The Merfolk Transmuter

I've taken a detour from my usual route in Dungeon Crawl Stone Soup. Merfolk represent the race of choice if you wish to employ pole arms, and I do, because I want to find out just how effective they are.

I decided to become a Merfolk Transmuter, because Merfolk excel at transmutations, and there is a cheap, effective transmutation attack available, Evaporate, which causes a potion to explode into a cloud of harmful gas when thrown at monsters. This spell consumes little in the way of magical points and requires as fuel harmful potions, which can be manufactured from monster corpses.

In general, I opted to learn just a small number of low-level spells and rely upon a large and heavy pole arm in conjunction with a +5 javelin of returning as a missile weapon.

Since my character acquired a cloak of preservation, bestowing resistance to acid, and has acquired resistance to cold, I have decided to pillage the Slime Pits, which has a huge treasure hoarde on the final level.



For the time being, I can say the following--Minotaur Beserkers are still easier to play than Merfolk Transmuters, but the Merfolk has a huge edge in any aquatic environment. Indeed, the Swamp becomes the Merfolk's personal candy jar. I suspect that my Merfolk may require the protection of a shield rather than relying upon a two-handed weapon. With a beserker, things are easy. To kill a high-level monster, one need merely go beserk. With a transmuter, one had better have enough of the nastiest potions on hand to cast Evaporate; and against monsters that are immune to such toxins, all bets are off.

However, I see great potential in a higher-level transmuter that acquires the Alter Self spell, because mutations can be very beneficial. In addition, there is no reason why a Merfolk, which enjoys superior aptitude in Enchantments, cannot learn Beserk Rage to give it an awesome attack potential.

Feeling Disillusioned?

If ever you feel disillusioned by American politics, it is refreshing to sample the politics of other nations. Let us examine what is happening in Iran, for today. The hardliners backing the Supreme Leader--or Ahmadinejad (I can't determine which is the real power, and which has been relegated to a figurehead)--appear as close to evil as it gets. I am always amazed how the fascists are all the same, paranoid and convinced that others are out to get them. Their philosophy is strike first and don't ever ask questions. In Iranian politics, the candidates of both the Reformers and the Conservatives speak of Western powers as though we were the boogeyman. There is excessive concern about outside powers and not enough attention paid to what is happening among Iranians.

Compared to Iran, the level of discourse in America is sublime. I would vote for the Republicans every single time if their opposition were the Revolutionary Guard. One has to feel fortunate to live in a country where many freedoms already exist and more are possible. This isn't an excuse for complacency, however. Just throwing one's hands up and saying, "Well, society looks good enough for me; there ain't nothing too bad with things the way they are," that is just laziness. Good enough is never enough. (That is an irritating cliche, isn't it?) I believe in amelioration. That's another huge difference between liberals and conservatives. Liberals believe that things can get better. Conservatives believe that good enough is enough.

Pole Arms have their Charms

I was reading along in the manual for Stone Soup Dungeon Crawl the other day, a pleasurable activity, when I encountered an inconvenient fact that contradicts one of my recommended strategies. I quote from Chapter 3, "Skills | Fighting":

Being good at a specific weapon improves the speed with which you can use it by about 10% every two skill levels. Although lighter weapons are easier to use initially, as they strike quickly and accurately, heavier weapons increase in damage potential very quickly as you improve your skill with them.

This favors a policy of polearms or other species of high-damage weapon, which is contrary to what I imagined was the best class of weapon, short blades. Oops! My bad. You haven't been letting your minotaurs run about equipped with only a short sword, have you? If so, my belated apologies. I will refund all the money you paid for my advice. I mean it. Every last cent. Just submit your receipt, if you don't mind.

It does not follow that two-handed weapons are superior to one-handed weapons, because shields represent a potent defense and going without them is, shall we say, imprudent? At least for most races. One has to balance offense against defense. Nevertheless, now that I have learned something new about the game, I am tempted to play as a Minotaur that specializes in Pole Arms and Crossbows. Who needs shields, anyway? Hulkus the Minotaur scorns shields. All he needs is a trusty glaive.

