I recently finished Barbara Tuchman's The Guns of August, a book about the opening of World War I, and several years ago I also read her A Distant Mirror: The Calamitous Fourteenth Century. They're both extremely well-written and researched, but it wasn't until I read the introduction to The Guns of August did I realize she wasn't a professional historian; she was originally a journalist but at the time of these books she was a housewife.

Now, I could tell these books were meant for popular consumption because of the writing style — historians like to cut the bullshit and just get to the point, which ultimately results in very dry works — but I was under the impression that she was a professor producing for the masses, like Bart Ehrman's books on Christianity or David McCullough's biographies. She wasn't. She was a smart lady who liked a topic and decided to produce a book about it.

And I didn't realize it, but the introduction told me she experienced a backlash from the academic community. Today she's viewed as a significant authority — she came to my attention thanks to my own professor — so it's difficult for me to imagine how she could be rejected. I'll admit there are times I've read popular history and think it's not meant for me, but that's because I can sense whilst reading it the person isn't an expert and is just rehashing what the actual experts say. Tuchman used primary sources. She wasn't reiterating other great WWI scholars said.

I think there's something to be said for college degrees because it guarantees a standard when you're hiring someone. But simultaneously I think people forget that just because you don't have a college degree doesn't mean you're incapable of what someone with a college degree does. You can argue that history is the easier subject because that just involves reading books, but I'd counter that with math it's just solving equations or Einstein came up with his greatest theories just sitting around and having "thought experiments."

I think instead of people becoming defensive, like a biologist writing something about chemistry and chemists becoming all snooty about it, people should just appreciate what you see. Tuchman's work is definitely meant for the educated layman, no doubt about that. But that doesn't mean it's a piece of crap. I can think of a lot of popular books that are fucking amazing. If I were a professor, I'd definitely recommend Diarmaid MacCulloch's A History of Christianity or Jeffrey Rosen's The Supreme Court. And Tuchman knew her position. In fact, she reveled in it. She felt that academics lost touch with what writing is and only produced boring works that were meant for their closed group of people. If scholars were criticizing her for not being like them, then she must be doing something right.

Of course, I have to look at today's world and see if I'm biased. For example, I'm faced with someone like David Barton, who says he's a constitutional historian. His background is not in history but rather religious education (aka he's a minister). And he's the forefront of many conservative arguments against the idea of separation of church and state. Right now he's receiving venom from scholars who say he's basically a revisionist and even his publisher withdrew his book about Jefferson because of lack of concrete evidence.

I'm trying to figure out if this is the latest Tuchman. My background in American history is poor at best, so I can't look at his books and judge the veracity. Maybe he is practicing revisionist history. But then again, who isn't? Historiography proves every generation sees their history differently. Again, maybe this guy is really just talking bullshit. To be honest I've never read anything of his so I can't even critique his style. But just because he hasn't gone through the schools I'm not gonna disavow him. Because I saw from Tuchman something beautiful, and I hope someone else can do the same.

I downloaded the artbook for Rune Factory 3 recently and realized I had no idea who any of these people are. This sheep kept on popping up in multiple pictures and it took me about ten minutes to vaguely recall the protagonist transformed into it. But that's as much as I could remember from that game.

Similarly in World Destruction, I only can name three of the characters and just the skeleton of the plot.

This is really disturbing because I've spent hours on each of those games. I have to wonder whether the games are just that forgettable or if there's something wrong with me. I'm gonna say the latter because although Rune Factory is the same plot each time, World Destruction was unique and left a lasting impression on me. Or so I thought.

Eleven years ago shortly after the theatrical version of The Fellowship of the Ring was released (holy fuck, has it been that long?), I decided to finally sit down and read the books. I actually had bought them in the mid-90s after a friend breathlessly recommended them but never opened them; I didn't even know what they were about until the movie came out. I was immediately disappointed and never got farther than Frodo reaching Rivendell before I couldn't take it anymore and put it down.

A few days ago I decided to try again, figuring I'm more mature now and have read a shit ton of dryer material without giving up. And... yeah. I can do this. It's better than I remembered although I still prefer the movies. It's slower, that's probably why I couldn't handle it. Like, think about how the movie portrayed it: How long do you think it was between Bilbo's birthday party and Gandalf's return to warn Frodo about the realities of the Ring? The impression I got from the movie was a few months, maybe a year max. It's seventeen years in the book when Frodo turns fifty. And how long do you think it took for Frodo to leave after he got this news? In the movie he left that night with the Black Riders on his trail immediately. In the book it's several months as he plans for his trip: selling Bag End, buying a new house to explain his sudden disappearance, getting rid of all of his belongings. There's other instances like Arwen didn't save Frodo from the Riders and it actually took fourteen days after he got stabbed to reach Rivendell. I could go on.

There's one omission that fascinates me now. Tom fucking Bombadil. Holy shit. I vaguely remembered him from my first venture in 2002 as a singing fool, which he is. But oh my god, what the fuck. Okay, the movies completely ignore him. If you can recall, Frodo is being chased by the Black Riders at night, but he jumps on a boat and manages to thwart them. The next scene all four Hobbits are arriving at the gates of Bree and head to the inn where they meet Strider. In the book there's like three chapters in between. Because Frodo planned for his departure, he has time to think about his plan of action when he realizes these crazy fuckers in black cloaks are after him. He decides to cut through the Old Forest to get to Bree because staying on the road is dangerous. Instead they get attacked by the trees and are nearly killed by horrible monsters called "barrow wights" before they making their way through. But most importantly, they meet Tom Bombadil, who is the master of these woods.

This guy just blew my mind. He doesn't give a shit about anything. If you think about a jolly guy who's completely at peace with himself and the world, that's him. He's just walking around, singing, and having a good time even when there's fucking horrible monsters running around. He's also married to a woman who's the "daughter of the river," whatever that means. But I knew there was some crazy shit about him when Frodo gave him the Ring for a moment and he put it on. First off, he didn't disappear. Secondly, it didn't affect him whatsoever. No temptation, nothing. It had no power over him.

Then we find out later he's probably the oldest person in Middle Earth and may possibly be a god. He made the boundaries of the Old Forest his home, and whilst inside there he pretty much can do whatever the fuck he wants. In fact, he's so powerful that in the Council of Elrond where they decide to take the Ring to Mordor (if you can recall it's the scene where we're introduced to Legolas, Gimli, and Boromir), that Elrond initially suggests just giving it to Bombadil because he's capable of protecting it. Gandalf shoots that idea down because Bombadil would just kinda forget about how important this is because he's indifferent to the outside world.

What amazes about this guy is he fucking didn't do anything for the story! He was cut from the movies and they didn't suffer for it! The oldest and one of the most powerful people in Middle Earth was completely removed and it made no impact! What the hell is he? Why is he there? It's the fucking craziest thing I've read in this damned book. Why did Tolkien make this incredible person who does absolutely nothing?

Because Harlan is in San Francisco and far away from the New York Jewish community, we thought he'd appreciate a package of lox and bagel for Christmas. It turns out he also sent us a package of lox an bagel for Christmas from the same exact company. I got a panicked call from mom saying, "We just got a packed filled with lox and bagel! Are you certain you wrote the right address?!"

After the fire we were bereft of cutlery and dishes, but thankfully my father stored some of his mother's old plates and bowls in the garage. Unfortunately they have gold inlaid all over them, which makes them completely useless for microwave purposes. I know exactly what kind of plates and bowls mom and dad want for the house, but they're holding off until we move. Until then I have to warm my spaghetti on the stove. In fact, I have no idea why the hell we even have a microwave.

The interesting part about reading ancient works is they don't use the same standards we do today. In fact, they don't really have standards. For example, Herodotus intended the topic of his book to be the Greco-Persian Wars, but ultimately he just wrote about whatever the fuck he wanted and even committed a large portion to Egypt. If anyone wrote like that nowadays, they'd be completely slammed for straying from the point or being loquacious.

Philosophy is like that too. The format of philosophical works change depending on the era. A great example is Thomas Aquinas' Summa Theologica. He came out of the scholastic movement, which heavily depends upon debate. The entire work is something like this:

Question (e.g. Is God everywhere?)
-Negative answer 1 (e.g. "God isn't everywhere because...")
-Negative answer 2 (e.g. "He also isn't everywhere for this reason too...")
-Negative answer 3 (e.g. "This is also a good reason why he isn't everywhere...")
-Quote from the Bible or some church father that proves the positive answer
-Long explanation as to why the positive answer must be right
-Reply to negative answer 1 (e.g. "Your argument is unsound because...")
-Reply to negative answer 2 (e.g. "This too is wrong because...")
-Reply to negative answer 3 (e.g. "Your reasoning is false because...")

And that's how they debated in the schools, so he wrote from what he knew. Plato also wrote from what he knew, and his form is called the dialectic method that was espoused by Socrates. The idea is two or more people with opposing points of view muddle their way through reasoned arguments to finally reach the truth of the matter. In theory it sounds great, but when you say the word "dialogue," you're expecting two participants. Most of Plato's works involving Socrates is something like this:

Socrates: "Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. Don't you think so?"
Some dude: "Yes, I think so."
Socrates: "Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. Wouldn't you agree?"
Some dude: "Most certainly."
Socrates: "Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. Isn't that true?"
Some dude: "I couldn't have phrased it better myself."

