[14:41:48] Dun 4 Hire: So I looked up "Final Fantasy XII Esper Battle" on youtube
[14:41:51] Dun 4 Hire: And I"m playing it right now
[14:42:02] Dun 4 Hire: And it says "suggested videos" on the side
[14:42:08] Dun 4 Hire: One of them is "romantic soundtracks."
[14:42:17] Dun 4 Hire: Yeah... when I think Esper Battle from FFXII, I think romance.
[14:42:29] Dun 4 Hire: Actually, wouldn't that be the most intense date ever?
[14:45:39] gattsu456: You take her out to some restaurant.
[14:45:49] gattsu456: And then the lights go out and the music gets all dramatic and shit.
[14:46:05] gattsu456: And suddenly the two of you are fighting with espers.
[14:47:23] Dun 4 Hire: I don't know about you, but that sounds like a solid date to me.
[14:56:41] gattsu456: Would date again.
[14:58:08] Dun 4 Hire: And if she doesn't date you again, do you seriously want to be with her? I think not.
[14:58:49] gattsu456: Who wouldn't want a date like that?
[15:01:42] Dun 4 Hire: Fucking crazy people, that's what.

In my AP World history class detailed how Alexander the Great's armies spread from their kingdom of Macedonia and conquered Greece, Egypt, and Persia, creating an empire from the Mediterranean to India in the 300s B.C. The result of his actions was the Hellenization of this area that allowed Greek culture to disseminate over this whole area. And it also covered the 50s B.C., where Julius Caesar conquered Gaul and brought Mediterranean culture to what is modern-day France. And thanks to the Mongol invasions and Ghengis Khan, the Asian steppes, China, much of the Middle East, and parts of Russia ceased to have internecine fighting and became an place where trade and culture could freely move.

But what the class conveniently glossed over is the literally millions of people who died in the process. The Mongols alone may be about 50,000,000, which is staggering considering the world population at that time. I've read historians trying to justify this, saying that the societies they conquered were stagnant and needed a figure to spark change. Without the sudden rupture in power structure and the later stability, the societies would've remained in their corrupt and declining state.

But the intentions were never that. All three of these gentlemen were not thinking of ushering a new era of peace, culture, and stability; they just wanted loot and power. DNA implies 1/200 of our male population are direct descendents of Ghengis Khan; that's how many women he raped during his wars. Roman society was enriched thanks to everything Caesar brought back from Gaul and he received more triumphs than any other man previously. Alexander started mimicking Persian culture because it suited his tastes of absolute monarchy, and when his advisors pointed out that's not how it's done in more egalitarian Greece, he killed them.

I guess what I'm trying to say is this: Do we still have to admire the men even if there were unintended consequences? Basically these guys set out to kill, rape, and pillage, and were very successful in that. It was just their efforts also has positive byproducts. Let me give an example: Germany was definitely in a bad state before the rise of Hitler. Not only did he bring his country back on track, his actions opened the door for later American ascension and a new era. Who knows what the world would've been like without WWII? American industry was already on a solid path to supremacy since the late 1800s, but WWII took out all other major competitors other than the USSR. Without Hitler, America as I know it and grew up in would not have existed. Right now none of us would approve of what Hitler did, but we're still close to the events. There are still people alive with the tattoos on their arms. If in coming generations when they're more removed, would historians suddenly say, "Yeah, what Hitler did was ultimately a good thing." Because I know the Persians who died under Alexander, the Celts who died fighting Caesar, and fucking everyone who the Mongols wiped out definitely wouldn't say that. But we're claiming that today.

When I was in Ireland a native told me about St. Patrick's Purgatory, a pilgrimage site on the northern part of the island. According to legend, Jesus showed Patrick the entrance to hell there, which was some sort of cave. Nowadays the cave itself is closed, but there is a monastery for pilgrims to pray at. When I heard this story, I immediately thought, "Huh. It's funny how the entrance to hell is on some small corner of Ireland when the Romans thought it was a lake in southern Italy."

Yep, oftentimes in Latin the word Avernus is used as a metonymy for the underworld because Lake Avernus was the entrance to it. Birds supposedly would die if they flew over it; Aeneas himself entered the afterlife through it. And I'm certain if Kratos ever ended up in Italy, that's how he would travel to Hades like he does in every game.

