Geth Reviews an Okay Gun: The Type 100 Submachine Gun

 Now, I reviewed two weapons prior that were pretty terrible, the Chauchat and the Type 94 pistol. Both of these weapons had so many flaws I was forced to give them bad reviews. The Type 100 SMG of Japanese WW2 fame was far from the best gun deployed, but on the whole, it was quite good for what it was made for and the limitations its sponsor nation had.

First, a little background. Japan was oddly late to the idea of incorporating SMGs into their arsenal during World War II. Despite having battlefields ideal for their deployment and being well suited for the mission they needed them for, they showed oddly little interest until very late into the war, and they never deployed the gun in question in very large numbers even after they proved their worth, likely due to shortage of materials over any other reason.

Like many Japanese weapons of the period, it is a product of Kirijo Nambu, who made and/or refined practically every weapon the Japanese would carry as small arms. While some of his designs were pretty horrible, like the Type 94, this was actually a pretty decent weapon design. After a few false starts with some earlier prototypes that never saw much use beyond proof of concept prototypes, the Type 100 (formal name 一〇〇式機関短銃, Hyaku-shiki kikan-tanjū) was finally accepted for deployment in 1940.


Before covering the gun features, it bears noting this was a very late time to consider submachine guns compared to every other force in WW2. It would have been far more useful to their arsenal several years prior, as SMGs were ideal for use in the jungle and for close-quarters assault missions as opposed to rather ungainly long rifles and machine guns.

That aside, it had at least three variants, the 1940 original, the paratrooper version of the 1940 model, and the 1944 late model.

Here is the list of features common to the original model:

• The ammo used was the standard, slightly underpowered 8mm Nambu pistol cartridge. While not as powerful as the rounds used by other nations, it was more than adequate for the limited mission needs of the Japanese.
• The design takes a LOT of cues from the German MP18 of World War I fame. Given it was the basis of many designs of the period, including the Beretta SMG the Italians used, this was not a bad choice for the base concept. The gun was a mix of wood and metal, with wood making up most of the furniture of the weapon.
• The feed mechanism was a good idea in theory but not so great in practice. It was designed so a round had to be fully chambered before it would fire. While an ideal safety feature, this meant you couldn't even do a dry fire to check the cycle of action, you had to have some sort of round fully loaded. This also hurt the fire rate, it being a rather paltry 400-450 RPM (Rounds per minute) at best on a good day.
• It was plated with chrome for easier cleaning around the barrel. The barrel also had an integral compensator.
• It had adjustable iron sights.
• It had a curved box magazine with a 30-round capacity.
• The firing mechanism was a blowback action. While adequate, the complex safety features hobbled the firing rate.
• It had support for a bipod, muzzle brake, and bayonet lug,

The paratrooper variant was more or less similar to the original, except the stock was made for folding via a metallic hinge. While a practical idea, given the need for portability, it did slightly weaken the integrity of the gun due to the fact it effectively loosed the front and back ends of the stock, making for slightly worse recoil.

The late 1944 variant, which was most often encountered later in the war, was greatly simplified and was much cruder than the earlier versions, losing many frills and niceties in an attempt to streamline production.

To cut costs, a lot of features were cut down, removed, or simplified:

• The adjustable tangent iron sight was replaced with a fixed welded peep sight. This was arguably the biggest downgrade since this meant the sight could not be adjusted and if it was welded crooked, you were basically stuck with a bad sight that was already marginal at best.
• The finish and quality took a nosedive. The wood and metal were not finished, lots of welding was used wherever possible, and this was not very fun to hold with ungloved hands.
• The muzzle brake attachment was deleted and a much simpler integrated version was done by drilling a port hole or two into the barrel end.
• The bayonet lug was replaced with a much simpler attachment point. The bipod attachment was deleted.
• The stock was reverted to the non-paratrooper version, which was actually a good idea, the paratrooper version was less sturdy.
• The complicated fire control mechanism was removed and the rate of fire increased to 800 RPM

Essentially, this late war version wasn't that much of a downgrade in overall performance aside from the sights and it did see some use in many of the latter campaigns. It's only real flaw aside from the inherently low powered ammunition is the limited number produced, as Japan did not have the ability to make these in numbers that would have made any real difference.

That said, it was overall a weapon that "too little, too late", but that could be said of a lot of their war efforts, so this gun alone was not going to make or break the Japanese forces any worse than they were historically. Regardless, it was one of Kirijo Nambu's more competent designs despite it's flaws, and while I'd prefer something better, it was, at worst, acceptable for the mission assigned to it, just never produced in quantity that mattered.

Reviews of Jarlsberg, Appenzeller White, and Asiago D'Allevo Cheese

 This month, I chose to go outside my usual selections for cheese and get some things outside my palate, just for variety.

To that end, I got three cheeses, all of wildly different flavor profiles, and below are my reviews of them all

Jarlsberg

Jarlsberg is Norwegian cheese, trademarked in 1972. It's a Swiss-type cheese made from cow's milk. Its origins date back to the 1850's. It has "gas holes", the traditional eyes of Swiss-type cheeses due to propionic bacteria, a harmless bacterium used to culture the cheese, and causes the eyes due to the buildup of CO2.

According to Murray's, it was sold as a mild, even mild fruity cheese, and in my and mother's taste testing, this is generally true, being very gentle and even slightly sweet for a Swiss-style cheese. It's a cheese I would easily recommend as a snack and cooking cheese, and I'm normally not a fan of Swiss cheese in general.

This, however, is something even I'm going to concede is pleasant to eat despite my own bias.

Appenzeller White

Now, this cheese is really out of my comfort zone. It's a somewhat stinky (albeit mildly) cheese made in an herbal brine made with raw cow's milk in Switzerland. It is the 'White" brand of Appenzeller, as it has many other sister brands named after colors.

Now, for a cheese with a stinky smell, this one is not overpowering. My mother, who has an aversion to Limburger, was able to eat this one without feeling overly ill, and even I could do so, so while it does have an unmistakable herbal odor, it's not overly cloying. The taste is definitely creamy milk mixed with a definite hint of spices and various herbs. If that sort of thing floats your boat, then this is a good cheese to enjoy, particularly as part of a meal to play off the flavor with complementary food items. It's edible on its own but not my choice as a snack cheese.

Asiago D'Allevo

This may be the first Italian cheese I did not overly enjoy. This is a hard cheese from the Veneto region of Italy. It's rather hard and I got cheese that was nearly a year old, more suitable for grating. As opposed to the milder Pecorino Romano and Grana Padano, both quite edible on their own even when aged, this is not the easiest to chew after it gets a certain age. It is less bland and certainly more piquant, someone wanting a grating cheese with more kick to it and less of a dry grainy or flaky and more fresh taste would enjoy it, but I found it wasn't to my palate.

I'd like to extend a warm thank you to Shirogane of Fundies Say the Darndest Things

 I've arrived. For having the audacity to say, LE GASP, maybe the transgender lobby might need to moderate their approach and quit demanding all of humanity deny their own eyes, brain, and personal conscience to accommodate them, I have gotten an entry on the "hall of shame" (really not ashamed at all, I think I'll take a picture of it and frame it) that is Fundies Say the Darndest Things. 

Original here: https://fstdt.com/@Shirogane

On top of editing out the rest of my post and selectively curating one section out of context for other like-minded people to seethe at (and Shirogane, you can be honest, you were the anon who left a comment calling me crazy in response and ran to FSTDT to post what made you mad as some childish revenge), they also seem to think I'm some horrible transphobic bigot because I refuse to be a mindless lickspittle for their every demand. I'm actually pretty moderate on that. Do your thing without harming me or anyone else and I don't care what you do with your life, it's your business, just don't shove it into mine, and don't demand I kiss your ring lest you try to publicly pillory me for refusal.

And with that noted, Shirogane, well, if you were hoping to make me feel bad when I discovered your attempt to cancel me, well, I'm just going to dig in my heels and laugh. I knew what I posted would be free for public consumption and comment, so being attacked for calling something I deemed wrong as me being the bad guy because I hurt feelings does not bother me. And Dunning-Kruger, really? I admit I could possibly be wrong, but instead of trying to reason with me, you instead did the cowardly move of talking about me behind my back. Protip: A civil attempt to change my mind would have worked a lot better.

That said, I bear no grudges and take no offense. I forgive this because it's not worth getting upset over, and being an unshamed Christian, earning the scorn of the world is nothing to be surprised by. If anything, thanks. Glad to know someone actually reads this blog, I graciously thank you for the support.

On getting into AI art making and the ethics of it

 I am writing this post due to my getting into making AI art after being interested in the possibilities and wanting to use it for game modding.

Now, before I continue, I want to make a few things clear. I deplore the use of AI creation of any sort for evil intent. I do not ever plan to sell anything created by AI, do not ever intend to claim it as my own work (as it's generated by a computer, not my own actual skill), and I only ever plan to do AI creations of any sort in compliance with all applicable laws and with all proper safeguards taken against it causing financial, legal, or moral harm to another person. If I was ever given a request to take it down by proper authority, I would comply immediately.