My assumption that short blades were superior was based in part upon the preference of the ancient Roman infantryman for the short sword. It was considered the most effective weapon in close melee, at least by the Roman army, if not other ancient nations. This has do to with its effectiveness in stabbing and slashing in very close encounters, which is the preferred method by which the Romans dispatched their enemies. A longer blade suffers from reduced maneuverability. In combat, Romans relied upon their large shields. Behind the shields, the infantrymen could endure small missile assaults and enjoyed protection from the longer weapons of their foes. Upon achieving close quarters, the infantryman could whip out his fast short sword, enjoying an advantage at whatever form of attack that he chose.

Why I Detest Vampires

I detest vampires because they're not useful. Instead of sucking blood, they should suck fat. Then they could coexist with humankind and even become lucrative entrepreneurs. I would pay a vampire a hundred dollars per pound safely removed. If the vampire obtains nourishment thereby, so much the better.

How come our best fiction writers can't imagine a vampire that serves, rather than harms, the human race? Perhaps they have been drawing inspiration from our leaders all these years.

Do It Yourself Last Will and Testament

Here is a generic Last Will and Testament for single folk with uncomplicated lives. I shamelessly pilfered it from the Internet and dumped all verbiage that did not apply to single people with no children.

Whether it will stand up in a court of law, I don't know, but it seems right to me. Whether a will can survive a legal challenge depends on which side can buy the best lawyer (or judge). But this will represents a quick and cheap solution to a nagging problem that most of us put off until it is too late. The question is not whether to write a will, but why not write one? Although there is a potential downside--you supply your designated heir with a motive for the worst sort of crime, just like in an Alfred Hitchcock movie.

However, since gay marriage is likely to remain illegal for the foreseeable future, any gay couple should have on hand a Last Will and Testament to protect each spouse in the event of unforeseen tragedy.

---

LAST WILL AND TESTAMENT:

Short form of a will for a single person with no children

Will of _________

I, _________[name of testator], _________[if known by other names, add: also known as _________ and _________,] domiciled and residing at _________[address], _________ County, _________[state], declare this to be my last will and testament, and revoke all other wills and codicils.

I.

1. I am single and have never been married.
2. I have no children, living or dead.
3. My family consists of the following persons: _________[describe].

II.

Reference in this will to the term “_________” shall mean _________.

III.

I direct that my funeral expenses (including the cost of a suitable grave marker), the costs of administering my estate, and all legal debts allowable as claims against my estate be paid out of the general funds of my estate before any distribution of such funds to any of the beneficiaries mentioned below.

IV.

I direct that all taxes imposed by reason of my death on property passing under or outside this will be paid out of my residuary estate.

V.

I give and bequeath my personal effects, _________[describe], to the following persons: _________.

VI.

My residuary estate is all my property remaining after the dispositions specified in Paragraph V of this will, whenever obtained, including property not otherwise effectively disposed of in this will, and property as to which I have a power to appoint. I give, devise, and bequeath my residuary estate to: _________.

VII.

I appoint _________ as my executor, without bond, of this will. My executor shall have the following powers, in addition to those granted by law: _________.
I subscribe my name to this will on _________[date], at _________[address], _________ County, _________[state], in the presence of _________, _________, and _________, attesting witnesses, who subscribe their names to this will on _________[date] at my request and in my presence.



[Signature]



ATTESTATION CLAUSE

On the date last above written _________[testator's name], known to us to be the person whose signature appears at the end of this will, declared to us, the undersigned, that the foregoing instrument, consisting of _________ pages, including the page on which we have signed as witnesses, was _________[his or her] will. _________[He or She] then signed the will in our presence and, at _________[his or her] request, in _________[his or her] presence and in the presence of each other, we now sign our names as witnesses.


residing at
[Signature] [Street, city, state]


residing at
[Signature] [Street, city, state]


residing at
[Signature] [Street, city, state]

Environmentalism is a Tough Sell in Poor Countries

We're not going to sell environmentalism to India until they rise out of poverty.