I've discovered there are other supposed gates to hell besides those in Italy and Ireland. I wonder why they weren't more researched in previous times. I mean, you have the fucking entrance to the underworld. How fucking cool is that? I know most of us would have no interest in entering a situation that may possibly result in your eternal suffering, but surely there's gotta be some crazy fuckers who try to figure this shit out. To this day, I don't think archaeologists have fully excavated St. Patrick's Purgatory either (although the church may be preventing them). Surely modern science isn't what bore insane dudes who want to figure out shit no matter what. There had to have been some guy who wants to get to the bottom of this and found out the bottom did not include hell.

Although, wouldn't it be hilarious if it's true? That the door to hell is on a tiny island off the most marginal county of Ireland?

Some stores now have an option to text you if your pick-up order is ready. Whilst I really love this, I wish they provided one thing in the text: the order number. Let me give an example: I have two orders at The Container Store, one for today and one for tomorrow because I can't physically carry them both simultaneously. Although I requested a text, I never received one for today's order. However after I picked it up, I got this: "Your order at The Container Store is ready!" So now I'm wondering if this is delayed for today or early for tomorrow. If I had the order number, then I'd know.

The same happened to me with Barnes & Noble. I wanted to pick up multiple books from different stores, and I'd get texts saying I could. No mention as to what store though. I ended up going to places that weren't ready for me. If they had just mentioned the location or order, then I'd have some inkling about what's going on.

Seriously though, what's preventing them? Text length? You can easily remedy that with careful wording. Is there some sort of privacy problem? Like, it's a third party handling the texts and they don't have our permission to give order numbers? I can't imagine that being more egregious than our phone number. I'm mad confused by all this.

Okay, so there has been an explosion of hatred on tumblr right now in the wake of the shooting in California, some of which I think is reasonable, some of which I think is not. I'm not going to be arrogant enough to assume I'm the only sensible person on the planet, but I'll try to look at both points of view:

Gentlemen:
1. You may not know this, but women face a lot of harassment on the street or on public transportation. As a woman with ridiculously large breasts, I've gotten unsolicited comments and touches from guys I don't even know. I was eight years old the first time someone touched me on the train. Eight. If you think a woman may be irrationally defensive, it's because some of us have to deal with this crap on a daily basis. It can range from a guy yelling from across the street that he wants to jizz on her face to trying to rub his erection on her butt during rush hour. Sometimes it gets really scary with guys following them home. You may have the best of intentions, but recognize that the woman's protective instincts are up thanks to this behavior. You're afraid that you may be humiliated when she says no, but keep in mind she's worried that you may rape and kill her.
2. I know it's really difficult to approach a woman and ask her out, but if she says no, just fucking drop it. She's not interested. I know you went through all this anxiety and came out poorly, but she's not required to date you because of your trials. I'm assuming you're straight here, but if a guy comes up and asks for a date, do you have to do it? No, of course not. And if he threatens to kill you if you don't go through with it, how the hell would you feel? Also, if she turned you down kindly, please don’t react by calling her a cunt or being excessively aggressive. That’s why sometimes women give you a false number, seem interested but never call you, or whatever. It’s because they’re afraid of a reaction like that.
3. Dude, I don't care what she's wearing. That doesn't give an excuse. If your line of reasoning is correct — that if a woman dresses like a slut she's asking for it — then we may as well just cover our entire bodies like they do in some countries. Because I can definitely say I don't dress provocatively, just jeans and a T-shirt, usually a light jacket, literally all that's showing is my neck and face, and I still get this shit. So therefore I should hide my body even more? Cover up even my eyes because that's all that's left? Perhaps I should disfigure myself and become ugly so you don't feel attraction. No, that's fucking ridiculous to ask of me. Again, let's go back to the homosexual analogy: As a guy, if you're hot in the summer and take off your shirt and another man grabs your ass because your naked chest got him so bothered, I think you can agree that man is in the wrong. And before you mention breasts between men and women are different, I'll say this: If you honestly think a man's chest doesn't arouse sexual feelings in women (and gay men), you're a fucking idiot. Just look at every romance novel that ever existed and it's usually a shirtless guy. You shouldn't be prevented from removing your clothing as you like (within a reasonable degree) for that, just as women shouldn't.
4. Stop whining about the fucking Friend Zone. If she's treating in a decent albeit celibate way, then just appreciate that you have a good friend. If you just wanted to sleep with her and she hasn't shown interest, then move on. Because she's emotionally investing herself into the relationship and you're also stringing her along. Be up front and say your real intentions so she doesn't get the wrong idea. Then she can reject you outright and you can focus on another possible love interest. Because if you say Elliot Rodger serves as a warning to all women who friend zone, then that is fucking terrifying. You're saying a woman should sleep with any man who shows interest in her or else she deserves to get shot. I'd give another homosexual example, but they're getting old now.