Now that I got that out of the way, let me first explain what AI art is for the people unaware, then go into why I wrote this post.

First off, AI art is artwork, soundtracks, animations, or other media done by a computer being fed examples of currently existing material, then using procedural generation to attempt to make its own artwork based on this data. In practice, it makes hardly anything one would call truly original. It's in fact derivative of existent art, often with the resultant creation being a chimeric fusion of actual effort.

Legally, it's not entirely clear yet if it's plagiarism, parody, or falls into something of a grey area. So far, there are no laws against my use of it I'm aware of, and I'm just a mere hobbyist at best.

I use Stable Diffusion, an open-source protocol. I originally got interested when I saw Bing's Image Creator, but these days it's so locked down, sanitized, and refuses to make any results of anything that could offend anyone (but given it's run by Microsoft, who lobotomized their AI Tay when the internet taught it to be an unironic Nazi, this is no surprise). Ergo, I decided to try making my own with open-source tools.

The art I do is still images. I favor a 2D anime-based art style, and Stable Diffusion, provided you have a proper checkpoint (base data for your chosen art style) and Loras (models and other data that serve as addons to Stable Diffusion), you can make some decent material, albeit with a lot of work.

In fact, I'll be blunt. While there are many people who rage (with some degree of truth to their credit) AI art is theft, the overwhelming majority takes a LOT of tries before you get results that look even remotely good. I've lost count of how many terrible results and outright cosmic horrors I've produced before the generator spit out something passable.

Stable Diffusion works on a tag and weight system. It uses tags much like "Booru" style sites. For example "1guy", "car", "road" would be a basic prompt to specify you want to see a guy with a car on a road. Of course, you need to further specify if the car is in motion, if the window is down, and all the other details if you want more specific results, else the AI generator result can be super random. It also requires certain topics be given high or low weight, to give certain details emphasis or deemphasis, as the case may be.

Again, let me be absolutely blunt. This is a piss poor substitute for actual effort by actual artists. I have paid artists for work before, and I found it to have far more love, care, and charm than even my best AI creation. AI tends to hate and not understand subtle flaws that give real art its charms. It often makes horrible mistakes like deformed limbs, bad proportions, incompetence at drawing light and shadows, and many other botched-looking failures at making an image. I am going to admit I'm a cheap man with no art creation skills to my name (drawing straight lines is nigh impossible for me and I have no idea how I didn't totally flunk art class). I'm sure even the crudest stick figure artist makes stuff way better than I could. I bow in humbled awe of anyone with actual artistic talent.

Now, I want to cover the controversy over AI art. There is a lot of rage it's going to put real artists out of work, it's crap knockoffs, it's stealing what other made money off of, and how it can be used for all sorts of evil intentions and in fact has been done already. I do not deny any of this, people have been caught selling games with AI art without saying so, it can be considered plagiarism of material others have done since it's all based on preexisting data drawn from publicly accessible sources, and yes, it's very arguable even for parodic purposes it could be called plagiarism in many legitimate senses.

Conversely, I want to say the following. The genie is already out of the bottle, it's too late to put it back in. This is a tool like any other that can be used for good or evil, and I agree it should be governed and restrained by the firmest sense of ethics possible. Whether it's detractors like it or not, it's not going away, so I advise focusing on restraining it's potential for abuse instead of cursing its mere existence, too late for the latter now.

Finally, I just want to say my conscience on this subject is generally clear, given my the above. I again regret and deplore use of AI for evil. I greatly enjoy audio parodies on YouTube of AI versions of our presidents playing Mario Kart, meme videos of Dagoth Ur from Morrowind saying the most goofy dialogue people can dream up, and enjoy meme parodies done in AI that blend art styles and genres one does not usually see. This does NOT have to be a tool for evil, it can be a means for harmless fun.

It's merely my solemn hope and prayer it can remain that way, or at least the potential for evil use can be mitigated as much as possible.

Geth Reviews A Terrible Gun: Type 94 Nambu pistol

 Now, when reviewing this gun, I had to separate a lot of fact from fiction. One of its most notorious features has a lot of contention, with some claiming it was more deadly to the user than the intended target, and others claiming this is overblown nonsense. On the whole, however, this is a pretty disappointing gun for many other reasons.

Shown above is the Type 94 handgun (in the original Japanese,  Kyūyon-Shiki Kenjū). Now, many respected military historians such as the late Ian V. Hogg have given this gun bad reviews. More contemporary military weapons aficionados generally agree though Ian McCollum of Forgotten Weapons contends it wasn't great, but not as bad as it's believed to be.

The gun itself was designed by Kijirō Nambu, the Japanese version of John Moses Browning. The Type 94 was issued for service in 1934 (despite it being a commercial flop in non-military markets). Its designation comes from the Japanese historical tradition of their origins, meaning the gun was issued in the 2594 year of the Japanese system of dating. Oddly, it is not given a date based on the reign of the Japanese Emperor at the time. Earlier weapons designed by Nambu were considered quite good if expensive to manufacture, like the Type 14, a gun issued in the 14th year of the Taisho Era (aka 1926). So the Type 94 was made, based on Nambu (in cooperation with the Japanese military which he still sold weapons to even after his retirement) trying to make an easier-to-handle successor.

It's worth noting it took several years before the Japanese military accepted it for service, and even then it was primarily issued to paratroopers and tank crews, and could be purchased by officers on their own dime. According to The Encyclopedia of Weapons of World War II, it was particularly favored by tank crews for its small size, a premium given the cramped confines of tanks.

Now, when discussing the design, before I get to the hotly contested point that neither side can agree on as being horrible, let's cover some of the generally agreed bad design flaws.

• Like many weapons of its class, it used a rather low-powered 8x22mm pistol cartridge. It had about six rounds per magazine. Overall, this not exactly what most contemporary forces would consider ideal for military purposes in terms of power, and all other combatants in the war all had much better options available.
• The grips are very small, obviously to accommodate the hands of the average Japanese user at the time, meaning this gun will feel dinky in the hands of larger handed person, The grips are either bakelite/plastic in the early models or "slab" grips made of wood in the later models. Either way, the grips are slightly rough to the touch, made worse by the sharp taper from top to bottom, meaning a firm grip could make it jump out of your hands if not held in place at the right angles. The frame finish is also pretty rough, so simply picking this up is going to be a bit uncomfortable.
• The sights are marginal at the very best, terrible at worst. The rear sight is a super small V style notch and the front sight has a small upraised blade that doesn't work well for precision aiming.
• The safety is pretty miserable. It's a small pivot lever that was easy to break and considering its other flaws with the possibility of accidental discharge (more on that later), this is a pretty bad flaw that lends credibility to the fact the Japanese themselves likely never used this weapon all that often. In most pictures of people holding it, like tank officers, they come equipped with a sword at their side, as was the custom at the time, and likely got more use out of that.
• The magazine well was not overly reliable. Not only did it require considerable force to get the magazine to load in place, but the magazine safety was prone to unlatching if it caught a hard surface or even when pulled out of a holster at certain angles. Removing magazines could also be tricky, forcing the user to hold open the slide with one hand while forcing the magazine to eject with the other. Due to the fact the magazine catch sticks out, this makes it dangerous to use unless you check to make sure the magazine is secure before firing.
• The ejector port is actually not too bad, being based on Luger-esque straight-up ejection, though given the differing placement of the ejector and extraction mechanism, expelled cases could hit the user.
• Despite using a locking bolt mechanism, it's really a blowback-style pistol like the earlier Type 14, and while recoil is generally not too severe given the low caliber of the cartridge, the firing pin is a bit weak and prone to breakage.
• Maintenance and cleaning are very, very difficult. Not only does it have a lot of small parts that hands would have trouble with, putting it back together is not easy, with many internals prone to damage if handled improperly; not all that hard to to do given the poor internals to begin with.
• Quality control early on was mediocre at best, this gun got even worse and was made of incredibly shoddy materials late in the war due to Japan's lack of access to raw materials and worsening war situation. By the end of the war, some models were just useless on arrival.

Now, all the above make this far below most of the other pistol options available to the user of a sideearm during the second World War. However, the most controversial demerit is the infamous "gun goes off without the trigger being pulled" problem.

This has critics on both sides unable to agree. The main problem is that if the safety is off or broken, very slight manipulation of the trigger bar will cause a premature ejection. 