When Indians point out that they have among the lowest per capita carbon emissions in the world, well, they are probably right. What can we say to that? Not much.

The U.S. must lead the way in carbon reduction technology, which is what we should have already done, had we not been ruled by imbeciles from 2001 - 2008, during which nothing was accomplished in the United States, save to wreck the economy and begin pointless wars that continue to drain scarce funds from the U.S. Treasury.

Instead of badgering trade partners like India over carbon reduction, the U.S. should be setting an example on the world stage. We remain, for the time being, the richest country in the world and should be developing and exporting green technology.

This is a novel concept for U.S. leaders: Americans manufacturing a product, themselves, that other countries in the world might want to purchase, other than bombs, bullets, guns, planes or ships. It may take time for U.S. leaders to grow accustomed to this strange idea. Rather than sending jobs overseas, and sending more Americans into poverty--actually producing something of worth in the United States. Something that does not kill people or damage their health.

Russia: Yet Another Criminal State?

If you were in any doubt as to whether Russia is, or is not a criminal state, this story speaks volumes. If you dare to speak out and cause the rulers distress, they will kill you, because they do not believe in democratic principles. Only when a State tolerates its nonviolent dissidents can it be said to have achieved a representative, Republican form of government.

Russia and Chechnya are babies on the world stage. They have a long way to go. One of the steps that these countries could take towards democracy is to have a functioning law enforcement organization, instead of the existing criminal organization, where the police are criminals and murderers. The next step would be to develop a legal system, instead of the current system where the leader kills anyone he wants dead.

Putin has been a disaster for Russia. The former KGB operative clings to an old belief in authoritarianism, which he associates with strength. Putin is wrong about this, just as he is wrong about a great many things.

Use Rechargable Batteries!

Many people continue to use disposable batteries. What's wrong with that picture? Plenty. Here are the lamentable qualities of a disposable battery:

1. You are wasting about a dollar per battery each time you toss one. Consider the economic factor alone.


2. You are adding to the nation's landfills. Need I point out that in most cases mankind is unlikely to ever reclaim any of the metal contents of the battery?


3. I understand that some disposables no longer employ mercury, a known environmental toxin. Does that make you feel any better? What about all the other metals contained in a battery? Do you want to drink that stuff? You will, in time, as disposed batteries corrode and leak their nasty contents into the water table.


4. You have to make special trips to the store to buy batteries, wasting gas, which contributes to global warming.

For less than thirty dollars, anyone in the United States can purchase an easy-to-use recharger that handles AAA, AA, C, and even those odd nine-volt rectangular batteries. I bought just such a recharger at Home Depot, although you can find them on E-bay as well. Always buy a recharger that handles the maximum variety of battery types, because otherwise you will have to buy new rechargers, which is another variety of waste.

Some retail stores hate rechargables. Wal-Mart, K-mart, Staples, et al, do not want you to use rechargables. They want you to continue the cycle of purchasing disposable batteries, because it results in more profit for them as well as additional visits to their store, where you are likely to purchase other items on impulse. Expect disposable batteries to occupy front and center of their in-store displays. To find the few rechargable varieties, one often has to hunt. Most major retail outlets offer only one variety, such as AA, as a nod to their customers who demand them. The absence of other varieties of rechargables, such as nine volt or AAA, discourages consumers from using any rechargables at all. Through a mixture of negligence and greed, but most of all greed, retailers are contributing to pollution, global warming, and the continued decline of the U.S. economy. In a better society, this policy would be considered a crime, and a special fee would be assessed against the retailer on a per diem basis to compensate society for the damage to the environment and the economy.