Ladies:
1. I've seen people being upset at the defense "not all guys are like that." I know the difference between facing rejection and being killed is huge, but it is necessary to realize that most are not like Elliot Rodger. If you start lumping all men together into one mass, we can't start a conversation about what needs to be done to solve these issues. It alienates guys who are trying to understand. I'm not saying you have to excuse what some men do, but it's like having your parents shot by a black guy and then saying you hate black people. Yeah, there are lots of black people who are terrible and fit the stereotype, but you have to comprehend that many aren't. You're not going to attract support from them if you come out that prejudiced.
2. Okay, we have to admit sometimes women are assholes. I'm not saying the women who rejected Elliot Rodger were and I'm not saying even if they did they deserved to be shot. But women do sometimes take advantage of a guy's attraction. Not friend zoning, where you genuinely like the guy and want to hang out with him, only to find out he wants to date you. That's a different issue. I mean having the guy buy you things because you know he wants you sexually. You don't do that shit to friends. We can't pretend that all women are just innocently sitting around and misogynistic men are the problem. Guys can see how their attraction can genuinely be exploited and it causes resentment. We also have to frown upon such behavior. That's not acceptable.
3a. Guys can still give their input on women's issues. You can't just exclude them because they're not women. For example, I've never had cancer, but I'll give an opinion about the treatment of cancer patients. I may not be as informed of the problems involved, but that doesn't mean I have to be perpetually silent about it. Having a panel in congress on women's issues be all men is deplorable and needs to be remedied immediately, but again I'm not going to say only women can be on there too.
3b. Things like abortion aside, flirtation is a two-person process. If we want to talk about the rules, we can't be the only ones dictating here. We can't dismiss how courageous he was for approaching us in the first place. Yeah, there's a big difference between what he faces and what we face, but that doesn't eliminate his ordeal. What I'm trying to get at is, if a guy is courteous, don't mock him for his efforts or be a jerk. No, we're not required to sleep with him, we're not required to date him, we're not required to do anything. But when a guy complains that he did everything right and the woman acted like a bitch, then we shouldn't say he's making the issue about him. Let me give an example: I've seen a guy try to talk to a woman in a park, and she told him that she didn't want to see his ugly face. That's not cool. Like, there have to be locations where guys can try to flirt with us and if they're doing so in the way we ask, then we have to acknowledge that and return the politeness at least. If he starts becoming pushy about it, then yeah, we can fight back in the way we want. But if guys want to at least have the opportunity to try their luck, then I think that's not a crazy request. What else do we say, don't talk to women ever? There has to be some give and push in these interactions and to be respectful on both sides.

To sum up:
Guys: How the hell do you think inappropriately talking/touching a woman would work? You fucking know where the boundaries are, and don't try to justify in any context you're allowed to cross them. When she says no, she means it. It's not the end of the world. Try your luck again. She doesn't have to do anything for you.
Gals: We have to face a lot of bullshit everyday, but we also can't become the assholes that we're complaining about. No, we don't have to change ourselves to make guys feel better about themselves, but that doesn't mean we have to become prejudiced. We can't solve the problems by making generalizations, and we should also self-reflect to understand what men who aren't crazy like Elliot Rodger are encountering.

My parents occasionally just change everything and pretend as if that's what we've been doing forever. For example, we always drank out of the tall glasses that I usually give you guys when we have coke. When I came home from Ireland, mom and dad handed out these small glasses about half the size of this. When I questioned this and asked for my regular glass, they seemed perplexed why anyone would want the taller glasses ever. I was confused what happened in the six months I was gone.