Now, there are varying opinions on this: 

• As mentioned, it had trigger bar prone to premature ejection. While American GIs likely were responsible for spreading the rumor the gun was designed that way on purpose as a suicide attack last resort, laziness in gun design may have also played a factor.
• The few accounts of this gun that are reliable establish it was of bad manufacture, poor at stopping a target, and generally considered a piece of crap according to the 1944 Handbook on the Japanese Armed Forces. 
• In my own attempts at cross-referencing, the accounts of the Type 94 being considered a suicide weapon are generally considered apocryphal. There are no confirmed reports it was either used as for killing oneself to avoid capture nor was its notoriously shoddy safety and sear bar purposely manipulated to allow a discharge without pulling the trigger as a last-ditch attack. Both are entirely plausible, but none of the accounts I read can agree if these events did happen with any certainty.

Overall, even if you discount the last item, this was a pretty underwhelming handgun with low stopping power, was hard to maintain and clean, had bad design flaws and poor materials even in the better early models, and overall was a poor weapon for military use. When compared to all the other handguns available to the other Axis Powers and the Allies, this gun, hands down, is my pick for worst sidearm of World War II.

Geth Reviews A Terrible Gun: The Chauchat

 As many who read this blog or who know my tastes may be aware I adore reading about history. Wars are particularly interesting to read about, but honestly, they suck because wars kill people. And people die when they are killed.

And, now that I made a lame Fate/Stay Night meme reference, bear with me (and for the gun nuts among you, get the antacids) as we take a trip down the snark-laden road that was the history of the Chauchat, long considered to be one of the worst weapons to ever be given to soldiers to kill people with.

First off, the name, being French, is pronounced "show-sha". Also, that's merely the informal name. The actual official military designation is Fusil Mitrailleur Modele 1915 CSRG (French for "Machine Rifle Model 1915 CSRG"). The more informal name comes from its chief designer contributor, Colonel Louis Chauchat.

Before we continue, some argue this gun is unfairly maligned, and while it was a piece of garbage that had better use as a paperweight or should have been used to club to death the guys who scammed the troops into accepting them, some argue it was not all THAT bad. These people, frankly, I must disagree with, because this was a weapon issued for service in a war where bodies stacked daily, and weapons that helped you kill the other sides faster were obviously essentially.

One of the arguments given by those who tried to defend this weapon was its innovations, which would be standard on many later weapons. To be fair, I agree, a WWI light machine gun with a pistol grip, was easy to mass produce, and had an easy-to-change-out magazine (on par with a rifle or even a pistol for ease of swapping out) sounds like a dream weapon. At the same time, so does buying a car with TV and DVD player tossed in for free along with everything else that has a bum engine. I ultimately would be all "you just ONE job" to the car, which I would have purchased more to go from place to place via automotive movement. By the same token, just because the Chauchat had some fun bells and whistles still does not obviate the fact the most basic reason it was made was done very poorly on a good day.

To give an idea of how even in the planning stages this weapon was headed for trouble, it's worth noting it had FOUR designers, Specifically, Colonel Louis Chauchat, Charles Sutter, Paul Ribeyrolles and the factory Societe des Cycles Clement et Gladiator. With four different pairs of eyes on the development, these guys could backstop any flaws. Instead, they proved that old saw about too many cooks screwing up the soup.

Now, the design phase dates back to 1903, when the French sensibly realized a man-portable LMG was a great idea. In defense of this weapon, weighing barely above 20 pounds made it one of the lightest and most feasibly man-portable guns of its class. Of course, while guns like the Lewis Gun were far heavier, they also worked a lot better, so while it gave the guys holding a workout to the point they could do arm crunches with them for toning, they paid off by actually not being so useless one wanted to trade them out for some magic beans. Another problem that cropped up in the design phase that would dog this weapon in all incarnations of practice was reliance on the 8mm Lebel round. Even at the time that this was chalk on a blackboard the Lebel round was a long-in-the-tooth grandpa that was laughably underpowered and needed to be retired. Unfortunately, the French were unwilling to throw out what they got used to, so the Chauchat and a lot of their other weapons went into WWI already fitter for museums than maneuvers.

The construction phase was beyond inexcusable. Typically, when you mass produce anything, you want the average finished product to at least be (or have a good chance of being) reasonably sound out of the box. Unfortunately, the quality control for this was nonexistent, using second-hand Lebel rifle parts that were no longer fit for normal service, sheet steel that was of cheap alloys, and milled parts (milling refers to the process of cutting parts out to exact specifications and fitting them together) had no standards for baseline quality. As a result, the sights were useless, the parts had trouble fitting together, and good luck getting spare parts. Even if you somehow had them, it was a coin toss if they'd work since even those were cursed by the cheapest bidder-level effort.

In practice, many aspects of this gun were laughably bad in practice:

• The magazines were these bizarre, half-moon-shaped pieces of garbage that could deform easily and not even fit their magazine well. Even if they did work, some brainless idiot literally left the inside of the magazine exposed to the elements, meaning the ammo would be dead on arrival in a war where dirt, rain, mud, and all sorts of other disgusting things were omnipresent.
• The much-touted pistol grip was a squared-off block that was about as much fun to hold as a dog turd and felt just as pleasant to steady the weapon. The foregrip was placed just slightly ahead of the pistol grip and was a cockeyed knob-like attachment that did not feel normal in combination with the blocky pistol grip.
• LMG weapons were meant for long-range use and thus had a bipod. Unfortunately, some idiot gave it a super tall bipod that gave enemy troops a lovely profile of the user so anyone wanting to pop a skull would not have found it hard to do so.
• The firing mechanism of the receiver was a baffling one. It used a long-recoil model, meaning all the moving parts of the gun, after the discharge of a round, had to slide back as far as they would go before it could fire another round. This meant the firing rate was bad, the recoil was absurd, and given how poorly these weapons were constructed, this did not allow them to avoid excessive wear and tear.
• Just above the butt stock (which would be just below the eye of a sniper or cradled high against a shoulder) was the recoil tube. Combine really stiff recoil with a recoil tube that could dislocate your arm or bust your jaw if your face grazed the recoiling tube above the butt stock. I'll wait while you quit wincing from the imagined agony.
• The sights were not aligned well at all with the gun even under ideal conditions. Some genius thought a cheek weld was a practical idea for a gun with nasty recoil and a squared-off block of a receiver and thus the sights were offset to the left, meaning your aim required adjusting for this idea that was never fully developed.
• On top of the magazines jamming due to practically any matter getting in them, the gun itself was miserable at dissipating excess heat, meaning a few clips of ammo later it was a useless jammed fireball that had to cool off and often bashed against a solid object to free up any jammed gun parts due to heat distortion.

Now, all of the above bullet points apply to the original 1915 model of this weapon, which was, on a very good day, marginal at best. When the US joined the fight, the French convinced them to take these weapons in 1918, albeit with some requested modifications for a higher caliber, the .30.06 round.

The 1918 version had its own embarrassing design failures:

• When modifying the gun for higher caliber rounds, some idiots didn't bother to check the difference between Imperial measurements and the metric system. As a result, the barrels often were too small for feeding the rounds. Rounds that did feed could literally have chunks of the case tear off inside the barrel, making the gun an instant paperweight.
• The Americans were often forced to downgrade to the original 8mm version because the mass majority of the larger caliber versions would become useless after firing no more than a single round. As mentioned above, the 8mm Lebel round version was already an exercise in fail, and it really says something that it was a legit improvement over the 1918 revision.
• Repair and maintenance were already a nightmare for the 1915 model, it was impossible for the 1918 version, as they came with no spares or manuals, meaning once it broke, it was dead.

Now, this gun, despite being one of the biggest mass-produced flops in the history of firearms, COULD be made into something valuable. The Belgians heavily modified it and replaced many of the worst features, upping it from laughably bad to decently useful. Most everyone else did not have that luxury, so the French and later the Americans were cursed with a gun has, in my own humble opinion, earned being spit on the judgment of history.

In short, this was a dumpster fire in the history of firearms. Despite those who think it had a lot of great concepts and want to defend it on those grounds, I look at it from the "how practical was it for guys dealing with life and death situations" standpoint. From that standpoint, it was terrible.

On The Values of Talent and Effort

 This post is going to be a combination of three things. Commentary about a game I played, some history of professional wrestling, and what the Bible says about proper effort. As strange a combination as it sounds, the first two will be relevant to the third.

To start things off, when it comes to game series, I'v always been a longtime fan of the Dragon Quest series. It's a turn-based series that has always pleased me due to the fact it's remained charmingly old school even as technology and other games have done new and exciting things. The last game in the mainline series I enjoyed was the PC version of DQXI S, which was a port based on the added content from the Switch port. That game was super long and rewarding, and I rather warmly appreciated how the developers bent every effort to use their talent to make something amazing.

More recently, I was intensely and bitterly disappointed when I played Infinity Strash Dragon Quest: The Adventures of Dai.

Infinity Strash was a video game adaptation of a spinoff anime based on the Dragon Quest video game franchise that has always commanded fan respect, and I hoped it would be done justice in video game format. To my horror, despite the billing as an action RPG, it was an execrable waste of time that was a massive wall of badly summarized scenes from the anime interspersed at rare intervals with gameplay right out of an amateur first Unity or Unreal engine asset flip project. The developers demand over 60 USD for what amounted to a lazy visual novel in disguise with some terrible mobile game style arena battling tacked on. Neither the story or gameplay showed a genuine display of talent and effort, and I was quite grateful (since I got it through Steam) that they were gracious enough to refund my purchase.