However, you can purchase unusual species of rechargable batteries, even nine-volt, from vendors on E-bay. They sell reliable rechargables at quite reasonable prices. This is not an option for everyone, because many people do not purchase online, even today in the twenty-first century. But it's a potential solution for readers of my blog. Visit E-bay and stop using disposable batteries of any variety.

Demon Blade or Demon Whip?

In Dungeon Crawl Stone Soup, I've begun to prefer demonspawn to all other races because of their wonderful propensity for beneficial mutations.

There's another, hidden benefit to demonspawn, as well. Hell-forged weapons are among the best that can be found in the dungeon, and a demonspawn gains racial bonuses for using a demon blade, whip, or trident. The question arises--which is better? The demon blade, demon whip, or demon trident? This is no trivial matter, because a demonspawn must choose which weapon class to study. A demonspawn that has achieved level fifteen in long swords is loathe to switch to Maces & Flails just because he discovers a demon whip.

Demon whips are, however, the most common class of hell-forged weapon, and I suggest that all demonspawn specialize in Maces & Flails for this reason alone. Balrugs almost always wield demon whips, for one thing. The second most common infernal weapon is the demon trident, and rarest is the demon blade.

I give demon tridents short shrift, because they receive a slight penalty (three points?) for one-handed use, and I prefer to equip all my demonspawn with shields. I only considered the one-handed weapons. The question then becomes, which is better--demon blade or demon whip?

The demon whip is faster:



But the demon blade causes more damage:



If speed is represented by 150 for the demon blade, then the demon whip is 20/150 faster, or 2/15. Fifteen goes into one hundred 6.6 times. Multiply 6.6 by 2, and the speed difference equals 13.2% in favor of the whip.

If damage is represented by 13/13 for the demon blade, then the demon whip causes only 10/13 damage, or 3/13 less damage. Thirteen goes into one hundred about 7.7 times. Multiply 7.7 by 3, and the damage difference equals 23.1% in favor of the blade.

Although the demon blade causes more damage, it is slower, but whether 13.2% is a factor worthy of note depends upon what I term your weapon philosophy. In my opinion, speed wins the day. This could be proven one way or the other by writing a computer program to simulate successive attacks with each weapon, but that's a bit further than I am prepared to go at this time. Instead, I rely upon intuition formed by experience.

I haven't even brought up the fact that demon whips enjoy a one-point bonus in accuracy, whereas demon blades incur a one-point penalty. Also, demon whips are as light as a feather, an important point for players lugging tons of junk. Finally, demon whips are plentiful, whereas the other weapons are difficult to find. The choice is clear for a demonspawn. The corollary to this general rule is that a demonspawn thus equipped had better carry a knife for slaughtering monsters.

Speaking of beneficial mutations, take a look at my character's list:



The mutations in bold red are permanent and arise as a demonspawn advances in levels. The mutations in gray text resulted from my character quaffing potions of mutation. Of course, sometimes harmful mutations arose, but I drank a potion of cure mutation to cure those. In general, mutations are helpful in the extreme, and every character should attempt to mutate, especially if a potion of cure mutation is available in case of an experiment that backfires.

Adverbs! Who Needs 'Em?

The orthodox position among writers is that adverbs should seldom be used, because they are superfluous. Adjectives are more acceptable, although they tend to be overused as well. Recognizing an adverb is part of the writer's job. In this paragraph, I believe there are two adverbs, seldom and more. To my understanding, these are insignificant and not as annoying as an adverb such as "tenuously," or for that matter, any adverb with an "-ly" serving as a suffix.

One of my favorite writers, Paul Bowles, holds a contrary opinion. He's got an enormous vocabulary and likes to flaunt it, an impulse I recognize. Bowles is what I term an adverb advocate. I disapprove, however.