But what's bothering me is the hand towels. My entire life there was always a towel right next to the sink to signify this is what you should use after you wash your hands. Shortly before the fire, mom and dad would ask me if I gave people their towel. I'd think, ".....? No one's taking a shower; why would I give a towel?" And then occasionally my parents would enter the room, apologize to a friend that I'm so rude, and then give him or her one. And that friend would look at me in bemusement and put it to the side, never to be used.

When mom bought everything for the house, everyone received their own hand towel. This has never happened before. I don't know why we changed from "here's a hand towel by the sink" to "everyone must have their own and not use anyone else's." Dad actually got upset because mom bought the same color for her and him, so he can't tell by sight which belongs to whom and made mom buy more colors. I know it's not just me; even Ate Neneng can't figure out what's going on. When did this happen? Why did this happen? How did my parents go from what we did before to now? Does anyone else do this? Give a hand towel to every guest that enters the house so they don't use yours or share one with other guests?

The plaintiff in a court case in Tennessee, who is the Assistant District Attorney General, wanted the defense lawyer to stop referring to her as "the government" and instead as "General Rettig" because she believed the phrase was used in a derogatory way and could bias the judgment. The defense lawyer, surnamed "Justice," gave the best possible response. I want to emphasize this is an actual document that was submitted to the court:

Should this Court disagree, and feel inclined to let the parties basically pick their own designations and ban words, then the defense has a few additional suggestions.... First, the Defendant no longer wants to be called "the Defendant." This rather archaic term of art obviously has a fairly negative connotation.... At trial, Mr. P. hereby demands to be addressed only by his full name, preceded by the title "Mister."

Alternatively, he may be called simply "the Citizen Accused." This latter title sounds more respectable than the criminal "Defendant." The designation "That innocent man" would also be acceptable.

Moreover, defense counsel does not wish to be referred to as a "lawyer," or a "defense attorney." Those terms are substantially more prejudicial than probative. See Tenn. R. Evid. 403. Rather, counsel for the Citizen Accused should be referred to primarily as the "Defender of the Innocent." This title seems particularly appropriate, because every Citizen Accused is presumed innocent.

Alternatively, counsel would also accept the designation "Guardian of the Realm."

Further, the Citizen Accused humbly requests an appropriate military title for his own representative, to match that of the opposing counsel. Whenever addressed by name, the name "Captain Justice" will be appropriate. While less impressive than "General," still, the more humble term seems suitable. After all, the Captain represents only a Citizen Accused, whereas the General represents an entire State.

Along these same lines, even the term "defense" does not sound very likeable. The whole idea of being defensive comes across to most people as suspicious. So to prevent the jury from being unfairly misled by this ancient English terminology, the opposition to the Plaintiff hereby names itself "the Resistance."

Wherefore, Captain Justice, Guardian of the Realm and Leader of the Resistance, primarily asks that the Court deny the State’s motion, as lacking legal basis. Alternatively, the Citizen Accused moves for an order in limine modifying the speech code as aforementioned, and requiring any other euphemisms and feel-good terms as the Court finds appropriate.

Fuck, maybe I should've gone to law school after all if it's this fun.

When I took a Japanese religion course, our professor gave us a handout about the folktale of Kaguya. Or rather, folktales. It was a conglomeration of variations of the myth from different parts of Japan. The point was Japanese religion was never centralized and each locality had their own version and interpretation. Ancient Greece is similar in that aspect. Every tale was changed depending on the region and over the ages. Here's an example: The story I grew up with is a hero named Jason had a wife named Medea, and he could not have succeeded in many of his adventures without her. However he left her when the king of their city offered his daughter in marriage. Medea killed Jason's new wife, the king, and the children she had with Jason in revenge. It wasn't until later in life that I found out the filicide was actually just made up by the ancient Greek playwright Euripides, who just wanted to give his drama a little extra kick like any Hollywood scriptwriter would today. Somehow this one man's opinion became the canon that led up to this day.

Now if you know anything about the Greeks, they fucking loved talking about the origins or most base notions of things. What is the theory of politics? What are aesthetics? What is the soul? For people of such mindset, these differences in the myth was driving them fucking crazy. They couldn't create any sort of chronology. This is where Hesiod came in. He was an ancient poet who basically just sat down and tried to hash all of this shit together to make on solid myth, figure out which god was related to which and how, and what happened when. The result was a work called Theogony ("Birth of the Gods"). After seeing scholars quote this dude for the fortieth time, I figured I should probably fucking read this shit.