Before I continue, my disappointment was at the absolute inattention and contempt towards the use of the talent of the developers to show they wanted to invest their time and money into rewarding me for spending my own. What I got was worthy of contempt instead.

Now, let me shift gears and detail an instance in being entertained I got far more than my money's worth, even when the parties involved need not have tried too hard to gain my interest.

I used to follow professional wrestling in the late 90s and early 2000s. It's not something I particularly care for these days, but there was a time I was an avid fan because the stuff the wrestlers did to entertain was just THAT good. When it comes to the 1998 World Wrestling Federation (now World Wrestling Entertainment after legal troubles with the World Wildlife Fund over the initials), I remember some of the most exciting wrestling ever, the crown jewel being the both famous and infamous "Hell in a Cell" (a type of wrestling match in which the parties wrestle on and in the steel chain-link cage over the ring, the winner being the one to pin the other and leave via the door on the inside of the ring usually) match with Mankind (IRL named Mick Foley) and the Undertaker (IRL named Mark William Calaway). Foley admitted in his first autobiography "Have a Nice Day: A Tale of Blood and Sweatsocks" that he was afraid the 1998 match was going to be horrible.

In 1997's version of "Hell in a Cell", starred two men in their prime. Undertaker and the wrestler Shawn Micheals. That match was considered excellent because Michaels did everything he could sell the Undertaker (a 6-foot-tall wrestling veteran) as an unstoppable force of nature and the Undertaker was able to make the more agile Michaels look great in turn. Foley was afraid in 1998 he and Undertaker could not recreate that magic, mostly because the Undertaker had a broken ankle and Foley was nowhere near as athletic as Micheals was, not to mention over 250 pounds, at least 100 pounds heavier.

So, in an effort to make sure the match would be considered good, Foley and Taker decided to take some risks, albeit with reluctance as it was later explained.

When the match began, Foley's character made it into the arena, he climbed up the cage to meet him, tossing a steel chair atop the cage as well for use as a weapon, since the match had no rules against weaponized objects. Undertaker's character came out next and also climbed the cage to begin the match. Soon after he reached the top, the match started with a series of punches, deliberately moving Foley to the edge.

The first immortal moment of the night came when Undertaker grabbed Foley and tossed him off the cage. sending a 250 lbs plus man over 22 feet from the top of the cage through the Spanish announcer's table, which broke on impact, leaving Foley taking a fall on solid concrete. This resulted in time stopping for everyone as Foley lay motionless to the point everyone legitimately assumed he died and nigh everyone broke character, terrified for his well-being. He managed to awaken while being moved out on a stretcher and miraculously made his way up the cage again, where Undertaker still was. The second nightmare of the night happened when a chokeslam by Taker after a brief scuffle on the second time on the top of the cage caused the steel cage to rupture (an event that was not planned, the first toss off the cage was), causing Foley to crash on his back into the ring. Worse, the steel chair he had tossed up earlier followed, smashing Foley in the face, which caused one of his teeth to dislodge.

Amazingly, he managed to recover again, and after a brief incident in which an attempt to drop Undertaker onto thumbtacks backfired, Foley was pinned and the match ended.

It's worth noting the risks taken to ensure people who paid to watch were entertained were considered far in excess. Vince McMahon, then owner (now retired) was grateful for the sheer amount of effort exerted but begged Foley to never go that far again. Everyone involved was worried the high bar of drama and violence in that match would inspire copycats and measures were implemented to prevent it. Regardless, at the time, it became an iconic moment of two men working against limitations to deliver quality entertainment, at the risk of their health and lives. In short, while later agreed it should not have gone that far, that was when all the parties involved took risks and exerted all sorts of effort to make sure their talents would be rewarded with something special.

Now that I've said the first two parts, let me get to the part the Bible comes into play. The credo of God to all Christians is that they should be proud of their work and use their talents to the utmost of their ability. Jesus explained this in the Parable of the Talents, and before I get to that, a bit of explanation on the origin of the word.

A talent was then a dry measure of weight, about 800 pounds, and typically precious metal was issued in talents, such as gold, as in the parable. So talents were valuable as a result. It equaled about 20 years of wages for a common worker, so not a small monetary sum either. It's because of the parable they became a loanword for abilities and skills.

Here is the parable in question:

The Parable of the Talents

14 “For it will be like a man going on a journey, who called his servants[a] and entrusted to them his property. 15 To one he gave five talents,[b] to another two, to another one, to each according to his ability. Then he went away. 16 He who had received the five talents went at once and traded with them, and he made five talents more. 17 So also he who had the two talents made two talents more. 18 But he who had received the one talent went and dug in the ground and hid his master's money. 19 Now after a long time the master of those servants came and settled accounts with them. 20 And he who had received the five talents came forward, bringing five talents more, saying, ‘Master, you delivered to me five talents; here, I have made five talents more.’ 21 His master said to him, ‘Well done, good and faithful servant.[c] You have been faithful over a little; I will set you over much. Enter into the joy of your master.’ 22 And he also who had the two talents came forward, saying, ‘Master, you delivered to me two talents; here, I have made two talents more.’ 23 His master said to him, ‘Well done, good and faithful servant. You have been faithful over a little; I will set you over much. Enter into the joy of your master.’ 24 He also who had received the one talent came forward, saying, ‘Master, I knew you to be a hard man, reaping where you did not sow, and gathering where you scattered no seed, 25 so I was afraid, and I went and hid your talent in the ground. Here, you have what is yours.’ 26 But his master answered him, ‘You wicked and slothful servant! You knew that I reap where I have not sown and gather where I scattered no seed? 27 Then you ought to have invested my money with the bankers, and at my coming I should have received what was my own with interest. 28 So take the talent from him and give it to him who has the ten talents. 29 For to everyone who has will more be given, and he will have an abundance. But from the one who has not, even what he has will be taken away. 30 And cast the worthless servant into the outer darkness. In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.’



As this parable clearly demonstrates, if you have talents (of the classical or modern kind), you really need to put them to work. If you have a lot, then shoot for even more. If you only have some, still try your best. The worst you can do is not even try to do anything thus producing a miserable result.

In the game example I brought up, the developers did not even bother to try. The result was something worthy of contempt, a slap to the face of those who expected better, and worthless in both the short and long-term as anything of value.

In the wrestling example I brought up, sure, they went far beyond what they had to make it entertaining, but many (and I agree) would agree it was too far. But it still shows moral integrity to one's craft that they still, despite limitations, tried to make some quality entertainment despite not having as much at their disposal, and you still have to applaud the effort as laudable.

My point is basically, when it comes to one's talents, I and the Bible encourage people to do their best. Not only will you have done something you can be proud of, but other people can be proud of your efforts. Even if you are not Christian, the long-term benefit should still be obvious: you will have left a good example for others to follow so that others will likewise leave effort clearly marked by use of their talents, and in doing so leave a net positive on the world.

For those who are Christian, well, you please not only yourself for having basic integrity, you please God, who wants to see you do the best with what He's given you.

Grana Padono Oro, Smoked Cheddar Brick, and Aged English Cheddar Taste Testing Review

 For this month, Mom and I bring back another exciting episode of Dragon Ball- wait, wrong subject.

Seriously, this month, we tasted some more cheese, ordered from Murray's in New York. Like always, it shipped well packed with adequate ice and it was undamaged and in good quality.

Here's how our taste testing went.

Grana Padono Oro 20 Months

In my earlier post about Pecorino Romano, I mentioned that cheese is very gritty and grainy. Well, Grana Padono Oro, while a relative of that cheese, it goes through a different cooking process than Romano, resulting in a much less dry texture and it's more flaky than grainy. This is ironic, because "Grana" means "Grain".

Grana Padono Oro is an Italian cheese that has enjoyed Denominazione d’Origine Protetta (Protected Designation of Origin) status since 1996. It's produced using raw cow milk from two separate milkings. This milk is then partially skimmed, the curd is given two cooking periods, then it's bathed in a salt brine before pressing. It also includes egg whites, which help with its flakier texturing and buttery consistency.

The result is a taste similar to Parmigiano Reggiano, but it has a different texture with a flaky, buttery consistency. This makes it more pleasant and less gritty going down than Romano and Parmigiano and thus can be flaked or shredded finely over dishes for a gentler taste from those two cheeses. It also tastes fine eaten on its own as a snacking cheese.

A final interesting note is that Grana Padono, like many Italian cheeses that can be grated, is a lowlands cheese that combines techniques used in making alpine cheeses, which gave birth to the trademark taste one expects from many traditional Italian cheeses suited for grating and drying for long-term preservation.