That's not a dialogue. That's just Socrates talking and the dude is a sycophant. Admittedly the Socratic method is starting off by asking the dude his opinion... only to shoot him down and completely trample over him for the rest of the work. I know Plato loved Socrates and all, but did you even fucking try. It's me listening to a speech. And whilst I know because this is Plato's work so it'll be Plato's opinions, then you just have to ask why bother with the dialogue at all and just write down your opinions like Aristotle did?

I apologize deeply for my oversight. Please forgive me.

And when we're not talking about inane nonsense, we talk about shit like this:

[21:53:03] Dun 4 Hire: Yo.
[21:53:15] gattsu456: Tse
[21:53:18] gattsu456: Yo.
[21:53:37] gattsu456: What up.
[21:55:05] Dun 4 Hire: Guessing I interrupted another IM.
[21:55:13] gattsu456: Nah.
[21:55:28] gattsu456: Unless I was typing "Goatse" to someone.
[21:55:33] Dun 4 Hire: OH MY GOD
[21:55:36] gattsu456: I just didn't have it switched to Dvorak.
[21:55:41] Dun 4 Hire: I WAS LITERALLY GOING TO TYPE, "THAT ONLY REMINDED ME OF GOATSE."
[21:55:51] Dun 4 Hire: LITERALLY MY HANDS WERE ABOUT TO TYPE THAT SHIT.
[21:55:53] gattsu456: WHAT THE FUCK IS WRONG WITH US?
[21:56:19] Dun 4 Hire: THREE FUCKING LETTERS.
[21:56:22] Dun 4 Hire: AND IMMEDIATELY WE THINK OF THAT.
[21:56:29] gattsu456: THREE FUCKING LETTERS.
[21:57:04] Dun 4 Hire: WE ARE THE WORST TYPE OF PEOPLE.

GLITTER

Fuck that shit. Yeah, it looks pretty and all, but when I have to handle it myself I suddenly find myself looking like a dollar hooker with it smeared all over my body. And it seems to be the in thing because now I'm scouring around for Christmas presents and glitter is all over that shit. Before most of our ornaments were actually made of wood or glass. Glass balls are still around... if they're painted with glitter. And that's what I'm getting because it's what I'm finding over and over at stores. Oh, don't get me wrong; these ornaments look absolutely gorgeous. It's just all over my hands and body and clothing and hair... I'm only guessing what'll happen when we put them into storage. We open the box next year and see a layer of glitter at the bottom whilst the ornaments themselves are completely bare.

Seriously though, why the hell is it so difficult to find wood ornaments?

The Middle East recently was covered with a blanket of snow in the past few days, the first it's seen in over a century. And it seems like they're still trying to figure out how this works:

So in case you were wondering what it's like when Moham and I get together, it's just stupid:

[14:28:35] gattsu456: What up, son.
[14:46:26] Dun 4 Hire: What's good.
[14:47:14] gattsu456: What's hood?
[14:49:50] Dun 4 Hire: What's ... should?
[14:50:02] gattsu456: I'm shouldn't.
[14:50:04] gattsu456: What about you?
[14:50:37] Dun 4 Hire: I've should.
[15:19:33] gattsu456: Holy shit.
[15:19:37] gattsu456: That is pretty should.
[15:19:42] gattsu456: Really should, I should say.
[15:19:56] Dun 4 Hire: I'm not certain if I should should so much though.
[15:20:11] gattsu456: The question remains: can one should too much?
[15:20:21] gattsu456: And if so, should they?
[16:08:30] Dun 4 Hire: I think people may should as they wish, but whether they should is another issue.

[13:51:32] gattsu456: You should?
[13:51:48] gattsu456: 'Cause I'm fucking should.
[13:51:57] Dun 4 Hire: I'm so fucking should, I'm even coul.
[13:51:58] Dun 4 Hire: d
[13:55:21] gattsu456: I don't know if either of us are would though.
[13:55:31] gattsu456: Would you be would?
[13:58:02] Dun 4 Hire: I would be, but I don't think I could would that much would.
[13:58:35] gattsu456: Yeah, to would too much would remove any need to be could, wouldn't you say?
[14:01:11] Dun 4 Hire: I would. I would so much that I would should.
[14:03:51] gattsu456: Such amounts of would would definitely could the world over twice..

Not even joking, we could go on for hours with this nonsense.

I watched Alex play and finish Sleeping Dogs, which is about an undercover cop in Hong Kong, taking down the Triads. Really, if you've played GTA you know basically what this game is about except now they've added extra features of drug busts or hunting prostitution rings. The melee fighting is definitely better with environmental kills like throwing a person's face into a chainsaw that just happens to be lying around. There's actually a trophy for beating a man to death with a fish.

Which makes you wonder what the fuck is wrong with Hong Kong. Seriously, this cop literally kills hundreds of people, blows up whole buildings, launches grenades into the streets, and countless other crimes. And this is all just to take down the leadership of one gang. There's at least one other Triad group running around Hong Kong, and god knows what he'd do to finish that one off. My question is this: If you're willing to let this guy run wild through the streets for the sake of ending crime, what the FUCK was the situation before he arrived? There's no way it was worse than this. Is it really worth it? The town is now a war zone, and he definitely lit a couple of the matches that set this bomb off.

Still, at the end of the day it was fun to watch, especially whenever Alex fucked up his driving and I could see his character get launched forty feet into the air through the front window of his car and the body bounce along the ground like a ball. And really, isn't shit like this the reason why we started playing GTA to begin with?

I was in a shop recently and saw a kangaroo costume from Japan that we owned before the fire. I checked the tag and asked the owner what size F was. She replied it stood for Full, i.e. it can fit everyone.

Goddammit Japan. Stop using English words that make no sense. Why not take a page from our video games' book and say it's E for Everyone?

In the 1090s Emperor Alexius of Byzantium found his greatest enemy, the Turks, literally right across the river from him. Looking around for allies, he turned to the Christians in the west for help and appealed to Pope Urban II to ask the leaders under his pastoral care for assistance. The opening of the Crusades is in 1095 when Urban preached at the Council of Clermont and set in motion what would be a centuries-long process. Both he and Alexius were expecting a few leaders to head out with their trained knights, and many did: Duke Godfrey of Bouillon, Count Raymond of Toulouse, Count Stephen of Blois, Bohemond of Toranto...

However there was an offshoot that both Urban and Alexius didn't expect or wanted: the Peasants' Crusade. When word broke out about their Christian brethren fighting against the infidels, fervor overcame the people who wanted to break away from their miserable lives and believed they could find peace in the Holy Land. It as a mix of millenarianism, religious idealism, and ignorance. It ended with about a mass of 40,000 unorganized civilians who had no fucking idea where they were going, didn't know how to fight, had no weaponry to speak of, and with no proper leadership. When they appeared on Alexius' doorstep, he had no fucking clue how to deal a rowdy squabble who started stealing from his people for supplies. So he just shoved them all across the river and told them to wait there until the proper western leadership arrived. However they didn't listen to him and believing their faith would protect them attacked a Seljuk fort where they more or less were slaughtered.

I was reading a book about the crusades when I came across this line about the Peasants' Crusade: "On the whole their march was successful. It is eloquent of the good order which they maintained that their progress as far as Hungary was entirely without opposition and that the armies which followed them found no hostile feeling but instead were joined by many volunteers."^* My eyes popped out when I saw this. If there's anything I know about the Peasants' Crusade as they marched through Germany, it's this: They fucking slaughtered as many Jews as they could get their hands on along the way. The peasants were already in a zealous mindset with this march, and the movement allowed all of their bigotry to be unleashed on the Jewish population. There were forced conversions, theft of their property for supplies, and just plain murder and bloodshed. Not only did the author just completely skip over the massacres entirely, he painted a picture of an orderly march without much harassment of the general populace. Well, I guess technically he was right: The only people protesting these killings did it pro forma so there wasn't really a hostile feeling and yeah, lots of people joined in along the way to help out... killing people. The portrayal is so odd for me because there's no scholar today who would talk about the Peasant's Crusade without mentioning the Jews.

But then it occurred to me: This was written before 1933. The author Dana Munro was a famous medievalist who rose to prominence in the latter part of the nineteenth century and died in 1933. This book in particular was published posthumously in 1935. Because he lived before the Holocaust, because he was raised in a culture that was still pretty anti-Semitic, it's possible the atrocities of the Peasants' Crusade never really crossed his mind.

That's what we call "historiography" or the study of the study of history. A history of history if you will. It's interesting to see how historians themselves change viewpoints depending on their own society, what time period they lived, or what their own personal background was. Sensitivity to antisemitism definitely increased after the second World War, just as attention to racial tensions after the Civil Rights Movement or female subjugation after the Women's Rights Movement. George Armstrong Custer is an interesting example of this. Initially he was praised for his heroism, but as sympathy to the Native American plight arose people began to criticize him not only for his actions at Little Bighorn but also those during the Civil War and even just his personality. It fell to a low point during the Vietnam War when he was seen as a symbol of the Ugly American with no consideration for other cultures. But as Vietnam has slightly faded from our memory, his reputation has increased again.

Still, what the fuck man? Munro, there is no way you wrote the sentence "It is eloquent of the good order which they maintained." How the HELL did you think the Peasants' Crusade was good fucking order? Some of them were just following a donkey they thought was sacred and believed it was leading them to Jerusalem. There was no order to be found in that mess. Quite frankly, I'm impressed it even made it to Constantinople. You're a scholar; aren't you supposed to know this shit?

^* Dana Carleton Munro, The Kingdom of the Crusaders, (Port Washington, NY: Konnikat Press, 1935), 35.