Today, I was reading his novel, Let It Come Down, set in Tangiers, Morocco, during the 1950s, when I was struck by a series of adverbs that jarred me from my reading. I quote from page 456 of a 2002 volume compiled by Daniel Halpern for the Library of America:

"Darling, please!" She struggled a little to free herself from his embrace. Since he still held her, she squirmed violently and managed to sit up, bathed in sweat, wine, and grease. The air of the room suddenly seemed bitter cold. She ran her hand tentatively over her stomach and drew it back, disgusted. Quickly she jumped out of bed, locked the door into the corridor, drew her peignoir around her, and disappeared into the bathroom without turning on any light.

The trouble is, each of the "-ly" words stand out like third thumbs. Imagine this paragraph without the irksome "-ly" adverbs. Would any meaning be lost? To my mind, the paragraph works better without them, like so:

"Darling, please!" She struggled a little to free herself from his embrace. Since he still held her, she squirmed and managed to sit up, bathed in sweat, wine, and grease. The air of the room seemed bitter cold. She ran her hand over her stomach and drew it back, disgusted. She jumped out of bed, locked the door into the corridor, drew her peignoir around her, and disappeared into the bathroom without turning on any light.

This revision sounds better, although I concede it needs further revision, not just a reduction of adverbs. Here's another passage that disturbs me:

The thought filled him with ineffable happiness. "Ah, God," he murmured aloud, not knowing that he did so.

First of all, ineffable is not a good word to ever use. If something is ineffable, it is because the writer has not taken pains to analyze and describe it. Second, it appears that Bowles adds a supplication to the deity as a clarification for readers who do not know the definition of "ineffable."

Another habit of Bowles that irks me are the frequent digressions into philosophy. Even when hot, sexy action is going on, a Bowles character is liable to escape into an inner world of intellectual contemplation. I receive the impression the writer is bored with his own characters, with the story itself, and prefers these excursions to the action in the story. Prompted by the writer himself, the reader is prone to concur and put the book down.

These are some of the reasons it has taken me weeks to plod through Let It Come Down. Every time it looks like I'm on the verge of finishing the book, Paul drops a bucket of adverbs on my head, ejecting me from Morocco and placing me back in writing class, where I was taught what not to do.

Calling All Rodents

When I talk about Iraq, the U.S. economy, computers, Windows, any topic at all under the Sun, I don't get too many comments. I don't expect comments, either, although these topics tend to be highly controversial.

If I write about "Kodak," however, I receive an immediate comment the next day or soon thereafter, and not a casual one either but a passionate and informed comment. Just a coincidence? I think not.

Corporations hire people like you to read blogs like mine and post comments. I call these people "rodents." From google, they sniff for certain key words, such as "Charter", "AT&T", "Kodak", or "Kodak Easyshare." Then they click on the corresponding links, read the blog entries, and respond if any negative reviews are encountered. When positive reviews are encountered, they probably ignore.

I don't mind the rodents, because they let me know that the blog is functioning as expected. But other bloggers need to be aware of this phenomena. Another type of key word that will cause hits to arrive at your blog is the name of a prominent celebrity or politician such as Newt Gingrich. I assume these bigwigs employ "reputation consultants," i.e. rodents.

An interesting experiment would be to post a blog entry packed with brand names. The gravity of such a post might prove inescapable, attracting all the rodents of the Internet like a black hole.

KENMORE WAL-MART SANYO SONY K-MART KROGER'S PUBLIX INGLES BP SHELL EXXON CHEVRON HOME DEPOT LOWES NEWT GINGRICH KODAK CHARTER COMMUNICATIONS AT&T PACIFIC BELL NORTHWESTERN BELL AIG AIU GATEWAY DELL EBAY E-BAY PAYPAL COSTCO CONSUMER REPORTS AMOCO WALMART KROGERS SHARP PANASONIC OKI OKIDATA HEWLETT PACKARD CANON NIKON OLYMPUS BARNES AND NOBLES AMAZON...

Whew! Ran out of steam there at the end. Let's see what sort of mischief this arouses.

If you are a rodent and arrived at my blog because of the black hole posted above, drop a comment and let me know why you decided to become a rodent. What went wrong? Dropped out of college, joined a cult, what?