The taste test we did basically confirms the above, and while I enjoyed snacking on Pecorino Romano on its own, I found the Grana Padono Oro takes less time to get used to the texture on one's palate.

Aged English Cheddar

Aged English Cheddar is a cheese that comes from Dorset, England, and its origins go back to the Middle Ages. It's something of a medley of contrasting notes mixed with the traditional cheddaring of the curd, resulting in a fine cheddar worthy of its laurels.

Unlike the more sharp texture and taste of clothbound cheddars, this cheddar is gentler and sweet tasting, though still has a tangy aftertaste.

Mom and I tried some slices of it. I was struck by its rich consistency yet sweet, caramel-like flavor, and Mom noted how the tangy aftertaste makes savoring the flavor on the way down a treat. We would both recommend it for a snack cheese or used in any cheese dish you might prefer.

Smoked Cheddar Brick

Now, this is an American cheese from Wisconsin. Brick is a cheese with a basis in white cheddar, but it uses a different cooking time to achieve a different density of milk fat and texture. It also incorporates some concepts from the making of Mozzarella, leading to a cheese that is something of a hybrid of cheddar and mozzarella in texture.

Our taste testing barely proceeded before the piquant and pleasant aroma of well smoked (with hickory wood chips) cheese hit our nostrils. Upon tasting the cheese, it melted delightfully and creamily on the tongue yet had a firm smoky cheddar flavor. It was quite pleasant to chew and would make an excellent melting cheese for dishes of that nature.

Dieting like the Israelites

 Writing this little post in case you want to diet like it's Bronze Age era Israel. This isn't going to be a super strict recommendation post for Christians, they were explicitly freed from dietary restrictions courtesy of God as revealed to Peter in the Book of Acts. Regardless, a lot of their diet is a good idea and I'll provide an overview of the basics should you wish to diet like they were supposed to.

First time God provides specific diet instructions is in Exodus Chapter 12, when discussing the Passover meal. I'll start here because a lot of this is repeated in later parts and it's best to get that out of the way first.

First off, there Passover was meant to be eaten quickly, given it was the night before they could leave Egypt, and thus the meal was a quick and simple one. Unleavened bread (made without yeast), roasted lamb or goat, and some bitter herbs.

Unleavened bread was required for most sacrifices requiring prepared grain, and God demanded most sacrifices roasted on an open fire. For dietary reasons, yeast is good to avoid if you have an allergy to it (it is a form of fungus used to make bread dough rise, and also a brewing ingredient for alcoholic beverages). While most consumable forms of yeast are quite safe, there are types that cause infection, and spoiled food can develop the dangerous forms of yeast, so avoiding bread with yeast would be a prudent decision if you want to ensure your health, albeit it will be harder to softly chew since it's basically flat bread.

Roasted meat, as opposed eating it raw (doable but dangerous for health) or boiled takes much less time and generally does a pretty thorough job of cooking it. God said the Passover was to be in haste, so it was ideal for that purpose.

That said, unless you want to be ultra-traditional, roasting over an open fire is not strictly required, nor grilling. You can get mostly the same effect via baking more or less, just it will take longer. Note, strict observance of the Passover or Eucharist as Christians call it should be done via roasting to keep it like it was done originally.

Note in all cases God had a strict prohibition against eating animal blood. Basically, no rare meat, well done or bust. Me, I'm diagnosed autistic and I get really ill eating anything less, apparently because my palate cannot stand the taste of anything other than dry meat. If you are going to do this, no law against livening up the meat with some sauce or something to hydrate it, but it better be cooked well done by default.

We will fast forward to Leviticus Chapters 11 and 17 next.

Chapter 11 says all animals that were possessed of completely split hooves and chewed the cud (consume grass or grain) were suitable for consumption and offerings. Otherwise, no.

The pig, for example, will eat ANYTHING, it's not strictly herbivorous, so it was off the table. Pigs were also a common animal preferred by pagans, so the prohibition against eating pork prevented social gatherings between the two. Pigs are also highly prone to carrying parasites and very easily spoils unless cooked well, so it's just safe to avoid pigs on dietary concerns alone. If you really want bacon, you can always get it from other animals like turkey. Bacon refers simply to a cut of meat from a certain portion of the pig, healthy alternatives also made from real meat can be derived from turkey and lamb (i.e. -mutton). They also tend to be leaner and less salty.

Unclean aquatic life includes anything that does not have fins and scales. So yeah, no shellfish. If you are oyster, crab, lobster, squid, or anything of that nature fan, well, sorry.

As for unclean birds, here is the text on that from the NetFree Bible translation

 [13] "'These you are to detest from among the birds - they must not be eaten, because they are detestable: the griffon vulture, the bearded vulture, the black vulture,  [14] the kite, the buzzard of any kind,  [15] every kind of crow,  [16] the eagle owl, the short-eared owl, the long-eared owl, the hawk of any kind,  [17] the little owl, the cormorant, the screech owl,  [18] the white owl, the scops owl, the osprey,  [19] the stork, the heron of any kind, the hoopoe, and the bat. 

(Leviticus 11:13-19 [NETfree])

Given modern day IRL most of these are not considered fit for consumption, not hard to follow this.

Unclean insects, for those of you who are cool with eating those, well, if it doesn't have jointed legs for hopping around, such as grasshoppers, locusts, or katydids, then it's a no go. I'm not a fan of eating insects, mind you, but 

Chapter 17 is where God reiterates his prohibition against eating blood. This is established because God wanted to remind people even if you killed an animal you could eat, you did kill a living being, albeit for sanctioned purposes, so you had to drain it of it's blood before cooking it because you were not to eat it, and the meat had to be cooked well to remove the rest. To be fair, this does minimize the risk of blood borne pathogens in meat, so it's just a sane idea if that concerns for dietary purposes.

Now, just to cover some other foods not specifically mentioned.

Milk is fine, but according to the laws on animals, the Jewish do not mix dairy or meat in any way at the same meal, so no cheeseburgers if you want to obey this strictly. The Bible specifically mentions you can't cook a goat in it's mother's milk, so no meat with a cream sauce. Cheese is also acceptable under the same rules.

All vegetables, fruits, and grains are acceptable, no particular rules on those not already mentioned.

Alcohol, specifically wine, it's fit to drink, but with the caveat you watch your intake and drink in moderation. If you are getting to the point you can't drive or are acting stupidly, you need to stop. Not only is that perfectly good common sense advice to avoid injury or embarrassment due to intoxication, the long-term health of your liver will thank you.

On the joys of Halloumi

 I ordered some Halloumi with the Pecorino Romano I ordered not too long ago, didn't cook it at the time I wrote the other review. Now that I've done that, time for the actual review.

First some history on this cheese.

Halloumi is a sheep's milk cheese of Middle Eastern origin, specifically from Cyprus. It's typically stored in a salt brine, flavored with some mint, and typically served in slices or cubes, either fried or grilled.

It's a cheese with a super low melting point, which is why you can put it on a skewer on the grill or pop slices into a pan to fry (no oil required) and cook it till it's browned, then eat. The stuff I bought was made with a non-animal based rennet, which is no problem for the flavor.

Another fun thing is that while it can be eaten raw, it's best when cooked, mostly because you cook out the excess salt brine and the texture is far more agreeable. Still tastes good either way, though be advised it will "squeak" as you chew it due to the texture. This is harmless and just adds a weird note on the way down is all.

As for the actual taste test, Mom and I pan-fried a 0.5 lb block of this in a small pan and cut it into quarters (first chopped in half then the halves were chopped in half). After a couple minutes in a small non-stick pan where the excess brine cooked off and the sides got browned, we gave this stuff a taste.

First off, for a cheese, the taste is very meatlike in texture, to the point if you are vegetarian and want a good meat substitute (and aren't vegan), this can make a good meat stand-in and provide high amounts of calcium and potassium.

It will still taste pretty salty, so I recommend eating it with other foods to blunt the salt taste a bit, fresh vegetables, lean meat, and noodles are all good in combination. Once you get past the salt, it's remarkably similar to mozzarella, with a gentle taste you can savor on the way down, this is a very approachable cheese that is quite soft to chew.

It's also going to be stored in a small sealed package to keep it fresh, and I recommend eating it all in one sitting once you remove the packaging and cook it, this does not store well under refrigeration, it's sill edible but will quickly taste rubbery when chilled. 

If you need a cheese to liven up a grilled meat fest, want something to balance out part of balanced dinner with a dairy item, or just want a quick snack, Halloumi is highly recommended for all the above. Do be advised like all cheese, if you have cholesterol problems, remember to eat this in moderation.

Otherwise, enjoy. I know I sure did.

Pecorino Romano, my impressions

 Recently ordered some 12-month-old Pecorino Romano from Murray's, and before I get on to the taste testing, I want to cover some interesting history. For the Christians and Jews in the audience, this will cover topics relevant to religious history as well.