First off, I discovered is it's short as fuck. So short in fact, the book I got combined it with his other opus, Work and Days. In it, he detailed the five ages from the beginning of the world to the present day. It started with there being an abundance of food and everyone was perfect. Finally it denigrated to his time period where children disrespect their parents, greed has no bounds, everyone is lazy, and there is no sense of modesty, only lasciviousness. As I read his numerous complaints, it seemed familiar: That's what people are saying about millennials. We're lazy, we don't work, we're slutty, we don't listen to our parents... The list goes on. And that's what people were saying about the baby boomers of the 1960s, the flappers in the 1920s, all the way back to Hesiod. I think you can chart a progression in cultural values — definitely the shit on TV wouldn't fly two generations ago — but then again, we've had ground-shattering moments in the past. People who entered the French Revolution or WWII left it to find a world completely different. The internet has completely changed the landscape and our mentality as a people — I know I personally would not be who I am today without it — but I think we've always been able to manage and there shouldn't be any reason we can't now.

Wow, I meant to write about one topic and completely changed it midway. Sorry about that; next time I'll stay on point.

My severe entomophobia allows me to spot anything out of order on any surface. I can see a centipede on molding from across the room. I can spot a spider tucked between flower pots. I can pinpoint an ant crawling at the bottom of the stairs. Consequently my lights are throwing me off. My room before was lined with sconces and I fucking hated them. They prevented me from moving furniture around and the middle of the room was dark. So immediately I said I wanted recessed lighting in the ceiling. It worked great, but when I'm lying in bed, there's constantly this black thing in my periphery. I immediately turn my head in a panic, thinking it's a cockroach, but it's just the light. Literally at least twice a night this happens. I need to get accustomed to the situation and soon for my heart's sake.

I'm a pseudo-historian. I'm used to reading very dry books that are full of facts. I think there's a way to present the information in an interesting way (especially history because it's essentially a story), and a podcast called Hardcore History does this wonderfully. Dan Carlin, the guy behind Hardcore History, essentially has a 1.5- to 5-hour monologue about any topic. It's just his voice from start to finish as he takes you into the world of the Punic Wars, the spread of the Mongols, or the Red Scare of the 1940s and 50s in a really immersive and gripping way.

His format is completely different from 99% Invisible, a podcast about design, and shorter versions of each episode is played on NPR. I find most of the episodes to be really fascinating, like the mechanics behind a slot machine to keep you betting, or the early wars between pedestrians and cars in the 1910s and 20s. But I guess because it's on NPR and it's about art, there are these moments when I sit back and think, "What the fuck is going on?" For example, sometimes there'd be whale sounds playing and someone whispering repeatedly "postage stamps are integral." Usually in the episode it'd be explained what the whales and stamps have to do with each other, but not always.

As part of my major requirement I had to take a course on medieval fine arts, and I chose manuscripts. I got a good grade, but it was very difficult for me. I just couldn't produce bullshit. I just couldn't. We'd have slides of different manuscript pages and art history students in the class would gush about how the colors would usher forth a calm sense of feeling to help the monks with their quotidian meditations, and when it was my turn I'd mutter something along the lines of, "I think it looks very pretty." I vaguely recall I quoted a paragraph on my xanga from an art history book I was reading at the ridiculousness of the language, how the folds of the clothing were in "capricious abandon." My mind just cannot create such phrases, and that's why the class was terrible for me. For our paper we had to write four pages describing a particular folio. I was done in a seven-line paragraph. I stated the facts about the event depicted and threw in a few more lines about the techniques employed to create the drawing. I can't generate bullshit about how the aureola around Christ creates a definite border between his holiness and majesty and the mundane world surrounding him in the picture. It sounds fucking retarded to me and that I'm making things up.

That's the sense I get in 99% Invisible. Whenever these weird moments come up, I know they're trying to create an effect and atmosphere, but I just can't see it as anything but foolishness. I'd rather just cut through all this nonsense and get to the point. But I guess that's what makes me a historian and not an artist. And I suppose it's good that not everyone is like me because then we'd live in a utilitarian world without any creativity. Still... whales and stamps?

