles
Gott spielt nicht verful mit dem Universum. A.E.
I think that the best way to plan a bank job in CA is to have someone whose only job is to get the police to chase them. If they keep it going more than 5 minutes (and they don't even have to go that fast, they will have half the police force after them, leaving the bank unattended. This is because California has no problem squandering their resources. Yet they dare to call the rest of the US wastrels.
In this particular chase, a pickup was being chased, at high speed, down I10. In the end I counted 3 choppers and 24+ cars. WHAT!!!! The pickup had a flat tire and eventually stopped. Then started again. Then stopped, the driver got out and backed halfway to the police. The walked (I mean casually walked) back to the pickup, got in and started off again. Apparently 24+ police officers cannot keep 1 man from getting into a damaged car.
I get disgusted whenever I see these chases and am reminded, once again, why I will not live in CA. The CA police are so deficient in their jobs that they need 4 times the normal amount of people to do any particular job. I cannot understand why they could not pull some units in FRONT of the car and block it from continuing on. These officers should be ashamed of themselves.
Then again, it IS California. This is the state that has seen some of the some of most ridiculous things ever. The movies as example. one out of every 20 are good. Not a good sign of intelligence. Then there's the OJ trial. I hold that OJ isn't guilty because he was not proven so, that goes with the rules. But the prosecution SHOULD have been able to prove his guilt, except the fact that they are too inept.
Now, I know that it is probably like this because its "what the people want," but that is the stupid, "activist" people. The ones who try to change the US into a "kinder, gentler nation." Instead, we're changing it to a weaker, dumber nation.
So, I don't want to see any more police chases in LA, unless it's in a movie, where the cops are all gung-ho shoot-em-up, take-no-prisoner cops that actually get things done. The cops in the movies are more effective than the real cops in the very city the movies are filmed, go figure.
Peace up
Charles
Gott spielt nicht verful mit dem Universum. A.E.
Thursday, August 5, 2010
Crazy Crickets Crawl Creepily
OK, check it. I know I'm a grown man and should just suck it up, but I hate crickets. In my home, I kill or release all the bugs necessary into the wild, except crickets. I don't like them. I don't like looking at them, thinking about them, or eating them when they're covered in chocolate (yes, even in chocolate), I DON'T LIKE CRICKETS.
It started when I was young and staying at my sisters. My brother Ken and I were in a bedroom that was converted from a garage and there was a 1 inch gap between the floor and the door. Then one night, as we're getting ready for bed, thousands of crickets came pouring through the crack. It was like a horror movie come to life. The crickets were swarming and we were right in their way.
Yes, that is the nature of crickets and they are, relatively, harmless. Crickets are said to bring good luck and their chirping, to most people, is soothing. I don't mind the chirping, except when I'm trying to get to sleep and there are so many it sounds like the are hooked up to a 5 GW amp and pumped straight into my brain, HHREEK HHREEK HREEK. Other than that, when they are outside in their natural element, fine.
But let's face it, crickets in the house are just creepy. They crawl through the drain and pop up in your tub, sink and even toilet (I swear). And they jump, I mean they JUMP. You never know when a cricket is going to lift his massively mutant legs, press them against the floor and jump straight into your mouth. I know that when I die, it's going to be because a mutant Kentucky cricket (and those in Kentucky are mutant, more of this later) is going to jump into my mouth while I'm asleep and strangle me.
Even my cats don't like crickets. At first, the youngest one played with them. It was funny (and comforting knowing the little bug was gonna die) watching her chase, catch, lose, chase rinse and repeat the cricket, but today, there was a cricket in the tub, I put her there and another cricket assaulted her. She ran. I mean, this 7 pound pile of fluffy feline jumped and ran from a 1 oz. cricket. SEE!?! Even she knew that crickets are creepy. AND they were waiting in ambush.
Now, there are lots of types of crickets. There are the cute little things you see on TV that they have in California (it was California crickets when I was young, see above) but there you only see them like, one at at time because they're too creepy in a group. Then there's the eastern cricket (lighter color and overall smaller).