My dad lives in dire fear of identity theft. It's a genuine concern we should all have, but his paranoia is to the point that I wonder if something happened to him in his youth. For example, dad always makes a point of logging out of the computer. That's fine, but I thought I could point out to him that he could save time because every time he closes the lid to the laptop it requires you to input the password a second time anyway. But he flipped out, saying what if someone broke into the house, went onto his computer, and stole all his information. Honestly? If someone's broken into your house, him playing around with your computer is the least of your worries. And because it's dad, he already makes a point of logging out of any problematic sites like Citibank anyway.

Or here's another example, which I find to be the most incredible. He becomes visibly upset whenever I throw away shipping boxes that have my name and address on it. I can't tell you how much time he's devoted to ripping off our names off of every package that lands on our doorstep. Even though I've explained to him on several occasions that you can find all of that information on the internet anyway and even in his youth his name and address was in the white pages, he doesn't give a shit.

So you can imagine my surprise when dad was totally cool with giving out my social security number. I lost my keys back in San Fran, and the super said he couldn't make a copy of the key to the building without permission from the landlord. The landlord required my ID... and social security number. What? ID I can understand, but what the fuck does he want my SSN for? But dad didn't even question it! Think about that. He's literally spent hours of his life scraping off addresses from packages, but it never occurred to him that it was really weird for a landlord to ask for a SSN. In fact he became upset when I questioned it and had to lie down for a while. I'm so confused by this situation. What the hell is the point of a paranoia if it doesn't warn you in actual useful situations? It's like having an unreasonable fear of knives and can't even enter a kitchen because the knives are on the counter, but when a person approaches you on the street and draws one, you don't think it's a good time to run. That's literally what's going on right now.

I hate sewing because it consumes so much time, but I love every second I do it. Now I know what a fucking meth addict is like. Well, without the "seeing the bugs under my skin" aspect.

Nowadays Christianity has several sects: Catholicism, Eastern Orthodox, Coptic, and Protestantism is broken into about a bajillion different sects, usually divided into those who believe in the Trinity (Lutherans, Episcopalians) and those who don't (Pentecostals, Jehovah's Witnesses). But even when I see the violence between these groups, to me they're more or less the same thing just with lightly different flavors. Why? Because I've studied early Christianity and I knew how freaky that shit could get before it was institutionalized.

In the early 300s Emperor Constantine assumed power over the Roman Empire and within a few decades turned Christianity from the reviled religion into one that was legally accepted and on the path to dominance. Divided peoples can unite when faced with a common enemy. America experienced it after the events of September 11th. But once Constantine removed Christianity's — the Roman state throwing their members to the lions — the variant beliefs suddenly came to the surface. They were always there, it's just most people were focusing on hiding and not dying to really care whether their neighbors were practicing the same blend of Christianity. Now that there was no distraction, what was ignored for over a century suddenly was in everyone's face. Constantine quickly realized the leaders of his favored religion were squabbling with one another and called a council to Nicaea in 325 to get everyone to agree and standardize the religion. He had mixed results, but it was the first step in creating the Christianity we know today by literally killing all the dissenters.

See, the problem is Jesus never wrote anything himself. The four gospels provide conflicting views about him, but in today's world where Christianity is established with a strong base this doesn't really matter. Whether Jesus said, "My God, My God, why have you forsaken me?" (Mt.27:36, Mk.15:34) or "Father, into your hands I commit my spirit" (Lk.23:46) isn't really important to us. But in early Christianity when people were faced with a hostile, dominant, pagan religion, they had to defend their beliefs. And when you do this, you have to face deep questions about your faith. Like, what is the exact relationship between Jesus and God? In John it implies a coequal relationship, but in Mark he's definitely the inferior one. And if Jesus is divine, doesn't that make Christianity a polytheistic religion? That's why Christianity developed this idea of the Trinity — three substances but one being — to counteract the accusations that they weren't actually monotheistic. But there were some people, like the Arians, who rejected the Trinity and said Jesus was just a normal man. Then how did he obtain his powers? Did God just bestow his divine powers on Jesus during his baptism, as was seen with God's dove and voice (Mk.1:10-11) and then take them back when Jesus was on the cross, which is why he asked God why he was forsaken? And if Jesus is just a dude, why are we even considering him at all? Should we just ignore him and focus on God? What was the point of him? And if God did this once, couldn't he do it again?

These types of tricky questions were sprouting all over the place, which was causing problems in the church leadership. There were people in Antioch saying Jesus was just man, people in Egypt saying he was only divine (they actually said Jesus didn't die on the cross at all but just handed it over to someone else and melted into the crowd), and people who said he was both. And the Bible wasn't providing any answers because of its contradictions. That's Constantine tried to force a standardization because he knew interpretation of the text wasn't going to help.

But the ancients had another problem that we don't today: The Bible itself wasn't standardized either. Nowadays we have the four gospels, Acts of the Apostles, Pauline letters (half of which are spurious), other letters, and the Book of Revelation. That's it. But before there were tons of books floating all over the place and because Jesus didn't write shit and people didn't have the techniques we do today to ascertain veracity, no one could dispute it. You have a gospel saying it was written by Mary Magdalene. Who can refute that? Or just recently they've dug up the Gospel of Judas.

So basically what happened is the more powerful members of the church cut away any scripture that didn't agree with them. It was a gradual progress, but thanks to efforts by Constantine and church fathers like Jerome or Clement, we have a list that no one even questions anymore. And they were kinda right because some of these have teachings we find really fucking odd. For example, my favorite line from the Gospel of Thomas is, "And Jesus said, 'Any man born of a woman is the son of a whore.' "

Which finally leads me to my point: Gnosticism. I said in the beginning Christianity, regardless of the sect, is more or less similar with superficial differences like having bishops or not. When you examine Presbyterianism and Catholicism, they seem the same when compared to Gnosticism. That's the fucking weird one of the bunch. I don't even consider it part of Christianity and think of it as a separate religion. But they thought of themselves as Christians and had the scriptures (which other Christians didn't accept) to prove it. Now, before I talk about Gnosticism I need to give a disclaimer: Because it never took off, it never became consolidated like Christianity did. There is probably no group that believed everything that I'm about to say. They picked and chose. But the general theme is there.

Gnosticism is the answer to two questions: Why is God in the Old Testament completely different to God in the New Testament? And more importantly, why is there suffering in the world? Their creation myth answers this. In the beginning there was a good god. There's varying reasons why, but Wisdom suddenly appeared and wanted to have sex with this god. When he rebuffed her, out of her anger she created another, inferior god that is called the Demiurge. The Demiurge thought it was the most powerful being in the universe, not realizing there was a better god out there, and out of its own arrogance it created the world to prove how awesome it is. After some time the good god realized what was going on and sent his son, Jesus, down to the people to explain the truth of the matter. That's why the gods are different: The Demiurge is the god of the Old Testament, and the good god is the god of the New Testament. For Gnostics, the Old Testament is just wrong altogether and is not in their canon (they weren't the only Christian sect at the time to reject it). And that explains why there's evil in the world: A fucked up god could only inevitably create a fucked up world. If the actual good god created all of this shit, we wouldn't have wars, disease, earthquakes, starvation, etc. And propagating just continues the the cycle of suffering. For Gnosticism, the end game is all of us die. They didn't believe in reproduction. We have to destroy everything until we all return to the good god.

Gnosticism was a rival to mainstream Christianity, particularly in the east like Egypt or Syria. Augustine himself was a member of a sect called Manichaeism before he switched over. Thanks to Constantine the Roman government clamped down on them, but it probably continued in smaller communities underground until Islam came. And it sprung up again in the 1100s and 1200s in southern France by a group called the Cathars. No one knows why Gnosticism suddenly became a thing when it was quiet in western Europe for centuries, but I can say the power structures in Europe freaked the fuck out and actually sent a crusade. Yeah, there weren't just crusades going over to the holy land. They were headed straight to southern France and they wiped that shit out. That's why it's called the Spanish Inquisition as opposed to just plain "Inquisition." Because it actually started in southern France to root out these Cathars and the Spanish just asked later if they could hire that shit for their own country.

When I look at Gnosticism or any of those scriptures that didn't make it to the canon, I wonder sometimes what could've been. The Gnostics are definitely the weirdest of the bunch, but there were all other sects of Christianity: the Ebionites, the Marcionites, the Nestorians... How would the story of Christianity have played out if they had a more prominent role? In America we just focus mostly on Protestantism and Catholicism, but there still are vestiges of these early sects out there, particularly in the Middle East where unorthodox followers fled after being persecuted in the Roman Empire for heresy. I doubt Gnosticism would've risen in a big way considering its ultimate message of death, much like how the Shakers are dying out due to their beliefs in complete celibacy, but in the ways it could've influenced Christianity. Today some scholars see a mirroring between the Demiurge and the good god and Christianity's Satan and God.

And when people complain to me about Catholicism's idolatry or Protestantism's penchant for following an egotistical charismatic leader, I'm totally cool with that. There's weirder shit out there. And if that's how you want to express your religion, then fucking go for it. Because there's no "true" Christianity. If the earliest Christians were dealing with this type of shit that's more complex and heterogeneous than anything we have today, I doubt there ever was a "true" Christianity. You can see it in the Bible even. Peter and Paul did not get along because Paul was a late comer. And people were spreading rumors about Paul that you see in his letters. This shit was never unified and it never will be.

The company that makes the Rune Factory series is filing for bankruptcy. What the fuck is the point of living anymore?