[18:14:00] gtaex2739: yeah i like korean food but i can't eat it every day
[18:14:15] gtaex2739: it's a lot of soup, which i'm not a huge fan of
[18:14:27] gtaex2739: and then seafood which i like but don't love
[18:14:38] gtaex2739: and then a lot of amazing snack food that's still just snack food
[18:14:46] gtaex2739: or splurging on amazing korean barbecue
[18:14:50] gtaex2739: can't do that too often
[18:15:17] gtaex2739: and if it's not that, it's drowned in this firey death sauce
[18:15:27] gtaex2739: which gives me pretty epic diarrhea
[18:15:29] gtaex2739: like clockwork
[18:17:40] Dun 4 Hire: You think Greene would be able to handle it?
[18:19:34] gtaex2739: yeah
[18:19:40] gtaex2739: the spice level is fine
[18:19:53] gtaex2739: but the diarhea is annoying
[18:20:07] gtaex2739: i'm not talking about normal diarrhea where you sit down on the toilet and you're like.. hmm, that can't be healthy
[18:20:19] gtaex2739: i'm talking about, you're halfway through the meal and you're like.. uh oh, this is coming out NOW
[18:21:07] gtaex2739: i'm talking about diarhhea so potent, i eat at the diner a block away from my house and i'm still worried i won't make it home in time
[18:21:37] gtaex2739: there will come a day where i shit my pants on a date
[18:21:42] gtaex2739: i have already accepted that as a reality
[18:22:41] Dun 4 Hire: You should bring extra underwear with you on all dates.
[18:22:57] gtaex2739: i'm not sure underwear can contain it
[18:23:02] gtaex2739: i'll need a full change of clothes
[18:23:04] gtaex2739: including socks and shoes
[18:28:45] Dun 4 Hire: "Hi, sorry I'm a little late... why are you carrying around a duffel bag?"
[18:28:52] Dun 4 Hire: "Equipment I may need for this meal."
[18:28:55] Dun 4 Hire: "Equipment?"
[18:28:57] Dun 4 Hire: "Don't ask."
[18:29:04] gtaex2739: *shits self

If you ever read Paul's letters in the Bible, you get the impression he's expecting the Second Coming to be imminent. It's because when Jesus comes, the dead will rise again and be judged: "For a time is coming when all who are in their graves will hear his voice and come out—those who have done what is good will rise to live, and those who have done what is evil will rise to be condemned." (Jn.5:28-29). Early Christians interpreted this to mean everyone's soul is waiting in their grave for Christ to appear, so in the meantime Christians should convert as many people as fast as possible so that they'll be saved when this happens, which could be any day now. It's why you hear about the earliest Christians hanging out in the catacombs so often; not only are they hiding from the authorities, they actually believed their families' souls were still there and in the room with them because they couldn't move on yet. There was a crisis of faith when the first generation started dying; much like when Harold Camping's prediction on May 21, 2011 failed to come to pass, people just stopped believing. However Christians managed to hold on and realized it may not come as soon as they expected, so they settled down for the long haul.

But the idea that no one can move onto heaven or hell until the Second Coming remained for quite some time. As the Roman persecutions picked up, one of the psychological methods Christians employed to deal with the situation is the belief if you were a martyr, you skipped the whole End Times thing and got a free pass to heaven. It helps to know that you're going to be with God soon as you're being torn apart by lions and having hot tar being poured down your back. But once Christianity was legalized, this ticket to paradise was closed off and you had to wait in your grave like the rest of us.

This is where the Circumcellions come in. Out of all the craziness in the early days, they're one of my favorites due to their hilarious logic. The Circumcellions were a Berber group who wanted to achieve martyrdom... but there wasn't any anymore. So what they would do is hide around roadways like a bunch of bandits, jump any travelers who passed by, and, instead of demanding your money or your life, insist the traveler kill them all so they could become martyrs. Imagine for a moment you just left the train station late at night, you're walking home and there's no one on the street, and suddenly about six guys surround you with bats. You think you're about to be beaten for your cell phone and wallet. But then they give you a gun and start threatening you to kill them. It's gotta be one of the most perplexing events of your life. I read one account of a man who said he was worried that the rest would turn on him after killing one, so he insisted on tying everyone up first. They agreed and once he did, instead of slitting their throats he just left and continued on his way. Honestly, what do you do in that kind of situation?