Then there's the Mutant Kentucky Cricket. These things are just freaky. Not only are they smart, they hide and wait until your poor cat or dog goes wandering by and then they attack him like some inner city street gang ("OK, here come da cat, you and legs jump from the left and me and legs [all crickets are known as Legs] gonna jump from the right") but they figure out how to get into your house/apartment when you have bug protection up. They also know just where to be to hit you with the ultimate psychological effect, maybe they're on the ceiling for when you yawn, etc. I think they learn this from cockroaches. They are also built differently from other chrickets. They have these HUGOGIANTAMOUNGOUS rear legs so they can jump across the holler. They probably developed this as a form of selective breeding by the Hatfields to get the McCoys in their sleep (see above) or something.
Also, crickets walk weird. They have this walk that's like left front foot, right front foot, left middle foot, right middle foot kick kick. What are they, in a dance routine? I mean, couldn't God have thought of a better way for them to get around?
In conclusion, I may have made some allusions to this, but I don't like crickets. I'm moving to Arizona, where the worst I have to deal with is scorpions in my shoes.
Ta
Charles
Gott spielt nicht verful mit dem Universum. A.E.
It started when I was young and staying at my sisters. My brother Ken and I were in a bedroom that was converted from a garage and there was a 1 inch gap between the floor and the door. Then one night, as we're getting ready for bed, thousands of crickets came pouring through the crack. It was like a horror movie come to life. The crickets were swarming and we were right in their way.
Yes, that is the nature of crickets and they are, relatively, harmless. Crickets are said to bring good luck and their chirping, to most people, is soothing. I don't mind the chirping, except when I'm trying to get to sleep and there are so many it sounds like the are hooked up to a 5 GW amp and pumped straight into my brain, HHREEK HHREEK HREEK. Other than that, when they are outside in their natural element, fine.
But let's face it, crickets in the house are just creepy. They crawl through the drain and pop up in your tub, sink and even toilet (I swear). And they jump, I mean they JUMP. You never know when a cricket is going to lift his massively mutant legs, press them against the floor and jump straight into your mouth. I know that when I die, it's going to be because a mutant Kentucky cricket (and those in Kentucky are mutant, more of this later) is going to jump into my mouth while I'm asleep and strangle me.
Even my cats don't like crickets. At first, the youngest one played with them. It was funny (and comforting knowing the little bug was gonna die) watching her chase, catch, lose, chase rinse and repeat the cricket, but today, there was a cricket in the tub, I put her there and another cricket assaulted her. She ran. I mean, this 7 pound pile of fluffy feline jumped and ran from a 1 oz. cricket. SEE!?! Even she knew that crickets are creepy. AND they were waiting in ambush.
Now, there are lots of types of crickets. There are the cute little things you see on TV that they have in California (it was California crickets when I was young, see above) but there you only see them like, one at at time because they're too creepy in a group. Then there's the eastern cricket (lighter color and overall smaller).
Then there's the Mutant Kentucky Cricket. These things are just freaky. Not only are they smart, they hide and wait until your poor cat or dog goes wandering by and then they attack him like some inner city street gang ("OK, here come da cat, you and legs jump from the left and me and legs [all crickets are known as Legs] gonna jump from the right") but they figure out how to get into your house/apartment when you have bug protection up. They also know just where to be to hit you with the ultimate psychological effect, maybe they're on the ceiling for when you yawn, etc. I think they learn this from cockroaches. They are also built differently from other chrickets. They have these HUGOGIANTAMOUNGOUS rear legs so they can jump across the holler. They probably developed this as a form of selective breeding by the Hatfields to get the McCoys in their sleep (see above) or something.
Also, crickets walk weird. They have this walk that's like left front foot, right front foot, left middle foot, right middle foot kick kick. What are they, in a dance routine? I mean, couldn't God have thought of a better way for them to get around?
In conclusion, I may have made some allusions to this, but I don't like crickets. I'm moving to Arizona, where the worst I have to deal with is scorpions in my shoes.
Ta
Charles
Gott spielt nicht verful mit dem Universum. A.E.