First off, Pecorino (from Pecor, the word for sheep) Romano is a very time-honored Roman and now Italian cheese. It goes back over two thousand years in tradition and was written about by various Roman authors, such as Marcus Tertulius Varro and Hippocrates. Virgil also mentioned this cheese, specifically noting it was part of the rations given to the average Roman legionaire, at a rate of 1 Roman ounce (27-28 grams) per man.

It was touted for it's keeping qualities, it's nutrients were considered ideal for health, and was favored both dry and fresh. Any Pecorino Romano over eight months old is considered suitable as a grating cheese and over five months as a fresh cheese.

On the religious front, this cheese would have been one part of the Roman diet that you could have gotten Jews and Christians raised Jewish to agree on. Sheep are kosher animals, and the methods used would not have been prohibited under kosher tradition. When it came to Roman love of pork, they would not have seen eye to eye, but the cheese would have been in profusion around the time of Christ and widely enjoyed by all Romans and their subjects.

Ironically, it is now mostly made in the Sardinia region of Italy as opposed to Rome proper (due in part to their high amount of sheep and due to earlier prohibitive food making regulations in Rome), though they still make it according to traditional Roman methods.

The Taste Test

Like before, I got my fellow cheese-loving mother to help with the taste test. First, though, I ordered a pound of cheese, which was shipped in two 0.5 lbs wedges. It had a slight yet not unpleasant odor, just enough to be detectable, and was undamaged from transport. It had been kept cool with icepacks and other packing material.

Both mom and I tried a wedge of it. I could definitely pick up that grain-like texture you usually associate with parmesan, and given Pecorino Romano is typically an alternative to it, this did not surprise me. It's a bit gritty going down but not to an uncomfortable degree. It's definitely a cheese even in its fresh, non-grated form that goes good with salads and pasta. Like the Manchego I ordered a while back, it also had the distinctive texture I usually associate with the sheep's milk cheese (which is less dense and slightly flaky as opposed to cow milk cheese) and was mildly sharp in intensity.

Mom noticed it also had a slight peppery taste, and I found that to be just enough to add a bit of zest to the umami, it was by no means too strong.

We decided to save the rest for our next pasta night.

Advice to pass down to children for my generation

 I'm writing this because I just reflected recently on why I plan to die single. I have neither the means, ability, or emotional and mental maturity for having kids. I came to this conclusion long ago and have reconciled myself to never having a child of my own, whether via siring one myself or adoption.

That said if anyone out there is a parent. I'd like to pass on advice to give your kids if you are interested.

1. Teach them how to survive without high technology

As much as I love computers and the convenience of technology, there are far too many people who probably starve to death without modern tech. As much as preppers and people who shun tech for low tech from days gone by get stereotyped as Luddites, let's face it, if the power ever goes out, a computer is just a paperweight and a cell phone is meaningless. At the end of the day, people need to remember how to survive without them. Our ancestors had to do it, no reason why we shouldn't, and I advise you to teach your kids some basic survival skills if only so they don't wallow in despair during a power outage or natural disaster.

2. Have them get an honest job

College is not a be-all and end-all these days. Someone will always need a plumber, not everyone needs a master's in sociology. In fact, the plumber often has a higher chance of not going without unemployment these days. College is fine if you get a useful degree and secure a good job, but anyone who learns an actual trade as well is always going to have a near bulletproof fallback.

It also builds character. The most basic hard labor is going to teach any child that life is not and will never be easy when they have no one to rely on but themselves. Life only seems easy in our society because there is so much outsourced to technology and other people. Strip that away, and having to survive on your own hard work will give you a firm base for times of hardship, and thus your children would be well advised to learn honest labor that reminds them of this truth.

3. The Internet is not for everyone, especially social media

As much as the Internet has become a cornerstone of human interaction in my era, it's also given far more idiots, lunatics, and degenerates a microphone than ever before. Social media is just a distilled version of this concept in one of it's most direct forms. Parents, if you love your kids, please teach them to be careful in the following ways.

A. Email should always be approached with caution. Teach kids not to open everything without hovering over where the links go. If it seems suspicious, don't touch it. Spammers, phishers, and other scum will do anything to fleece people these days, teach your kids to double-check everything, even legit seeming emails that seem the slightest bit off.

B. Social media has its virtues but also the worst parts of a hugbox and insane asylum where the inmates are running the show. As much as you can build constructive friendships and associations there, it's also where some of the vilest cliques will form, and your kids need to be careful who and what they associate with. Parents, I especially urge you to keep tabs on what your kids interact with in these places, at least till they reach the age of adulthood legally. Your kids may resent it, but if you want your child to not fall into a bad crowd, get molested, be exposed to child porn, or otherwise fall into the rabbit hole of some other illegal or at least incredibly unsavory act, you need to monitor it like a hawk and impress on them the dangers that await.

4. Grow a thick skin

As I learned through my own experience, humanity can be very cruel. While it is within our species to do some of the laudable and honorable acts we are capable of, far often we are more prone to some of the base, depraved, and debauched acts. It's far more often your child will be pounced on by wolves than they will run into fellow sheep, and if they don't watch for those in this world who seek to tear them down as people, they will be overcome.

With that in mind, teach your kids how accept the cruelty of this world as reality as soon as they are old enough to comprehend the lessons. If you help them accept not every lesson the trials of the world present will not be easy, the harder and harsher ones they can deal with more maturely.

5. Teach them values

Disclaimer, I'm a Christian, but even for the most hardened atheist, agnostic, or even the parent who desires to impress no particular religious or moral creed, this advice applies to you too.

Some values should be taught your kids no matter what morals you personally subscribe to.

A. Have basic dignity. Don't do things you find immoral, degrading, or uncomfortable simply because of peer pressure.

B. Have standards. Don't be a mindless bigot, but don't be overly permissive of everything. Tolerance is a good idea, but it should only go so far. Sharing dirty needles is something no sane person should tolerate even if they aren't against recreational drug use, have some basic standards for your own health too. If you are religious or not, share your values on a voluntary basis, never try to force your values on others, whatever they may be.

C. Treat others equally. There a lot of people who demand special treatment. While some deserve respect above others for their responsibility and position in life, and such people, within reason, are entitled to basic minimum of courtesy, don't be a doormat. Respect is a two-way street. Much as military salutes are a courtesy a subordinate gives and superior returns, so should respect given when it is expected to be received in kind by the other party.

D. Be smart. Don't accept anything without an inquisitive mind and conscience. Lots of people will lie in this world, or at the very least tell a slanted version of the truth. Not everything written down is accurate, and not everyone can be trusted out of hand. Do your own digging. Make sure you shake the trees of the claims of others and see if any inconsistency falls out.

My latest sampling of specialty cheeses from Murray's, a review

 I recently purchased some cheese from Murray's, a specialty place in New York. I reviewed some of their yellow cheddar awhile back, and I decided to splurge and ordered three more cheeses from them, this will be a breakdown of how the taste testing of the three went.

NEW YORK STATE WHITE CHEDDAR 6 MONTHS

I bought this cheese per request of my mother, who volunteered to be my fellow cheese tester, as it's a beloved taste from her childhood.

We both tried a sample of it neat (we did this for all three to get the most unbiased opinion), and I found it very tangy and creamy, but not so tangy it didn't have a nice counter note of sweetness to knock the edge off. My mother found it especially smooth in texture and we both enjoyed savoring the flavor on the way down.

Since I bought extra for her to use for cooking, she definitely intends to make some macaroni and cheese with it (fun fact, Thomas Jefferson came up with mac and cheese), and I for one will be a willing eater at that table for sure.

MAPLE LEAF SMOKED GOUDA

Now, I must admit I prefer harder and more acidic cheese over "sweet milk" cheeses, but I'm not going to knock this, it was good.

For those not aware, "sweet-milk" cheeses are not allowed to become nearly as enriched with lactic acid as cheeses like cheddar as they age. While giving them a milder taste and a creamy texture, this is not necessarily good for those with lactose intolerance (which my mother has, she had to take her lactose meds before taste testing to be sure), as it retains a higher degree of lactase, or un broken-down milk sugars.

That all said, it's a very agreeable, very creamy cheese that will just melt on the tongue. The maple smoking (via cold-smoking to avoid cheese deformation) adds a nice hint of a bite to what is otherwise a mild cheese, and this is definitely a good cheese for a melted cheese dish for sure due to these qualities.

MURRAY'S YOUNG MANCHEGO

I have saved the best for last. Unlike the other two cheeses, which are cow milk cheeses, Manchego is a cheese made of sheep's milk.

A bit of background on sheep and goat milk. Unlike cow milk, they typically lack an enzyme called "cryoglobulin", which causes the milk fat layer to clump and congeal quickly. It's for this reason it's very hard to make sizable amounts of butter from these milks. However, this doesn't inhibit their ability to be refined into cheese very much.