Torchwood, R.I.P.

Season Three of Torchwood is out, but don't hold your breath. The writing has taken a dive off a cliff. After watching the first two episodes, I'm not sure I want to continue.

• The show remains obsessed with Captain's Jack ability to resurrect himself from the dead. The scenes relating to Jack's regeneration are gross. I do not wish to observe partial human remains regenerating and reconnecting themselves, while the skeletal mouth screams in agony for a prolonged period.
• Where is the sex appeal, besides Gwen? The camera keeps focusing on Gwen when she is having a good hair moment. The camera is in dippy love with Gwen. Nice, but how about having intelligent words come out of her mouth, as well?
• Two of our favorite actors on the show are gone. The straight male guy and the Asian lady.
• The script is bland overall, devoid of the sexual and psychological tension we had come to expect from the first two seasons. Jack and Junto now profess to be lovers, but it just doesn't appear to work. Judging by their body language and choice of words, they don't seem to be anything more than colleagues--not even close friends. This represents a failure both in the script and in the acting.
• Once again, the government leaders are the baddies. The plot is formulaic and like a dozen other Dr. Who or Torchwood plots.
• Having characters snatching after kids and being mistaken for pervs is just weird.
• In the first two seasons, a hint of adultery (with Jack) added spice to the character of Gwen, but that seems to be gone.

Why, oh why, did Torchwood hatch yet another government conspiracy plot? That is so X-Files, Dr. Who, and Torchwood. The whole alien invasion theme is getting monotonous, as well. One could have hoped season three would have introduced something fresh and unusual. Is anyone else sick of the "London or Cardiff is being invaded by aliens" plot?

However, anyone who has not seen the first two seasons of Torchwood is missing a real treat. The first two seasons were splendid. If you are gay, you will love the show, but there's a little something for everyone.

Most shows go bad sooner or later. House, Six Feet Under, etc. They fall into a rut and can't seem to come up with new ideas that work.

LDS and Gays

This recent case where a gay couple was arrested for kissing reflects poorly upon the Mormon Church.

It would be in the interests of the LDS leadership to adopt a more engaging attitude toward homosexuals, because there are just as many gays among the Mormons as among any other group--if not more. By permitting assimilation, the Mormons can reduce attrition that might otherwise occur among gay Mormons. As things stand today, there are strong incentives for a gay Mormon to change his religious affiliation.

Bruno: Maybe Yes, Maybe No

GLAAD has protested the anti-gay stereotypes used in the new movie Bruno.

I am not sure how I feel about this. I pay attention to what the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation says. They bring up important issues. However, the comedian that does Borat does not strike me as a homophobic type. His humor is crude and vulgar, but he comes across as a performer that relies upon shock and disgust overall. I have watched one of his movies in the past, and it was middling--funny in parts, but overall, tedious. I've never found him offensive, just a bit annoying. I'd have to see the scenes in question in order to judge the movie Bruno for myself. But the problem is, I don't want to see the movie. The guy just isn't that funny, and he's not eye-candy either, to be frank. So I guess I can be counted as part of the boycott. But it's on different grounds than GLAAD. Disdain, rather than disapproval.

The Mainstream Media's Contempt for the Daily Show

Katie Couric, interviewed on the June 11th episode of "The Daily Show with Jon Stewart," expressed the opinion that most viewers of "The Daily Show with Jon Stewart" are young college students. The implication is that "Daily Show" viewers are naive, inexperienced, and not as well informed as their elders, who prefer traditional news shows. This idea has achieved considerable traction among commentators across the political spectrum. It represents a reflexive dismissal of upstart Jon Stewart, who often criticizes his colleagues in the media.

I don't believe Katie Couric, and I never liked her, either. I watched "The Today Show" while she was on it, and I thought it was vapid, like most television shows.