I think I've mentioned this before, but my piano teacher is really paranoid. She has a particular fear of helicopters, which she imagines would crash into her apartment at any moment. Yet even though she is demonstrably one of the most unsafe drivers I've ever seen to the point I'm curious how she hasn't killed herself yet, she does not consider that you're more likely to die in a car than a helicopter to the face.

Which is why today was particularly painful. Because our neighborhood is right next to the site of the derailment, helicopters circled overhead from pretty much sunrise to sunset. And, as she always does, she called the police to complain. In fact, she called several times. Now, I'm fairly certain she already as a reputation as "Crazy Lady Who Ties Up the Phone Line Every Time She Hears Reporters Giving Traffic and Weather Updates," but this is a real emergency here. I would not be able to put up with this bullshit at that time. And I don't know why she can't be considerate enough to think, "Maybe I shouldn't stem resources to focus on my problem so that they can help the people who were just injured."

This is the type of person who can't let us have nice things. The person who sets the bar that we create the rules for. A coffee shop puts a jug of milk for costumers to add at their discretion, but some asshole takes the whole jug for himself so they've banned it. That type of thing. I'm not saying she's personally hurting other people with her shenanigans, but it's that type of self-centered mindset that I can't really comprehend.

I hate the song Rudy the Red-Nosed Reindeer. Let's look at the lyrics: Rudy was mocked by his peers for a physical defect. When Santa said Rudy would lead the pack, suddenly everyone loved him. That's really fucked up. It's not that they appreciated him, it's just that the boss likes him so they're sucking up. I would totally smack the shit out of those other reindeer.

Most people know of San Francisco's Golden Gate Bridge — it may be the most famous bridge in America — but in actuality it's the lesser used of the two bridges to San Francisco. The other bridge, Bay Bridge, ties San Francisco to Oakland and receives double the daily commuters. It's so long that it actually has to attach itself to an island in the middle of the bay, then continue to the other side. However it was not structurally sound, particularly for a major earthquake that would hit San Francisco any day now, and in 1989 part of it collapsed after a 6.9 shake. After heavily debating whether to buff up the current bridge or just remake the whole thing, twenty years later they finally built a completely new bridge that leads in from Oakland to the island in the middle of the bay (the section that goes from the island to San Francisco does not to my knowledge require any repairs).

The new bridge looks really nice and has improved traffic. However the old one is still just sitting there. I have no idea if there are measures to tear it down, but you literally drive across a bridge with a fucking bridge right next to you. It's pretty ridiculous. And at night, it's kinda creepy with this dark and abandoned structure looming over you:

FUCK.

YES.

Is it weird that whenever I hear the phrase "hand crafted" I don't think "high quality" but rather "more susceptible to containing an error"?

If you go into any New York souvenir shop, you can find these really easily. They're everywhere. But for me it's weird that I could also find them easily in San Francisco except it says "I ♥ SF" instead. Literally it's all the same crap except geared for another city. There are of course some original things, like models of cable cars or the Golden Gate Bridge, but otherwise it's identical to any store found here.

This is when I get hesitant over large companies. I can definitely think of how they've improved my life: Instead of dealing with fourteen different formats, corporations like Google were able to standardize things. But when I don't have any opportunity to search for other shit, then I'm wondering why isn't there more competition. Every single store in New York has the same vendor. And apparently every store in San Francisco as well. Where the hell is the variety?

I don't know why they thought this was acceptable, but those model cable cars were created from the cheapest material known to mankind. I never even considered buying this for someone back home.

Getting the beams in our living room ceiling has been kind of a bitch because it's not mass produced anymore and is expensive to get a solid chunk of wood like that. Our contractor managed to find a woman who basically disassembles old farmhouses in the tri-state area and sells the parts, and she came to our neighbor's house to look at their beams and assess whether she could gather the materials and the labor. She even sent over samples of different types of wood, how different types of stain look on them, and how she would achieve that chiseling effect you can see in the picture. We spent quite some time debating about our choices before finally selecting a dark oak, and then we waited for her to send over the beams.

Well, it turns out she's a con artist, and she ran off with the down payment. There's been several other people who've been duped by her as well, so I have no idea how she's still running around considering she's already been involved with a sting operation. But my question is this: Who the fuck is a beam con artist? It's such a weird thing. Stolen art, okay. Insurance polices, fine. But beams? That's probably why it's so brilliant; who the fuck would suspect a beam supplier?

Part of Animal Crossing is your neighbors. You try to interact with them, help them, and become friends. Sometimes they try to move on, but if you like them you can convince them to stay without much difficulty. I'm finding that this game is appealing to the shallow part of my personality because I pick and choose my neighbors depending on how cool they look. If I think they're shit, I do everything in my power to make them leave as quickly as possible. I wonder if this is saying something about me.

Harlan at IKEA:

"Sometimes I wonder if this is actually Swedish or if they're just stringing random letters together. Like bärbar. There's no way that's an actual word. Spöka can't be real either. They just wanna make it sound cool. Why say 'bed' when you can say 'malm' instead?"

San Francisco has several different modes of public transportation. Their only subway is called the BART or Bay Area Rapid Transit. However it's more of the equivalent of the LIRR or NJ Transit, i.e. it brings people from the greater urban area to the city center and is priced by zones. Besides that there is the MUNI or Municipal Railways, which is a fucking mess because it literally incorporates everything else. First we have their famous cable car system, which is mostly used by tourists but is the only thing that can climb steep hills. We have then the trolleys, which have tracks on the street. On major roads they have their own designated lane, but half the time they share it with traffic and generally cause a mess. I've also noticed half of their vehicles were bought from other cities that were phasing out their trolley systems, so when I'm waiting for one I see it's headed for Chicago or Berlin and not conveying any useful information about where I need to go. And even though MUNI stands for railways, for some asinine reason it also covers the bus system, which I've divided in half: normal ones that run on gas like any sane bus and ones that run via electrical wires. Literally hanging over the streets are these giant wires and the buses have these antennas attached to them in order to power the bus. Whenever one passes you by, you can hear the zapping of the wires.

But today I wanna talk about the trolleys. As I've said, sometimes they have their own central lane and sometimes they're in the street. On bigger streets they even are provided with a platform. But unfortunately the steps are too low for it. So their trolleys literally have a staircase that rises and lowers depending on what section of the route their on. When they're by platforms, the stairs rise to create a flat surface. And when they're on the streets, they lower to create steps.

I wish someone told me this shit beforehand. Here I am, on a crowded trolley by the doors, when suddenly I heard this announcement. It's as garbled as any other NYC subway. Then I heard this horrible screeching noise, which I'm assuming is their equivalent of a warning signal. All I know is it sounded like a cat being tortured. And then suddenly the stable floor I was standing on collapsed under my feet to create some steps. I'm freaking out, wondering whether this thing is falling apart.

As convoluted as the NYC subway system is, I'd take that shit over this crazy madness any day of the week.

First for your consideration, here is Willis Tower:

And now:

Me: WTC is now tallest building in the US, as it should be. Fuck Chicago.
Moham: Yo, fuck Chicago.
Me: Yo, so the Willis Tower was the highest before. Take a look at that shit. It's so ugly. We can't let that be the tallest building in America.
Moham: That shit looks like they ran out of legos halfway during construction.
Me: Who the hell designed it? Who fucking agreed to that design? Why is there no shame?
Moham: It looks like it was symmetrically designed at one point, and literally took chunks off random parts of it to make the top taller.
Me: "Fuck New York. Let's make this random building taller than theirs."
Me: "But sir, we don't have enough supplies."
Me: "Then grab some shit at the base and put it on top!"
Moham: Yup. Just take that shit and put it up there.

I think I've explained to everyone that Harlan's neighborhood sucks, but this is the part that always gets me: The only reliable shop in the area is a Walgreen's. I can understand them locking up some medications because of the drug addicts, but they also secure other items I find innocuous, like shampoo. I once asked a sales associate about this and she just said with a heavy Chinese accent, "Oh, they crazy. The crazy people are trouble." I can't imagine them having access to showers; why would they need this?

I got my answer from Harlan. His apartment has a small donut shop at the bottom, and once when he was in there getting a coffee, a man entered and approached him, "Hey... do you want to buy some shampoo?"

Riding a train for long distances gives you the opportunity to meet people that you usually wouldn't. For example, the waiters/waitresses force people to sit together even if there are other tables open so that you interact with your fellow passengers. If you sit in the lounge car, it's inevitable that someone will sit with you and start chatting. And I engaged in several interesting conversations: a coal miner from West Virginia whose family worked in the train industry for generations, a woman who rides the trains periodically as a vacation, a Vietnam vet who returned from the war to become a taxi driver and one night his passenger shot a man in front of him.

And then there's this: A middle-aged woman — I want to make this very clear that this woman was at least in her forties — said to me, "Have you heard about this thing that happened to the Jews called the Hologram? I saw it on The History Channel a few weeks ago. It's so sad." It took all of my effort to keep my face straight and not look at her in horror. There was no way I was continuing that line of conversation without sounding condescending.

Amtrak Adventures, Day 2:

Okay, unless you're willing to spend extra money each time you're traveling, never fucking take a sleeper car.  Because you will never want to go back.  It's infinitely more comfortable than being in coach.  For one, I can fucking change clothing.  For two, I'm not sharing the bathroom with sixty people and they keep that shit clean.

Meals are included as part of the sleeper car package, so if you take advantage of it and eat three meals a day, I think at least a third of the ticket pays itself.

Rocky Mountains = gorgeous.