Thursday, July 15, 2010
America is Sick and Dying
I know what you are saying (because I know all three of you). One is thinking "Woahh, now that's going too far," while the other is thinking "WHAT?!?! No alteration???" The third is thinking "What, no chocolate? I'm going back to bed."
Let me address the second first. I couldn't think of an alteration.
As to the former, hear me out.
Since the birth of this nation, we have held that the biggest concept is freedom and security. Freedom of speech, religion, press, etc. This nation was founded on those very principles.
Now, we seem to have lost many of those sacred rights and that, along with some other points, have led to a nation that is not as strong as it was as recently as the 1940's. I will admit that my history may be off a little bit. Our government, and its citizens, have slowly stripped away our rights.
For Example: During the recent Bush administration, the President complained about a comment an entertainer made (although the company the entertainer denied it, I believe this is true) and the man lost his job. During the same administration, every American was monitored. Mentions of terrorism, disaffection or even sites visited on the web were tagged for "closer scrutiny." In the interest of security (we were told), the government monitored us for potential seditious activities.
But that's not all. We can not blame the government for all our woes and ailments. After all, WE are the government. There is more in the private sector that is wrong than can ever be accounted for by blaming the government. There is still: Rampant Racism (and anyone who thinks it's just the crackers is . . . well . . . crackers.), hatred, political and/or religious intolerance, paranoia and general apathy. If you will bear with me, I will address each issue.
Racism, it's not just for whites anymore, and never has been. I myself have encountered a great deal of racism in my life. There are blacks (or African Americans or whatever they prefer to be called this decade ((OIIYY that sounds racist))) who hate anyone who isn't black and blacks who hate blacks, there are Hispanics who hate anyone who isn't Hispanic, likewise with Asian and etc. ad nausea. This is strictly divided along race lines. They don't have (or need) a reason for their hatred, there are ample excuses though. Racism breaks away the very bond that should hold this country together. After all, we all come from somewhere that once hated the very neighboring country that our neighbor (or spouse or best friend) came from, but we got over that, because we are all Americans. That's the way I like to look at it (contrary to the appearance of the above statement), that we are all Americans. Period.
Hatred. This is more than hatred on the side of race. It's a hatred of anything that is different. A hatred for someone who makes more money than you or a hatred of someone who believes differently from you. This is a catch all topic.
Intolerance, Political, Religious or otherwise. This is a BIG problem. This one should probably have come first. There are those out there (and I know some personally) that believe that there political/religious beliefs are the only ones worth having. Break it down
Political: Bush was a great president because he was Republican. Obama is trying to take over the US. You don't believe me, I'll spout threats of what WILL come. OR Bush was trying to take over the world and Obama is trying to save it. He is a Saint and deserves deification. Let's get it straight. Bush had his good points and his bad, so does Obama. Dis Obama deserve the Nobel Peace Prize, NO, he hadn't been in long enough to make a difference, but that's judged by a bunch of intellectual idiots. No one can take over the US without our help.
Religious: All the Muslims are evil. They believe is killing everyone who isn't Muslim. I, p[personally, try not to believe that. I have not studied Islam and neither have 99.9% of those who disbelieve it. I do still want a picture of Muhammad to post and I believe the Muslims should respect my feelings that he is not an icon to me and I do not have to follow their religious beliefs.
Paranoia: This goes with the belief that Obama is trying to take over the world. We harbor these fears of the government and tell our children to believe them. We tell our daughters that they are not safe being alone in their house/apartment alone, "they WILL be raped!!!" I have seen the commercial that talks about signal strength EVERYWHERE. It follows a woman through the commercial everywhere EXCEPT in the parking garage. Then she amazingly turns in to a large black man. WHAT???? Or all the commercials for security systems that have girls have their doors busted in, get real. This kind of paranoia leads to the personal isolationism we have throughout our country, which has lead to a fractured citizenry.
Apathy: This is the nail in the coffin. We have all the problems above, but it is our apathy that binds them all together. "I'm not gonna do anything to change this because . . ." Give me a break people. Get out there and vote or be active in politics. Of course, being active is not MY job, it's YOURS. I'm just gonna sit here and write blogs for you to read.