Old people like me, who already have multiple college degrees under our belt, watch "The Daily Show" in preference to all other television news programs because it summarizes, digests, and interprets complicated events in a sensible fashion. To match the information conveyed by a single episode of Jon Stewart's show, one would have to watch ten to twenty hours of regular news programs and also be an astute and alert observer. "The Daily Show" therefore represents a much more efficient manner of absorbing current events. Jon Stewart's interpretations are in most cases correct, whatever his political opponents might like to suppose. I don't always appreciate his buffoonery, but I do follow his reasoning, and so does the rest of his elderly, college-educated, professional audience.

I am afraid that the old fossils of television just don't get it when it comes to "The Daily Show." It will remain popular until Jon loses his mind, which I view as the biggest potential danger to the show. There just does not seem to be a replacement for Mr. Big Mouth. No one can do what he does. Steve Colbert? Please. Not funny. Jon is funny, an important component.

Welcome to the new paradigm, television news heads. We want our information now, we want it correct the first time, and we don't want fluff. We're tired of the conservative stick-in-the-muds who hide behind lies, misinformation, and obfuscation. Give the facts to us fast, get it right the first time, get to the point, hit hard, dig deep, go further, and tell it like it is. If you can't do that, then get out of the way for the person who can.

This is Bravery

See pictures of the protesters in Tehran defying the armed Basiq militia.

That's bravery. I am looking at these protesters, and first of all they are unarmed. Their hands are not even clinched in fists. Second, they're not in the slightest way physically intimidating. They look like pleasant people you might meet at a dinner party.

Ancient Roman Triumphal Columns

I was reading along in one of my favorite books, "Life in Ancient Rome: People and Places," by Nigel Rodgers, a lavishly illustrated coffee table piece, when I was struck in the face by...I hesitate to say.

Instead, let me quote from page 70, the beginning of a chapter entitled "Triumphal Columns":

Commemorative or triumphal columns celebrated great individuals, especially military men. The Romans, like the Greeks or Egyptians, were passionate about perpetuating their fame by the most durable means available, but the idea of erecting marble columns topped by bronze or marble statues seems to have been a wholly Roman one...

...Columns known as columnae rostratae were erected from the 3rd century BC... By the 2nd century BC, relatively small columns celebrating successful Republican nobles' exploits were being erected...

The accompanying photo of Trajan's column looks like nothing so much as a penis. Phallic symbols were customary throughout the ancient city of Rome. So I believe the similarity in appearance is intentional.



This got me to thinking. Could war just be an exercise in penis comparison, as the comedian George Carlin famously said? I think so. Other than Boudica, there aren't many women on the record as having begun wars of conquest, and in the case of Boudica, she had ample provocation.

Load Your Browser Upon Booting

Nowadays, most of us use our PC for only one task on a daily basis--surfing the Internet. Non-internet applications comprise but a small portion of our activities. It makes sense, therefore, to load the default browser at startup. That way, you can press the "On" button for your PC, walk away to get yourself a cup of tea, and your browser will be ready and waiting for you when you get back.

This is easy enough to do in Windows XP. In Windows Explorer, navigate to C:\Documents and Settings\{whatever your username is}\Start Menu\Programs\Startup. In that directory, create a shortcut to your Internet browser. Presto! From now on, when your computer boots, it will load your Internet browser.

This is how every computer in the civilized world should be configured. It is simply ridiculous that people continue to click on a browser each and every time that they boot their PC. Why do it? You know you're going to surf the Net.

Be sure to construct your own home page, as well. That will save the lion's share of both time and aggravation.

The Defense of Marriage Act is an Abomination

The 1996 DOMA represents a blight upon the legacy of Clinton. Yes, worse than Lewinsky.

Passed with near-unanimous Republican support, the DOMA institutionalizes homophobia. It categorically denies federal recognition of gay marriages that have already received legal recognition by a state such as Massachusetts, which permits gay marriage. This means gays are denied Social Security benefits, retirement benefits, health care benefits, federal income tax credits and everything else.