Queso Manchego is a cheese of very wide renown in her native Spain. As a Spanish friend confirmed to me, it is a cheese with a very high reputation, even mentioned in famous works such as Miguel de Cervantes' Don Quijote. It's been a fixture of Spanish agriculture since its Bronze Age origin, being made of the milk of Manchega ewes.

The taste is distinct. It has a noticeable yet pleasant nuts and grain-like taste, though this is offset by a mix of creaminess and saltiness that will give the tastebuds a wonderful explosion of flavor that is worth savoring.

It's worth noting this cheese has the Spanish Denominación de Origen (Designation of Origin), awarded in 1984, meaning this was actual Spanish cheese as approved and affirmed by their agricultural authorities. Only cheese made using milk from the Manchega ewes of the La Mancha region has any right to be called Manchego, and I was pleased and honored to sample some of the finest delicacies of Spain's sons and daughters, it was a very worthy purchase.

Notes

Like the last time I ordered cheese from Murray's, it was shipped well-packed with ice packs and packing material that kept the cheese both cool and snug while being shipped. I found the cheese to be fresh, undamaged, and as noted above, I noted no off-flavors or any other disagreeable notes about any of the items purchased. I would certainly buy more cheese from them, albeit after my pocket book recovers from how much this set me back, quality does have a price, but given how well it tasted, worth said price.

A few warnings to conservatives and the transgender lobby

 Since both conservatives and the LGBT lobby (really just the T the first three letters are an afterthought, more on that below) have some really idiot assumptions about each other, I want to thump noses on both sides and clear the air since I've had feet in both camps to hear their side of the story and have both things I concur on and disagree with myself.

Regardless, I have striven to keep my personal takes to myself and this post will simply be about objective facts. I warn both sides, I will certainly offend you, and if the mere thought of having your world view challenged, criticized, or denounced bothers you, then leave now, you will reject what I have to say out of hand, call me a bigot or a shill for deviance, and your mind is made up.

If you are still here, let me clear the air on a few things.

1. Conservatives: You have the right idea what to oppose, but some of your strategies are totally backward.

Conservatives, I really need to level with you, some of your backlash to the transgender lobby is very stupid. I do believe their movement does ask a lot of unreasonable things of society, agree children should not be exposed to their ideology or sexually explicit topics in general until they reach the age of majority, and I do believe, on biological grounds, your argument makes a lot of sense.

Regardless, some dos and don't for going forward.

A. BOYCOTTS WORK. 

Back when the American colonies were mad at the British over imposing taxes on imported goods, they decided to make the British suffer by refusing to import and thus killing not only their tax revenue but the profit from trade.

It worked beautifully and they were forced to capitulate badly as their merchants and wholesalers (today's corporations) went broke because people told them no to buying their crap because they did not want to subsidize their deviance (taxes then).

What happened to Bud Light should be the model. Do that to every corporation you hate for supporting a movement you oppose. It's a completely legal and quite effective way to force them to make a bitter choice: profits or promoting ideology.

As crude and insensitive as this statement is, someone once said, and I concur "You can stay retarded longer than they can stay solvent"

The best part about boycotts is they are completely legal. No one can force you to buy something, and frankly, the power of the purse is going to be one of the best ways to force corporations who back the alphabet agenda to decide if they want to be rich with the majority or poor for the minority. This will also have a knock-on effect politically, as it will show politicians' majority support your position.

B. BANNING BOOKS IS STUPID

I don't have a problem with keeping kids from seeing drag shows. That's sensible, as drag, despite all the apologists who want to excuse it, is inherently a sexual act. It's a farce of sexuality done for comedy in a sexual way, only a liar would dare claim otherwise.

Where you've gone full moron is trying to ban books from libraries. This is just stupid and treading into being unconstitutional.

Freedom of thought is one of the most vital things you can give a child, it helps them become adults who can make their own decisions by carefully weighing evidence with all viewpoints considered. Trying to shield them from things you consider undesirable is not only denying them freedom of intellectual endeavor, you are fighting a losing battle. We live in a world where information is everywhere, and you are fighting a tidal wave with a post office blotter.

Yes, you should have every say in making sure schools are not trying to indoctrinate your children, I concur, you should have parental rights to tell schools they are not to turn your children against you, you are parents for a reason. That said, the mere presence of an objectionable book in a library, school, or public, is not a reason alone to try to ban it. I went to school in the Deep South and my school library had all sorts of books, from Stephen King to biographies, to instructional manuals on botany to the Qu'ran. And that's good. By all means, instruct your kids what you prefer them to learn in a moral sense, but don't be stupid enough to pretend you can make sure they never see the material you object to. They will find a way to get it, and if you make it a forbidden fruit, you just give the other side a wedge to tempt them further and politically accuse you of violating freedom of expression.

So stop that, leave the libraries alone, so long as the choice of what to read is not forced on your child. Step in then, not before.

Caveat: I do, however, believe while a high school or college library wouldn't be inappropriate for learning about they gay lifestyle, STDs, or other mature sexual topics, it has no place in something like any elementary school, where children are not even at the stage of their lives where puberty is a concern. In that sense, restricting books is sensible protection for children. On a related note, school reading lists should have the general consensus of educators and parents. Having a fifth grader be assigned to read the works of Charles Dickens is unarguably good, as that is the work of a writer whose prose is a good example of quality and insight into the period his writing was written for and thus quite educational. A book about having a child question if they are a boy or girl before they have even started dating or even seriously considered sexual topics of any sort is unwise and indoctrination into beliefs that they are not physically and mentally capable of understanding, either in the short or long-term at that point.

C. QUIT INFIGHTING

If there is one thing conservatives have a problem with, it's not being able to stand united despite making a lot of noise about it. Quit caring so much about WHO you rally behind to get things done, just so long as you all agree on WHAT needs to be done. Swallow your pride and bile and quit fighting each other lest you waste your chances to turn back the excesses of society that offended you because you pissed away so much time infighting.

You have elections coming up in 2024. Settle who will be your candidate and drum up a united front or you will lose again.

Now, to cover the other side.

2. Transgender lobby, let me break some bad news to you.

YOU ARE NOT OPPRESSED.

I know you'll scream I'm wrong, people want to genocide you, that you are persecuted, and that I hate you. None of the above is true, and if you haven't already stopped reading, here's why you are wrong.

A. No one wants to "Genocide" you

Let's be clear, I have extensively researched actual genocides, and nothing your lobby complains about is remotely close. To this point, no one is trying to shove you into ovens, no one is forcing you into death marches and starving you to death, and no one is murdering you all in mass droves with the sanction and approval of the government.

So no offense, but shut up until those are actually happening. Do not dare try to put yourself in the same category as Cambodians under the Khmer Rouge, Armenians under the Turks, or Jews under Hitler. It's not true and you know it.

As for actual conservatives, I know them, and you know how they really feel about you all?

Some contempt, sure, for your choices, which they believe immoral, unrealistic, and deviant. Some pity, because they believe you're deluded fools slicing yourselves under surgeons and taking horse urine-derived pharmaceuticals in a vain attempt to be something you biologically can never become because humanity has no natural gender-changing functions. And yes, even some hate you because you are trying to corrupt their children and expose them to topics they believe are unfit and trying to subvert and pervert the organs of society and the state to aid you.

But no, they do not want to kill you, at least, not to the extent you expressed wanting to kill them for saying you need limits. In fact, your side has murdered them more than once, need I bring up murderess Audrey Hale?

Your side does have absolute perverts with no respect for the law, need I bring up compulsive clothing kleptomaniac, and "non-binary" criminal Sam Brinton?

And no, don't you dare try to disavow these people, your movement claims to not shame anyone, so accept your criminals and murderers just like anyone else. If the conservative side has moral hypocrites, criminals, and absolute wastes of human flesh, so do you, we both belong to the same overarching category called humanity.

But as for actual genocides, aside from some off-color "41%" jokes (a reference to the alleged high rate the transgender kill themselves) and some nasty comments mocking the transgender for being skinwalkers and Ed Gein in modern day, there is, to my knowledge, no Adolf Hitler in the wings with a clear plan to kill you all and stack your bodies.

That said, Hitler only got the ability to pull off his pogroms because he had society so ready for anyone like him they willingly went along with his Jew murders. But to my knowledge, no one wants to actually kill you, so quit the Chicken Little crap till you have an actual Mein Kampf for the transgender to point to.

B. YOUR OPPRESSION NARRATIVE IS A CROCK

For a group of people who claim to be oppressed, you have a very bizarre definition of it. You have the support of politicians, various segments of law enforcement, political lobby groups, and more corporations than I can name. Blacks during the height of Jim Crow didn't have the advantages you have, so take your comparisons to them and shove them.     

What is happening to the transgender lobby is that the majority (which, by your own admission, you claim to be the minority) have become well aware of what your side wants and how your demands that society contorts itself for your desires have encroached on their lives. It is no great sacrifice to give gays, lesbians, and bisexuals equal rights because what they ask does not require I disregard my own to generally accommodate them. By contrast, transgender demand I lie to their face so they can live their truth, regardless of my personal conscience.