I believe "gluten-free" is proof of people's adherence to gossip without any individual contemplation or research. Lots of people say they try to maintain a diet without any gluten because it causes weight gains. This is completely, utterly false. It's a harmless protein found in grains that often helps breads rise. Gluten-free products started appearing on shelves because a portion of the population is actually allergic to it; it's like we now see nut-free desserts to cater to those who can't eat it. It had nothing to do with healthy lifestyle like the sudden surge of organic products or weight loss like the Atkin's Diet. It's literally for people whose stomachs cannot take gluten.

Until people started picking it up for those reasons. Now shit is being marketed for that reason. I'm trying to figure out how this happened. Is it because people saw "gluten free," assumed that it must be something bad because why else would a company remove it, and then decide to adhere to it even though they don't know what it is or their information is from hearsay? That's the best guess I've got, but then again I don't have information about this either. All I know for certain is if these people actually talked to their doctors or did some preliminary research — hell, even just glanced at wikipedia — there wouldn't be this nonsense.

When I browse for music on my iPod, the only thing I'm interested in is "artist." I don't care abut genre, album, or whatever. I never use those. The settings menu allowed me to customize my main screen so all that was there was "artist" and I could skip all the extraneous bullshit.

I recently got Ate Neneng the latest generation of my iPod, and as I was teaching her I realized it would be easier if we started out with artist instead of going through menus to get to it. So I went to the settings menu again, but this time I realized something: They took the option out to customize the main screen.

Why does Apple consistently do this? With each generation and upgrade, I swear to god their products become more and more useless. I understand that by removing options you're simplifying the system for the layman, but I don't think having the ability to change how your screen works is that complicated. I can name other shit, like how in iOS5 for some reason you couldn't look at lyrics anymore on your iPad. When was this ever an issue? Who at Apple HQ sat down and said, "You know, people are getting confused whenever lyrics pops up. Maybe we should just take out that option altogether. It's now simpler." Why the fuck would you then allow me to input the lyrics in iTunes to begin with if I can't even look at it on my mobile devices?

Seriously, whenever people talk to me about Apple's ingenuity in design, I just want to punch them in the face. If you don't want to be able to do anything, then I guess they're great at design. Yeah, their design is so fucking amazing that no one would even think of changing their iPod screen at all.

http://sexycodicology.tumblr.com/post/80366035594/victusinveritas-mappae-mundi-t-and-o-maps
(Scroll down a bit to get to the pictures.)

Whilst extremely inaccurate, these "T and O" maps represented the medieval worldview, and if you can't read the small scribblings in these pictures, it's something like this:

The T itself represents the Mediterranean Sea, although I don't know what that divide between Europe and Asia is. Perhaps the Aegean? Anyway, Jerusalem definitely is the center of the universe, so it had to be placed in the middle. Now, T and O maps were meant to be more metaphorical than literal, but then again the literal maps weren't much better. Part of me wants to ask how the hell do you fuck that one up so badly, but then again if you just threw me into a random location, told me to draw a map, and then sat back and crossed your arms until I did so, I probably wouldn't do much better. Still, I'm fairly certain someone should've realized the Mediterranean wasn't shaped like that. Or that Great Britain, whilst triangular, wasn't an actual triangle. Or that Ireland wasn't a rectangle. That's usually what's in my mind when Google Maps fucks up. At least I'm not dependent on something like this. I don't know if people actually carried maps back then because you can be damned sure this wasn't useful.

I actually hate philosophy. Whilst reading Thee Cambridge Companion to Abelard, I yawned my way through the philosophical sections before carefully picking my way through the biographical and theological ones. It's odd because I fucking love religion and for the west at least it's closely intermixed with philosophy, but I never could gather the same amount of interest in it. Perhaps because often philosophers come up with ideas that, whilst logical, have little to do with reality. As oft-quoted Plato's The Republic is, no one has ever implemented it. Religion on the other hand can be irrational, but it still finds expression in daily life. I can read a line in the Bible and see how it played out in society.