Amtrak Adventures, Day 1:

Man, people are fucking disgusting.  There's no direct train from New York to San Francisco, so I had to take a nineteen-hour trip to Chicago, transfer, and then straight to San Fran.  Over the course of that first leg of the trip, that bathroom devolved into madness.  Seriously people, how are you not capable of flushing?  It's a huge fucking button.  Every single fucking time I was the one who had to rid the bathroom of their shit.  And it's one of those forced-air airplane toilets, so there's no excuse for shit to still be in the bowl.  What the hell is wrong with people?

Chicago's Union Station is their equivalent to our Grand Central, but they fucked it up.  Whereas our station is bustling with people coming and going, theirs is completely dead.  For some inconceivable reason they removed all the ticket sellers and announcements from the main hall and put them down in some tunnels off to the side, so I was able to take great pictures of the high ceiling and such because no one was there.

Finally, I'm trying to figure out if this week was the annual Amish convention or something because Union Station was inundated with them.  I couldn't look in any direction without seeing a person wearing a bonnet or sporting a long beard.  Also, did you know that the Amish really fucking love grilled Cajun food?  They practically mobbed the place.

I'm off to San Francisco for a week. Text me if you want anything.

[00:36:17] Dun 4 Hire: I should really stop watching anime and start packing.
[00:38:50] gtaex2739: if anime has taught me anything
[00:39:05] gtaex2739: it's that you should always fall into tits
[00:39:13] gtaex2739: i was going to relate that to packing, but i just don't see how
[00:41:20] Dun 4 Hire: I'm surprised with that knowledge that you don't allow yourself to trip more often.
[00:41:30] gtaex2739: speaking of tits
[00:41:34] gtaex2739: it's Greene's birthday

This is currently the two top comments for this video:

Honestly? Whenever I see a video like this showing Native American life before the white man came upon their shores, I think of shit like this:

Iroquois warriors conducted "mourning wars" in which they sought prisoners from their enemies. The chiefs distributed the prisoners to grieving matrilineages, whose elder women decided their fate: adoption or death. The matrons usually adopted women and children, who were more readily assimilated. Captive men more often faced death by torture, especially if they had received some crippling wound. Inflicting death as slowly and painfully as possible, the Iroquois tied their victim to a stake, and villagers of both genders and all ages took turns wielding knives, torches, and red-hot pokers systematically to torment and burn him to death. The ceremony was a contest between the skills of the torturers and the stoic endurance of the victim, who manifested his own power, and that of his people, by insulting his captors and boasting of his accomplishments in war. After the victim died, the women butchered his remains, cast them into cooking pots, and served the stew to the entire village, so that all could be bound together in absorbing the captive's power.
—Alan Taylor, American Colonies, ed. Eric Foner (New York: Viking, 2001), 102-03.

Remember that other part in Pocahontas when they were putting on their war paint? It wasn't as if that day they had to invent that ritual because battle and conflict was a new thing to them. No, Native Americans already knew all too well how to murder a person. Europeans were horrified at scalping; that was in practice long before any white man touched their soil.

This is kinda like my Chrono Cross complaint a few days ago: I'm not going to defend what was done to the Native Americans, but I'm not about to pretend that everything was perfect and peaceful until the Europeans arrived to fuck everything up. They were fucking human too with human desires. They fought over resources and influence. That idea was not purely an Old World phenomenon.

Really, this just sums up my argument: the Aztecs. If shit was so fucking idyllic, fucking explain them. No matter what you want to say about Christianity and its sins, at least its fundamental theology isn't "rip out people's still-beating hearts frequently to assure the suns rises every morning."

Seriously NYPL, you need to up your game. Okay, I'm totally willing to overlook some of the problems with your catalog. You have the second-largest collection in the world and there's gotta be some blips somewhere. But here's where I draw the line: when you don't give me the books I requested for. A couple of months ago I put down a couple of holds but they just sat and sat, saying they weren't ready for pickup. Until now I figured they were lost somewhere; surely with human error there's gotta be some stuff shelved improperly. But today I finally went to Mid-Manhattan and found all six of the books I've been waiting for for months just sitting there on the shelves. What the hell have you been doing all this time? A book or two, fine. But six? Did you even bother to get out of your chair at all to fulfill this request?

The best part is when I walked up to the circulation and the dude said, "Oh, sorry, these have a hold." I just paused and said, "Yeah... I'm the one with the hold. I kinda wanted to get around to reading them after ten months."

Even though no children showed up on our doorstep last year, mom inexplicably bought bags and bags of candy for this year's celebration. And we got the same result. As I stared at all the sugar I was supposed to ingest, this conversation took place:

Me: You know, thanks a lot guys. I'm trying to lose weight here.
Dad: Just eat a bit at a time. It's just moderation.
Me: That's like asking an alcoholic to stop drinking.
Dad: (suddenly a very serious tone) You're joking, right?

You're the one who should be joking, dad. Your daughter is noticeably morbidly obese. If it's not a glandular issue, there's definitely some sort of eating problem. He expressed similar surprise to me announcing I could eat a bag of chips in one sitting. How the hell did you not realize that?

Today I was standing outside my apartment steps waiting for someone, when an old lady approached. Literally in the first minute of our meeting she told me she was from Rhinebeck, that her daughter was moving into the apartment that day, that she had taken the MetroNorth down and her daughter was supposed to meet her at the 1 train, that her daughter was late so she came via the Bx7, that she was seventy-seven, and that her daughter works in pyrotechnics on Broadway. It was a deluge of information in sixty seconds, which barely even scratched the surface of what else I learned in the following six minutes.

For me it was a surreal situation because it was the complete opposite of what I'd do. If I were her, I would not have spoken with me or even made some sort of eye contact. It's a combination of shyness and being raised in New York City. But sometimes I wonder what I lose from not chatting with people. For example, my dad's roommate Panay was really friendly. He met dad randomly at a bus stop and struck up a conversation about how he was having problems with his Filipino roommates mocking him for not being macho enough. Dad and him decided to move in together. Later on Panay's former coworker called him up when she first immigrated to America, looking for a temporary place to live. That woman was my mother, and the rest is history.

What kind of friendships and connections pass me by for keeping quiet? What kind of interesting situations do I miss for not being involved? And yet I can't help but imagine how much time I'd've wasted making small talk with people. All those books I didn't read on the train because I was chatting with some dude about how Riverside Park is looking better nowadays.

And the worst part is I never know how to end those conversations gracefully. It's usually something along the lines of, "Okay, bye!" and then fleeing as quickly as possible.

I think humans have activities that are demonstrably harming the environment and that we should change our methods to try to minimize our impact. I don't think it's within human nature to do this overnight and without a replacement for our current lifestyle, e.g. suddenly stop using electricity until we find a suitable alternative for fossil fuels. But the environment should be one of the many things we consider as a people. I think it's a reasonable stance.

That being said, I really fucking hate it when this shit is shoved down my fucking throat. One of the reasons why I think Chrono Cross was a horrible sequel to Chrono Trigger is its extreme environmentalist stance, of which Chrono Trigger had none. I was playing it with Paul over the weekend, and we got to the part when Kidd is poisoned. For those of you who haven't played it, the only cure is the humor from an animal that lives in these marshes, but it's the only one left in the world and the marshes for some reason will turn poisonous if you kill it.

Part of the game was big choices like this, so you could do two things. The first was choose to kill the animal. While you're proceeding through the marshes, these really hostile dwarves try to stop you the entire way, explaining that by killing this animal you'd destroy their home. After you've cured Kidd, you must meet the Water Dragon on an island populated by fairies. When you arrive you find the dwarves have killed almost everyone, saying that humans have taught them that killing people is right to get what you want and they'll make their new home here. After you've killed all the dwarves the fairies blame you for bringing them here and rhetorically ask you why you can't live in peace without hurting anyone.

If you choose not to save Kidd, the story requires you to visit the Water Dragon and you find that someone else has killed the animal in the marshes and the dwarves are murdering the fairies anyway. The fairies still denounce humanity and kick you off the island.

Even as a kid this incident made me really angry. It's so fucking one-sided anti-humanity that it actually damages its own argument:

1. Okay, so the over-hunting of this animal was humanity's fault. But it wasn't like dicks were just shooting them for fun like the buffalo. The animal is really important in medicine, and saving your own loved ones is a reasonable thing.

2. How the fuck is a swamp dependent on the survival of one animal? I'm not talking about a species. It's literally one animal. The moment this shit dies, everything turns into poison. That is the weakest ecosystem ever. Okay, we've hunted other species to extinction, but that didn't mean nature died too. Mauritius didn't devolve into madness the moment we wiped out the dodo bird. Japan kept on rolling around just fine after the Hokkaido wolf disappeared. The makers of this game created an unreal situation — "are you really willing to destroy an entire swamp to get what you want?!" — just to make humans look like bigger assholes.

3. The dwarves have shit like metal helmets and even tanks. How the fuck is that environmentally friendly? Last I checked, mining was damaging.

4. And seriously dwarves, how the fuck are humans the bellicose ones when you have a fucking tank? Don't fucking tell me you were only going to hunt for basic sustenance with it. What, were you going to shoot deer with it? And then try to pick through the exploded bits afterward, hoping you could possibly make a meal from that? And who the fuck makes a tank in a swamp anyway? And how the hell did you carry that shit all the way to the bottom of the Water Dragon's cave? That is literally 90° drops right there.