I applaud the decision by the Massachusetts Attorney General to challenge the constitutionality of DOMA. Now is the time to strike down this terrible law, which is based upon the same ignorance that we have come to associate with the Republican Party, which is wrong on all of the issues across the board.

How is it fair that a worker should pay taxes into the Social Security system his entire life, and upon his death, his spouse never receives a cent of Social Security benefits? How does this promote social stability?

The "Defense of Marriage Act" should be renamed "The Discouragement of Marriage Act." Why on earth should we want to deter people from forming a long-term, monogamous relationship?

Bob Barr (R-Ga) was the bigot who wrote and sponsored "The Defense of Marriage Act," although he has since changed his mind and expressed regret over it. Regardless, for that one act, I wouldn't vote for Bob Barr for dogcatcher, and the number of Republicans I have voted for since 1996 can be counted on one hand. Bob Barr has expressed regret for many things he said and did during his time in power and has even come out in favor of decriminalizing marijuana, but now that he is out of power, all of that seems moot. The tears of a repentant criminal pale next to the real suffering of his victims.

Old Bob Barr was one of the key factors that turned me off, for life, from the Republican Party and conservatives in general. He promoted legislation that had a direct negative impact on my personal life. I was under the impression that Bob Barr was an emissary from Satan, sent to promote evil in the world, and Bob certainly gave everyone that impression. He took glee in hijacking the U.S. Congress during the late 1990s so that nothing could be discussed save issues relating to Clinton's extramarital affair with Monica Lewinsky. I remember the television news had nothing besides the affair--nothing in the world was deemed as important as a sperm-stained blue dress. The whole ordeal was sickening. Now even though that was an unpleasant experience for the whole country (thanks, Bob, for prolonging that mess), contrast it against the Bush Administration with their insane Iraq war. With the Democrats, you get sex scandals; so what. With the Republicans, war and economic devastation.

Bob Barr basked in the attention he received from all quarters as the "attack dog" of the Republican Party. Meanwhile, he worked to pass the "Defense of Marriage Act" which was a slap to every gay American. Millions of us now face a life without Social Security benefits, without numerous benefits that our heterosexual colleagues take as a matter of course.

If you're straight, you can do whatever you please, however you please, and at the end of your days, your partner gets everything coming to him or her from the U.S. government. That's as it should be. But an equal protection can't be extended to gays because of one man, Bob Barr, and his evil law. I understand that he regrets that law, and he should, because it has caused hardship for many Americans. It's just another pointless cruelty of the type that Republicans like to revel in.

I suppose the bigots receive pleasure by imagining all the hardships caused by DOMA. But you know what? The bigots are the ones that don't deserve to live in a country like America. Their great hope died in 1945 in a bunker in Berlin of a self-inflicted gunshot wound to the head. Let that be a lesson to bigots around the world, as to where their philosophy ultimately leads. A loaded gun, enemies all around, and a decision as to what to do next. Their great idol took the path of least resistance rather than rising up from his bunker to face the music. In the end, the haters are all cowards, meriting nothing but contempt.

Catherine Tate: Another Great Show from the UK

I've recently discovered a superb new comedy from the UK, The Catherine Tate Show. Much different from my other favorite, Peep Show, this show features a strong female lead and POV--Tate stars in every skit.

Catherine Tate is the best comedic actor (or actress) from the UK that I have seen so far. She's head and shoulders above my former favorites, Mitchell and Webb.

Catherine Tate's humor has a more innocent and apolitical character than Peep Show or That Mitchell and Webb Look. The writing isn't terribly sophisticated. In fact, I'd wager she writes the material herself.

Catherine Tate knows how to win over an audience and have them eating from the palm of her hand. Whether her material is funny or not, she makes it funny with the strange magic that she has. She may be a witch. At any rate, Mitchell and Webb require excellent material to be funny. Catherine Tate doesn't require anything at all. She just has to assume one of her odd, quirky characters and she gets plenty of laughs.