However I did enjoy reading one particular piece of philosophy, and it changed my life forever. It's Plato's Apology, which is (supposedly) a paraphrasing of Socrates' defense during his capital court case that ultimately resulted in his execution.^* We should've learned about Socrates back in World History, but I'll give a review: Socrates often walked around the marketplace and would approach alleged wise men and ask them questions like, "What is love?" or "What is bravery?" And they'd give some answers and Socrates would point out the contractions, so they'd have to redefine their answers. This would go on until Socrates would demonstrate that they actually had a stupid answer to begin with and don't know anything.

Of course this is humiliating if you had a reputation for your knowledge, and eventually Socrates pissed off too many people with his antics. He was brought up on charges of disrespecting the gods and corrupting the youth.^** He was eventually sentenced to death by drinking poison. Although he had the opportunity to flee the city and live in exile, Socrates chose to stay and he is considered to have one of the great philosophical deaths because he spent the time after drinking the poison debating about the nature of the afterlife calmly and without fear.

The Apology completely turned my life around because it humbled me. In his defense, Socrates mentioned that the most famous oracle in the ancient Greece said he was the wisest man in the world. He thought that was incorrect, so he approached someone he thought was surely wiser. And that's how he started his marketplace routine. In the midst of his journey, he realized why the oracle said that about him: He was the greatest fool of all, but unlike everyone else he realized his ignorance. Reading this forced me to let go of a lot of my prejudices. If you had met me in high school for example, I would've likely spewed a long, hateful tirade about George Bush and the Iraq War. Nowadays I'll give a much more measured response because I've come to the realization I have no fucking idea. I wasn't in the room when they made those decisions, I never went to Iraq and found out what the situation was on the ground instead of what was filtered through the news, and I only know five people personally in the military so I can't say what "the troops" want. And this is all thanks to Socrates. Whenever I enter a new situation, he's always in the back of my mind telling me, "You're a fucking idiot. Don't pretend like you know what you're doing. Fucking stand back and evaluate things before you come to a conclusion. Otherwise you're a pompous asshole."

^* I say supposedly because Socrates' other student, Xenophon, also wrote his own version that is vastly different. There are some accounts that Socrates actually didn't say a damned thing and Plato and Xenophon wrote down what he should've said.

^** Ostensibly. Other sources besides Plato says that there was resentment toward Socrates' actions as head of the popular assembly. When there was mob justice to put nine generals to death, he refused because that would go against the law.

Today I noticed a new French bakery opened up by Columbus Circle. I thought I'd try it out and selected a slice of chocolate cake called tout choco or "wholly choco." When I said this to the woman behind the counter, she gave me a look of confusion and I had to point out what I wanted. And when it came time to pay, you can imagine my surprise when the price was double what the sign said. When I asked her why it was so high, she said I wanted two. Okay, so in French there's this tendency to drop the last consonant of a word, so how you pronounce tout choco is something along the lines of "too shoh-koh." She heard the tout as "two."

I'd be willing to forgive her if she weren't working in a French bakery. After all, French is like pinyin: If you haven't been taught how to decode this shit, there's no way you can intuitively figure out from the spelling how to say a word. But again, this is your job. If it were one French pastry out of apple pies and rainbow brownies, I'd be willing to let it slide. But you're surrounded with gâteaux aux fraises, tartes au fromage blanc, financiers vanillés, and macarons de Saint-Emilion. If I ask for a "gah-toh oh frahz," "tart oh froh-mahj blan," "fee-nan-see-ey vah-nee-yuh," or "mah-kah-ron duh san-e-meel-yon," and you don't know what any of that is, we're in trouble. The signs are in French. I can translate for you, but considering you don't even know French to begin with I doubt that's going to help as you scan helplessly over the labels.

Also, I said, "I'd like a tout choco." I used the indefinite article. In English, which you should know, that means one. Singular. That's it. Because otherwise you thought I said, "I'd like a two choco." What the fuck does that even mean? Thank god I didn't ask for two tous chocos or I might have blown her fucking mind.

I never have to question why I want to study the Middle Ages.

Shit was so much realer back then.

The problem with making a picture in cross stitch is that until you're fairly fair along, it looks like nothing. Right now I'm working on a person's face, and Ate Neneng assures me that it looks like shit.