5. Fairies, you need to shut the fuck up. I just saved your asses from the dwarves. I'd understand if you were angry at me AND the dwarves, but you did not say a single thing about the people who bludgeoned your friends and family to death in front of your eyes. This apparently was all my fault. Okay, maybe if I chose to save Kidd it can be directly linked to me, but even if I didn't do a damned thing they blamed me anyway for being a human. And THAT is fucking racist. Half the fucking game is about how humans discriminate against demi-humans, but you can't bitch about that shit when conversely demi-humans are discriminating against humans.

6. And finally, and this is what really got me, don't fucking pretend humans are the anomaly while the rest of nature is pacific. Nature is vicious and cruel. If any species had the chance, they would overpopulate the shit out of a place. Look at rabbits in Australia; yeah, we introduced them but they happily took over on their fucking own. It's just that we're really good at what we do. No other species can compete with us. But they would readily take the position as top of the food chain if they could. There's no fucking species on earth that thinks, "Well, I should let these animals live because they're a necessary part of our complex system of life, and after all we should just let bygones be bygones and exist harmoniously." That ironically is only a human philosophy. In real life, those dwarves would've fucking slaughtered those fairies and eaten them.

That's why Chrono Cross ultimately failed Chrono Trigger; I don't think it really added anything to the lore of the series. They literally just threw Lavos and that shit at the last minute and everything up until then was a battle between FATE on the humans' side and the dragons on nature's side. So fucking dumb.

The MTA is considering implementing articulated train cars in the next twenty years, which are basically trains with one long passage, i.e. not separate cars but rather a quasi-single one. Articulated trains have larger carrying capacity; consider for a moment the amount of space in between each train car and how many people that could've carried. Not only that, there is ease of passage up and down, which allows people to exit and enter more efficiently or move to accommodate other passengers boarding.

But there are cons, which made me realize how dependent we are on separate cars. Take for example performers or beggars; what is their M.O.? Go to one car, give their spiel, then move onto the next. If you're annoyed at a mariachi band waking you up, you can find solace in they'll be gone soon to bother someone else. That can't happen in an articulated train. They will perform, move twenty feet, and perform again.

Or if there's a drunk in one car who vomited or stripped or some who's particularly unruly due to the influence or mental problems. There's nowhere to escape. A train car is about a block long, but that stench/problems can follow you all the way to the end.

I'm still on the fence about the issue and have to ride one of these myself to see what they're like. I feel most of my protests is just simply me being accustomed to a certain way and I would easily habituate myself to another if I had to. Either way, I hope there are interesting things to see in the next twenty years. Who knows, maybe the display for the upcoming trains will finally work at my stop on the 1 train.

That is a filthy, filthy lie. “Doesn’t look so big”? That thing is about as big as her torso. If I were in her shoes, I would not be fucking holding that thing in my hands. I’ve be across the room, trying to shoot it with a goddamned gun so that the abomination won’t walk amongst us ever again.

Our governor, Andrew Cuomo, recently drew attention for watching The Godfather. Normally no one cares if a politician watches a movie, but Cuomo is of Italian decent and for a long time he refused to see it because it has negative implications for the Italian community in America, that it generates stereotypes. Cuomo left the viewing saying artistically it was a masterpiece, but he still disapproves of its subliminal message. I've been told by Alex on several occasions that it's a good movie; I myself have never seen it and probably won't any time soon.

And that's the point: "I've been told." A lot of our life is based upon report because it's physically impossible for us to personally experience everything. For example, I have no proof from my five senses that Egypt exists, but I'm trusting other people when they say that it does. You spend your life absorbing accounts from others whether it's the nightly news or your mother's gossip about what she saw on the subway and sift through them to judge their veracity. We do it every day and we're all comfortable with our first-hand ignorance.

And yet I don't understand willful ignorance. It's just not something I can comprehend. What did Cuomo gain from refusing to see The Godfather? Nothing. Even if you don't agree with something doesn't mean you should turn your eyes away from it. If anything, if this issue is so important to you, you should make a point of watching it because then you can refute point by point why it's wrong. Cuomo's stance was, "Well, other people have told me that it reinforces the idea about Italians and the mafia, so therefore I won't watch it." That is a weak argument. Because I have follow up questions like, "What specific points in the movie confirms the stereotype about Italians and the mafia?" "Is this movie different from other movies that portray certain gang groups? If it's the same, should we just not have movies about organized crime at all if it reaffirms racial stereotypes?" "Is there anything in the movie that's redeeming for Italians?" And he would have the same answer as I: "I don't know, I haven't seen it."

There are lots of things out there that I don't agree with, but that doesn't mean I should just dismiss it entirely. Let me give a quote here: "I also want women to dress modestly, with decency and propriety, adorning themselves not with braided hair or gold or pearls or expensive clothes. A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet." I completely disagree with this statement. You know where it's from? The Bible, 1 Timothy 2:8-12. And I can assure you that passage was actively used to suppress women's rights for over a thousand years. So should I just ignore the Bible entirely? No. In fact, I read it actively so I can specifically say what parts I think are good and what are bad.

I think consciously shielding your eyes demonstrates a certain insecurity in your own position. If you honestly thought you're right, reading / watching / listening / seeing something isn't going to change your mind. For example, my grandmother once told me she refused to read The DaVinci Code because she "was a good Christian." What, did you think reading one book would shake the faith that you've held on to for the past eighty years? Did you think you'd stop being a Christian? I personally am regretful I never read it because I can only debate with people about it from hearsay, and I would think she'd want to as well to prove to people why The DaVinci Code is just fiction from her own knowledge of Christianity and Catholicism.

I'd totally look at the opinions from other people I disagree with like Glenn Beck or Sarah Palin. Hell, the library is currently holding for me Ron Paul's End the Fed. Mein Kampf is on my reading list. Or let's take anything from the Middle Ages. Their science is atrocious. Should I just skip that? They're unabashedly racist. Should I pass over it? Their views toward women and the poor are despicable. Should I ignore it? Then I wouldn't have much to study about. I admit my ignorance vastly overpowers my knowledge, but that's mostly out of necessity; there's only a certain number of hours in a day, a human lifespan is too short, and I have to set priorities. But to say I purposefully be narrow minded to create my own world view is something I refuse to adhere to.

I'm super hyped for A Link Between the Worlds, but I'm scared shitless that they'd go the same route as the other DS games and have a central dungeon that you repeatedly return to centered around sneaking.

A quote from my mother:

"Are you going to buy stuffed animals again when you move back into the house? What do you need them for? You're twenty-six! Why are you buying stuffed animals? It makes the house look like a trailer park. They give you asthma."

In Florida last week, two girls aged fourteen and twelve were arrested for bulling a third girl to the point she committed suicide. The specific charges are third-degree stalking. It seems the dead girl was an ex-girlfriend of the fourteen-year-old's current boyfriend and for some reason that incensed her, although there are probably more details that haven't come to light. The sheriff in this case was incensed about the older girl's lack of remorse and her parents' denial of any wrongdoing.

I'm really ambivalent about this case. Definitely these girls need to be punished for what they did, but I'm not certain arrest and jail time is it. They're twelve and fourteen. This isn't like they personally pulled a trigger and killed someone. They bullied a person, which is what I expect twelve and fourteen year olds to do. Intellectually they understand bullying is wrong, but we all know we've done really stupid shit at that age.

It's still a very, very serious matter, more so than just an expulsion. But then I believe the parents should be taken to account. When a young child does something terrible, usually the parents are punished in their stead (as is the same with pets). It was obvious this was an issue for quite some time if the girl's been cutting herself, been sent to a psychiatric hospital, and was eventually removed from the school altogether. I know these girls are at the age when parents start stepping back, but by this point they should've been involved, and yet they refuse to believe any of this happened, saying their daughter's Facebook account has been hacked. Yeah, as if any hacker would give a fuck about this.

What led to the arrest is what truly amazes me. Bullying has always happened and will continue to happen, but this case shows how the digital age has changed the game. How often have these problems gone unnoticed in the hallways? But now with Facebook the bullies are left with the digital footprint, a digital footprint that anyone can see.

Project M is a fan-based mod to Super Smash Bros.: Brawl that tweaks the characters' stats, adds or removes moves, or even includes new characters altogether. Moham came over the other day and the two of us tried it out. I'm happy to report it plays smoothly, although I can't attest to how this changes the overall balance because we were not able to experiment with everyone. I hope Nintendo doesn't try to be dicks and shut it down.

None of that really matters in comparison to this: The Project M site has a profile page for each character to explain the changes, and they refer to Mr. Game & Watch as "G-Dubs". G fucking Dubs.

I spent the evening researching the candidates for the upcoming elections, and these vague statements need to stop. Lhota apparently wants to "empower and uplift all of our teachers." What the fuck does that mean? I don't think there's a candidate out there who would want to weaken and downtrod our teachers. Carrión says he'll create "a strong and relevant curriculum." Like what? What subjects are we talking about here?

Yeah, I know why they're doing this. It's politically astute to not be specific, but I'm paralyzed here without a sense of a candidate's intentions and method. Half of John Burnett's campaign ad was about his parents, and quite frankly I don't care. Can you give me enough substance to make a good choice?