Peace up, Charles
Gott speilt nicht verful mit dem Universum. A.E.
Let me address the second first. I couldn't think of an alteration.
As to the former, hear me out.
Since the birth of this nation, we have held that the biggest concept is freedom and security. Freedom of speech, religion, press, etc. This nation was founded on those very principles.
Now, we seem to have lost many of those sacred rights and that, along with some other points, have led to a nation that is not as strong as it was as recently as the 1940's. I will admit that my history may be off a little bit. Our government, and its citizens, have slowly stripped away our rights.
For Example: During the recent Bush administration, the President complained about a comment an entertainer made (although the company the entertainer denied it, I believe this is true) and the man lost his job. During the same administration, every American was monitored. Mentions of terrorism, disaffection or even sites visited on the web were tagged for "closer scrutiny." In the interest of security (we were told), the government monitored us for potential seditious activities.
But that's not all. We can not blame the government for all our woes and ailments. After all, WE are the government. There is more in the private sector that is wrong than can ever be accounted for by blaming the government. There is still: Rampant Racism (and anyone who thinks it's just the crackers is . . . well . . . crackers.), hatred, political and/or religious intolerance, paranoia and general apathy. If you will bear with me, I will address each issue.
Racism, it's not just for whites anymore, and never has been. I myself have encountered a great deal of racism in my life. There are blacks (or African Americans or whatever they prefer to be called this decade ((OIIYY that sounds racist))) who hate anyone who isn't black and blacks who hate blacks, there are Hispanics who hate anyone who isn't Hispanic, likewise with Asian and etc. ad nausea. This is strictly divided along race lines. They don't have (or need) a reason for their hatred, there are ample excuses though. Racism breaks away the very bond that should hold this country together. After all, we all come from somewhere that once hated the very neighboring country that our neighbor (or spouse or best friend) came from, but we got over that, because we are all Americans. That's the way I like to look at it (contrary to the appearance of the above statement), that we are all Americans. Period.
Hatred. This is more than hatred on the side of race. It's a hatred of anything that is different. A hatred for someone who makes more money than you or a hatred of someone who believes differently from you. This is a catch all topic.
Intolerance, Political, Religious or otherwise. This is a BIG problem. This one should probably have come first. There are those out there (and I know some personally) that believe that there political/religious beliefs are the only ones worth having. Break it down
Political: Bush was a great president because he was Republican. Obama is trying to take over the US. You don't believe me, I'll spout threats of what WILL come. OR Bush was trying to take over the world and Obama is trying to save it. He is a Saint and deserves deification. Let's get it straight. Bush had his good points and his bad, so does Obama. Dis Obama deserve the Nobel Peace Prize, NO, he hadn't been in long enough to make a difference, but that's judged by a bunch of intellectual idiots. No one can take over the US without our help.
Religious: All the Muslims are evil. They believe is killing everyone who isn't Muslim. I, p[personally, try not to believe that. I have not studied Islam and neither have 99.9% of those who disbelieve it. I do still want a picture of Muhammad to post and I believe the Muslims should respect my feelings that he is not an icon to me and I do not have to follow their religious beliefs.
Paranoia: This goes with the belief that Obama is trying to take over the world. We harbor these fears of the government and tell our children to believe them. We tell our daughters that they are not safe being alone in their house/apartment alone, "they WILL be raped!!!" I have seen the commercial that talks about signal strength EVERYWHERE. It follows a woman through the commercial everywhere EXCEPT in the parking garage. Then she amazingly turns in to a large black man. WHAT???? Or all the commercials for security systems that have girls have their doors busted in, get real. This kind of paranoia leads to the personal isolationism we have throughout our country, which has lead to a fractured citizenry.
Apathy: This is the nail in the coffin. We have all the problems above, but it is our apathy that binds them all together. "I'm not gonna do anything to change this because . . ." Give me a break people. Get out there and vote or be active in politics. Of course, being active is not MY job, it's YOURS. I'm just gonna sit here and write blogs for you to read.
Peace up, Charles
Gott speilt nicht verful mit dem Universum. A.E.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