Or you can be like Randy Credico from the Tax Wall Street Party and be too specific:
-I will replace the current Police Commissioner, Ray Kelley, with former police officer Frank Serpico and retired detective Graham Weatherspoon.
-The NYPD will no longer be allowed to participate in the policing of parades, particularly the West Indian, Puerto Rican and Dominican parades, other than the deployment of the NYPD’s unarmed traffic police to help with the flow. Parade organizers will be responsible for their own policing of their respective events.
-I will rename City Hall Park, “The John Brown Lawn of Tolerance”.
-We will test for steroid abuse by the NYPD.
-I will ask a panel of progressive poets, performers and artists led by Harry Belafonte, Alfre Woodard, Danny Glover, Kathy Engel and Ruby Dee to run the office of Cultural Affairs.

All I've been doing all day is refreshing my news feed to see if congress has passed anything. Seriously, what the fuck is going on in Washington?

I haven't read The Iliad in over a decade, so I plopped down and finished Stephen Mitchell's translation. For those of you who don't know the plot, I'll try to be brief: There was a grand wedding with all the gods invited except for the goddess of discord Eris. Being naturally pissed off, she crashed the party and threw a golden apple with the inscription "to the fairest one." Three goddesses — the goddess of marriage Hera, the goddess of wisdom Athena, and the goddess of sex Aphrodite — wanted that title and fought for the apple. Eventually they decided a Trojan named Paris should pick, but instead of a fair fight all of them bribed him: Hera said she'd make him king of Europe and Asia, Athena said she'd make him wise, and Aphrodite said she'd make the world's most beautiful woman fall in love with him, and he chose the last. Unfortunately the world's most beautiful woman, Helen, was already married to King Menelaus of Sparta. So when he discovered Paris had run off with his wife, he chose war for such a dishonor. To add to it, before he and Helen were married, she was wooed by practically every king of Greece, so to prevent fighting they swore they would defend anyone who was chosen to be Helen's husband. Now that Menelaus was attacked, every king of Greece was required to join him in his fight with Troy.

Actually, none of that is in The Iliad proper. It was probably part of a whole group of poems describing the Trojan War including the prequel, but only two of Homer's poems survive. The Iliad fast forwards to ten years into the war. Menelaus' brother, King Agamemnon of Mycenae, had taken a Trojan priestess of Apollo to be his concubine, so Apollo was raining arrows down upon the Greek army. Consequently he was forced to give her up but was upset he was the only Greek king without a concubine so he got into a fight with Achilles and took his. Achilles, the strongest of the Greeks, was pissed and left the battles entirely, preparing his ships to sail for back home. To punish the Greeks for dishonoring Achilles, Zeus gave strength to the Trojans' most powerful warrior, Hector, who proceeded to cut up their army. The Greeks begged and bribed Achilles to return to no avail. Eventually Achilles' best friend Patroclus took on Achilles' armor, hoping that the Trojans would just run away in fear, but instead he was killed by Hector. Pissed off, Achilles rushes back into battle and kills Hector. The epic ends with Hector's dad Priam claiming his body.

This poem is twenty-four books long and has over 15,000 lines. The huge bulk of it are battle descriptions, with spears being thrown, shields being broken, arrows being launched. You can viscerally feel the pain on the battlefield, along with the pain of the civilians who have to watch their loved ones march out every day. That's why I prefer The Iliad over The Odyssey: It shows you the horrors of warfare along with the honor and bravery.

But while I was reading about all the misery and anxiety I thought to myself, "Why the fuck didn't the Trojans just give back Helen? Literally this has nothing to do with any of them. Okay, yeah, Paris is the son of the king. But not even his dad or his brothers like him. Hell, even Helen doesn't like him; she's forced by Aphrodite to be raped every night. All of this could be solved if they just fucking handed Helen over years ago. Now it's too late because the Greeks are too pissed over after a decade of fighting for anything other than total destruction of Troy, but say year two or so everyone could've just sat down and said, 'Why are we doing this? This is really dumb. Here's your woman back, sorry for the inconvenience.' It's a war over nothing."

Our house originally had a hatch to the roof that was very inconvenient because it was located in my mother's closet. Each time we wanted to go up there we had to practically empty out four decades' worth of clothing and shoes, so we limited our ventures up there to about once every fifteen years. On top of that the ladder was very cumbersome and the hatch itself was very heavy to the point that dad couldn't even open it anymore.

Consequently when we redesigned the house, I suggested an easier route to the roof, but I was thinking something along the lines of a pull-down stair. The architect produced plans for adding another stairwell that leads to a patio on the roof, which I heartily approved for awesomeness. However my parents nixed the patio, which made the stairwell seem kinda weird: The steps now lead to nothing.

Last week our stairs subcontactor finally finished and shipped them over. We went over today to inspect everything, and my parents finally went onto the roof the first time. While I admit the view isn't Central Park East, it's not awful. Mom seemed to agree because she was moaning about not putting a proper patio up there.

Honestly though, I just want a proper balustrade or something. The parapets lining the edges barely go up my ankle, which if anything is just a tripping hazard. The staircase makes us more inclined to go up there, and I can totally imagine us just walking off the side.

The four humors theory dominated the medical field for thousands of years. It was based upon the concept that the human body was composed of four substances or humors: blood, yellow bile, black bile, and phlegm. Any sort of sickness was an excess or deficiency of those humors. For instance bloodletting was removing the extraneous blood to return to the proper amount. And the concept expanded to almost all aspects of a person's life: to this day someone who is phlegmatic means they are calm and rational, which meant they had an excess of phlegm in their body. Each food added or subtracted from a person's humor: A person who had too much black bile should avoid carp but eat pike. People with lots of yellow bile have curly hair.

The idea is attributed to Hippocrates, the father of the Hippocratic Oath, who was a famous Greek physician around about the 400s B.C. Later on in the 100s A.D. another prominent Roman physician named Galen popularized the idea, and through the Middle Ages and the Renaissance his works were practically the Bible for doctors throughout western Europe.

Beginning in the Renaissance, chinks began to appear in the four humors' armor. First a Belgian anatomist Vesalius in the 1500s began to notice Galen made several errors; Galen himself mostly performed experiments on animals, not humans. While that's good to realize things like nerves exist, it causes problems when trying to describe a human body. Then an Englishman named William Harvey in the 1600s discovered the circulation of blood. This actually completely smashed the theory entirely because it stated the four humors just lay still, but with Harvey's discovery the organs seem like mechanisms. But it wasn't until the 1800s that doctors let go of the four humors. Even though certain aspects were demonstrably false, only when a new theory — germ theory — arose then doctors could let go. Disease, instead of being an imbalance of say phlegm and yellow bile, could be seen as an infection.

I've known about this for quite some time, but I still hold my initial when I first came across this in middle school: What the FUCK was black bile? Blood and phlegm? Okay, can see that. I wouldn't really think that phlegm is good for you, but I'll roll with it. Yellow bile? Maybe they were confused with urine. I don't know. But what the fuck did they think was black bile? When Galen was dissecting his pigs, what did he find in there that made him think, "...Huh. Hippocrates was right. I see the black bile right there." People were killed constantly in the Middle Ages. Surely during all that stabbing someone must've come across an eviscerated body and thought, "I don't see any black bile anywhere." Did it seriously take people thousands of years to realize this shit doesn't make any sense?

I remember once in my medieval manuscripts class our teacher showed us an anatomy book of male and female genitalia. While the male portion was heavily detailed, the female side was just a triangle. I thought, "Wow, even back then guys had no idea how to deal with a uterus."

I discussed this in my xanga, but I'll reiterate it again: Secondary education in Germany is split into three different camps: Hauptschule (main school), Realschule (real school), and Gymnasium (um... gymnasium). Hauptschule is 5th-9th grades where they learn the basics of a general curriculum, but it is mostly considered a vocational school and ends at about age fifteen. Realschule is ranked above and has a larger general curriculum, but is ultimately the equivalent of our high school diploma and also ends at about the 10th grade. The Gymnasium is the true elite with students graduating at age eighteen and on track to entering a college. In fact, you cannot enter tertiary education with attending a Gymnasium.

The problem with this system is there isn't much flexibility. You enter the school depending on your grades at age ten, meaning if you fucked up in elementary school you're never entering a university and are fucked for life. And it enters a perpetual cycle: Parents who graduated from a Gymnasium definitely have greater resources for pushing their children to study more at an early age.

Today I came across a word I hadn't seen before in German: Gesamtschule (whole school). My teacher told me it was a school that incorporated all students, regardless of their aptitude in elementary, and that this type of school is experiencing a pushback in Germany for being "communist;" anyone can go to there and prepare for college. He said most Germans don't realize that the US has a Gesamtschule system; yeah, some high schools are definitely better than others, but all of them offer the opportunity for further education without an actual prohibition.

I know the communist label is thrown around casually, but it still startled me how something we definitely don't consider communist to the Germans is. In fact for us, education is the great equalizer; even the son of a swineherd can achieve greatness thanks to America's compulsory education. And yet when we have something like nationalized healthcare, that is communist or socialist, and for Germany healthcare is mostly government funded. It's weird how what is abhorrent to one political system is all right for another.

The patron saint of England is St. George, but if I had to pick another saint it'd be Alban. Unlike George, who's from Turkey, Alban is actually from England and he had a great following from as early as the 500s, so much that the town of his execution is named after him. However the facts behind his story are very vague at best: We know he was executed for his faith during the Roman persecutions, so probably at some point in the 200s.

I knew the main points about his life, but now I'm translating the Venerable Bede's Ecclesiastical History of the English People, which is basically a very famous chronicle of England from the beginning of written history until Bede's time in the 600-700s. He writes extensively about this incident, and... wow. It's kinda crazy how people actually believed this shit. You ever heard of the word "hagiography?" As a technical term it just means a biography of a saint. As a secondary meaning, it's a biography of idealization to the point of fantastic.

Bede states Alban took in a fleeing Christian clergyman, who eventually converted him from paganism. When the authorities finally located him, Alban offered himself up instead. The judge offered Alban to renounce his new faith, but he refused even after being tortured. Angry, the judge then condemned him to death. On the way there the people came out to see him to the point that only the judge was left in town, and saddened that their multitudes physically prevented him from crossing the bridge to the execution spot, he prayed and the riverbed dried up to allow him passage. The executioner was so moved by this he refused to complete his task and asked to be killed alongside of or instead of Alban. When Alban finally came to the hill of his death, he prayed for water and a spring bubbled from his feet to prove that the water in the river had also disappeared at his command. Another executioner came to take the first's place and killed both of them, but then his eyes fell out. The judge then was amazed by all these miracles and ceased persecutions of Christians.

There are so many questions in this story. If everyone appeared to show their support of Alban, why the hell weren't there riots in his defense? Hell, if everyone liked Christianity so much, why was he the only one executed? Why did the second executioner step up the task after it was apparent this wasn't your regular dude? Why was the executioner punished for killing Alban but not the man who ordered it? I particularly liked the clergyman who was hiding out in Alban's house and did not do anything to help him whatsoever. And speaking of him, the soldiers knew the dude was in there. Why did they just take Alban? Why not Alban and the clergyman? He's still running around, converting people.

Before literacy rates were reasonable, saints were often depicted with a symbol or event for the peasant folk to be able to identify them in sainted glass or whatever. For Alban, he's usually depicted as decapitated with an eyeless executioner. I know a couple of others, like Peter usually has keys, George is usually in armor with a lance and dragon, Ambrose is associated with bees... but to be honest I'm not very good at it. I had a classmate who could identify a saint in an instant just by looking at the symbols, but I don't read hagiographies that often because I inevitably start laughing. I know in the early church miracles were important: Jesus himself converted the masses through miracles, and later Roman Christians claimed they converted pagans with the same M.O. There are countless stories of a missionary approaching a king and to prove the Christian God is better than the pagan gods, they perform a miracle while the enfeebled pagan priests can do nothing.

It's just for me martyr stories are particularly spurious because they make the saint seem so awesome and yet there is considerable proof no one from the town gave a shit and the person died in obscurity until a century or two later when Christianity became the dominant religion the oral traditions came into the light. There is no evidence that St. Albans suddenly became Christian after one dude started springing up water all over the place. I'm fairly certain the Roman records would mention this. And if not him, the other dozens of martyrdom stories that are floating around with equally implausible assertions. But I always wonder how these stories came to be believed; surely there was someone running around who can verify that none of this happened.

Those who populate your town in Animal Crossing: New Leaf are just assholes. For example, let's say you invite someone to your house. At the moment I don't have much furniture, so they immediately comment how bare everything is. But then they say, "Where do you spend all your money? Oh, I know, you must be buying presents for everyone. That's so nice. But make sure not to give anything to so-and-so, okay?" What the fuck was that? I didn't know you were so petty as to tell other people not to give gifts to someone you don't like. Wow.

You're also the mayor the in this game, and whenever I ask for suggestions they always say it's underdeveloped. So I announce new projects, like a bridge or a cafe, but apparently there's no taxation here so everything is by donation. I ask how much as has been collected, and they say the townspeople have given 1000. Okay, how much is the project? 198,000. Yeah, that difference is all on you. Fucking complainers can't even contribute to the thing they asked for.

I was reading recently about injuries in sports: football players receiving brain damage, ligament problems for baseball players, or even sumo wrestlers dying from cardiac arrest. The articles, which I unfortunately cannot find now, were questioning whether we demand too much from our players. I think we do in some aspects, but definitely not in this case. Are they under intense pressure? Sure. But they're well compensated with their salaries. Do I expect them to live an exemplary lifestyle because they're "role models?" No, not at all. I just expect them to score points and win a game. That's their job. If they want to sleep around, fine. As long as it's not illegal, I'm okay with that.

But simultaneously they should realize there are hazards on the job. It's like asking when a soldier dies in war or when a firefighter is burned or when a policeman is shot whether we're demanding too much of them. No, it's a dangerous occupation and there's a good chance of injury. I'm not saying we shouldn't send the soldier without proper armor or the firefighter without oxygen masks or the policeman without a bulletproof vest, and we should take steps to prevent injuries in a game, like helmets, gloves, etc. But it's impossible to create a purely sanitized environment. Stuff is gonna happen. I mean, if you get tackled for a living, what the fuck do you think would happen? The same with sumo wrestling. It's two fat dudes trying to push each other out of a ring. Unless you want to stop sumo wrestling forever, the players are going to have cholesterol problems.

This isn't like the gladiators of ancient Rome where they were captured and forced to kill each other. You voluntarily enter your career choice knowing the risks. It's like a celebrity whining about paparazzi or a garbage truck driver complaining about shit. That's part of the job.

[14:06:38] gattsu456: YO, SON.
[14:06:56] gattsu456: SO I'M WATCHING THE NEW POKEMON ORIGINS SPECIAL, WHERE THEY BASE IT MORE ON THE GAME.
[14:07:14] gattsu456: AND I CAN'T TAKE THE MAIN CHARACTER SERIOUSLY AS HIS OWN CHARACTER BECAUSE OF HIS VOICE.
[14:08:45] gattsu456: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=QJHgg0QPR14
[14:16:36] Dun 4 Hire: OH. MY. GOD.
[14:16:56] gattsu456: THEY DIDN'T EVEN TRY TO MAKE HIM SOUND DIFFERENT.
[14:17:08] Dun 4 Hire: YOU WERE SICK OF ALL THE SHIT FROM KONOHA AND DECIDED TO RAISE POKEMON INSTEAD, EH NARUTO?
[14:17:26] gattsu456: I JUST EXPECT HIM TO SHOULD OUT "KAGE BUNSHIN NO JUTSU" IN THE MIDDLE OF A BATTLE.
[14:18:35] Dun 4 Hire: "MEWTWO? FUCK THIS THING, I'LL JUST USE RASENGAN."
[14:19:13] gattsu456: "RASEN- I MEAN, CHARIZARD!"
[14:23:32] Dun 4 Hire: "MAN, THIS IS TAKING TOO LONG-TTEBAYO. LET ME JUST DO IT MYSELF."
[14:23:37] Dun 4 Hire: AND THEN HE PUSHES CHARIZARD OUT OF THE WAY.

A follow up from yesterday. Let's look at that citation again:

Plait, Phil. "Why Is Vesta Groovy?" Bad Astronomy, October 1, 2013. Accessed October 2, 2013. http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2013/10/01/asteroid_vesta_grooves_indicate_it_may_be_more_planet_like.html

Anyone else notice how that fucking address was so damned long? It looks so fucking unprofessional and drives me nuts whenever I add it to my footnotes. Some teachers don't mind if you just write "slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy" and leave it as is, but that's just my teacher cutting us all slack and isn't a representation of the professional community. It just fucks up the justification of my page with these huge long spaces. Fuck this shit.

In the United States there are several citation styles, but I learned Chicago, Turabian, and MLA (Modern Language Association). There are long manuals published for any type of situation: a book with two authors, a book with an editor, a book with an editor AND translator, an oral interview, a radio show, a movie clip. With the advent of the internet new standards had to be created, but all of them more or less require the same thing: name of the creator, name of the site, name of the institution affiliated with the site, date of access, and web address. So for example, this would be cited in Chicago style as:

Plait, Phil. "Why Is Vesta Groovy?" Bad Astronomy, October 1, 2013. Accessed October 2, 2013. http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy/2013/10/01/asteroid_vesta_grooves_indicate_it_may_be_more_planet_like.html

When I first learned these methods something immediately came to mind: link decay. I know why they add the access date: to say when the writer looked at the page and to show how it could've changed since then. But then again, what if the website doesn't exist at all? Scholars put a lot of emphasis on footnotes because that's what proves your point, and I feel they spend more time glancing at the bottom of the page than your actual article. People ask me where I get my books from; well, I just saw what another author cited and then borrowed it from the library to see what he was talking about.

But websites are constantly changing. The author I cited, Phil Plait, is famous in the science community not only for making astronomy accessible for laymen like myself but also for pushing inoculation, science education, and global warming, and I'm certain plenty of students have cited him at some point. About a year ago, Plait moved from Discovery Magazine to Slate. Currently Discovery is keeping his archive on their site, but who knows how long that'll last? Later on when someone reads a student's dissertation and sees a link to Plait's blog, will that article still be there?

It seems my misgivings were correct. A few days ago The New York Times released an article saying 49% of the linked citations for the Supreme Court decisions no longer exist. And the internet is relatively new. Does that mean about half a century from now we'll look at the Supreme Court and have no fucking idea why the hell they argued a certain way and only have a link to something like "/dogs-on-virgin-pussy.html?" You just sit there and wonder what the fuck was on that website that changed the course of American law?

It's not just the Supreme Court. Everything coming out of the academic world is at risk. We have things like the Internet Archive which is trying to keep a library of all the information we spew out, but no one's citing that nor can it keep up with every comment on every video that may be mentioned. This is a serious problem that the academic world needs to address as we become more reliant on the information age.

Does anyone else besides me find it ironic that I linked to shit that too may decay in a few years? That was part of the problem with my Xanga; I'd write about something and there'd be all these comments, but the link to what I was talking about didn't exist anymore.