You want to police language so no one can hurt your feelings. You want to suborn law enforcement to let you do as you please without consequence. You want political bodies to give you the right to do what you want at will. You want to wish away the unarguable fact humanity is sexually dimorphic mammals because, by your own admission, your heads don't match your bodies, and thus there is a mental disconnect between the two.

And if you had your way, the difference between male and female would disappear into the morning mist whenever you feel like it, everyone would have to accept whatever chimeric identity you adopt every other day as valid no matter how irrational and unreasonable it may be to accommodate you, and you want your enemies harassed, shamed, and destroyed for having the temerity to complain.

And to my horror, in defiance of logic, reason, and various laws guaranteeing equality before the law, you've been unbelievably successful, and to the extent your opposition believes you are getting away with far too much, I'm forced to agree with them.

That is not oppression, that is you being told NO, and firm limits being placed so that your rights do not encroach on that of others.

Which, under a just society, is as it should be.

Now, to both sides, I want to say this

SOCIETY IS SIMMERING WITH RESENTMENT RIGHT NOW

I am the last person who wants to see blood spill. Insofar as conservatives and the transgender lobby are concerned, whatever you do privately is your personal business, and so long as all parties can lawfully consent, then your rights should be safeguarded insofar as they do not encroach on anyone else.

It's that last part you both need to watch.

The key point of contention is the conservative side believes the transgender lobby has gone too far, has demanded unreasonable sacrifices of society, the law, and common sense, and is determined to force everyone to cater to their own wishes.

The transgender lobby is utterly convinced they are under attack and any legal restrictions, no matter how mild or severe, are the harbinger to their eventual Holocaust.

The way I see it, there is building rage on both sides, and blood has already been spilled. Much less than I feared would be spilled at this point, but one drop is too much, and if both sides want to hammer out some firm boundaries that will keep society from descending into madness, I support those people wholeheartedly, regardless of which side.

As for the rest, I belong to a group that neither hates the pro or anti-transgender side, I just don't want to see any more of your nonsense spill over into my life. I'm happy to tolerate your private lives being as you see fit, but even I will lose sympathy for both of you if you insist on destroying my happiness because neither of you can find a happy medium.

And people like me are the glue that holds society together. You'd do well to not destroy it. Because when you disgust the sane people in the middle, then if either of you is right about the worst intentions of the other side, then there will be no pity as we watch the extremes destroy each other while we curse how you despoiled our own lives in the process.

Critical Centrism: The Case for the Need of Political Centrists To Call Out Both Sides

 Modern-day politics has become the refuge of the fanatic. Agreeing to disagree is nigh extinct. Coming together and admitting while you don't always agree, you should at least hear each other out is now completely unheard of.

And as a political moderate, that galls me.

I prefer that title to "centrist", because, like most people, I too see centrism as a refusal to take a stand for something or instead I did, until I came to the conclusion I thought both sides kinda suck and that means I'm a centrist by virtue of contempt for both.

For example, I think the LGBT lobby trying to argue kids should be exposed to sexual cosplay (drag) is twenty different kinds of depraved, but I do think their enemies are just as depraved for attempting unironic book banning. I think reparations to black people is a cynical, venal, stupid, and dishonest ploy by liberals to keep black "on the plantation" by waving the bloody shirt about slavery, though conservatives who are total crime eradication zealots are fools for not realizing you can't solve crime by jailing all the criminals as harshly as possible. I thought Hilary Clinton was a shady and dishonest scumbag who should have never gotten near the Oval Office, but to be fair Trump already was an admitted scumbag, so our options blew either way. And the prospective 2024 is going to offer yet another round of choices from both sides that amount to a pick your poison than an honest choice based on people who you can trust to have morals and principles even if their politics gall you.

In short, the two-party system has too many lunatics, degenerates, and outright losers for me to like or respect either side. The politician who actually does their job instead of grandstanding for cameras is long dead, replaced by both sides putting a bunch of people onstage who do the least damage when they aren't doing anything at all.

That said, I'm sure I'm not alone. I think the fed-up members of the two sides of the aisle should form their own team to basically call out the two main teams. If politics is a game between two opposing teams, we need a third team of dedicated umpires to call them out on their violations of ethics, breaches of public trust, and outright stupidity at the expense of the voter, the person who should actually matter.

I'm not sure that's feasible in this day and age. I've had feet in both camps, still do, and it's hard to find anyone who is sane in either because while the left shuns those who cannot be made pliable tools, the right shuns those who point out their hypocrisy. The actual camps of both sides are thus filled with lickspittles and jellyfish who bend with the wind.

Unfortunately, as this world continues to get further mad, I sometimes feel I'm a lone voice telling both sides their Emperors are naked fools, but even more unfortunately I remain doubtful saying as much does me a lot of good because both sides have madmen who have banished anything less than the most simpering of yesmen and butt kissers.

Regardless, I do think that if enough voices banded together to call out both sides, they could be a powerful moderating influence politics sorely needs. Unfortunately, that requires even more courage than taking a stand for either side, as the way of the centrist is to oppose everyone else.

At the same time, I still think it's worth doing because the only other alternative is to pretend both sides' Emperors aren't naked. And I'm done pretending either sides' pants aren't on their heads instead of their waistlines instead.

Why I oppose special holidays simply for being a minority

 Fair warning, this was written by a white guy who is Christian and straight, so if you are gay, trans, black, or anything else I'm not and think I should shut up, you might as well stop reading now and spare yourself further offense. If, however, you don't mind a potentially offensive alternative point of view from a politically moderate person who thinks everyone should be equal regardless of their differences, then allow me to explain why I bring this up.

I recently offended a certain group of LGBT people (I shall respect their privacy by going no further than that) by saying I found it sad a minority group needs a specific period of time like "Pride Month" to feel dignity when I believed that was something that should be innate, no one should take it away from you, and those that tried could go to hell for all I cared.

Not my exact words, but close enough.

For my audacity to suggest this, I was inundated with various comments that the LGBT are on the verge of extinction and deserve Pride Month since they are robbed of everything else these days, had it implied I was racist when asked if I felt the same about Black History Month, and was soon after booted out of the community in question despite apologizing for my statement offending others.

For the record, so be it, I accept my exile like an adult. I shall not beg for a return and I wish that community the best despite my absence, I am not one to hold grudges, especially not after something like this.

However, since this is where I can elaborate on my opinion without having doors slammed in my face, let me explain why I think minority holidays, while noble in their intents, have become wedges to drive society apart instead of together.

They've Failed At Making Diversity Acceptable

Things like Pride Month and Black History Month started with the noble intention of bringing to light a minority group and celebrating their part in human society. I do not dispute this.

Unfortunately, the line between "here is a spotlight shown on a minority group for a brief period to show they too have contributed to the human race" and "putting them on a pedestal and flaunting them as somehow better than mere mortals" has become disturbing common these days.

For the most part, I lay the blame at the feel of corporations, lobby groups, and social media. While I do not oppose the basic concept of minority celebration, the parties I've mentioned have commercialized, politicized, and otherwise turned these celebrations into less "these groups exist and we should remember that" and more "these people are special. Disagree and you're a bigot"

To that, I'm not a bigot, but I don't think being a minority makes you "special". Different, but not special. Everyone is a human being, capable of free will, sapient intelligence, and the potential to shape their own destiny. Being white, black, gay, trans, or covered in polka dots does not make you a god amongst mortals.

I do not believe the mere act of being different means you deserve special treatment. You deserve to be treated the same as I would, insofar as is reasonable.

For example, if a black or white person runs a red light, they should pay the same fine and receive the same legal citation. If there is a job position available, they deserve the same CHANCE at the job based on their qualification for the job, not their skin color.

Regarding being gay or trans, my take is that your sexuality or whatever you define your body as is your personal business. No one except those you are intimate with is entitled to know more unless you are willing to share, and by the same token, others have a right to the same level of discretion and privacy. Whatever you do, provided you do not violate the rights of others nor trammel the protections of lawful consent, should be protected. Moral and ethical considerations should have no preferred preference over the law.

With this said, it galls me how polarized society has become. While it's inevitable groups will clash, the profound lack of "agree to disagree" disgusts me. I hate bible beaters and LGBT zealots with the same level of contempt, much like the racist (whether they be a black person saying whites are evil or a white saying blacks are evil) disgust me.

At the end of the day, your differences mean nothing to me. You are all human. You were born and you will die. You are no more above your own humanity than anyone else, so quit having the presumption your differences elevate you above anyone else.

All your difference means is that you are DIFFERENT, not special.

Getting back to my main point, minority holidays have just become flashpoints. Pride Month is one in recent days that has drawn both anti and pro-LGBT groups to scream at each other. The pro-LGBT consider even the slightest amount of differing opinion or insinuation they are as mortal as the rest of humanity (and thus as equal before the law as anyone else) as tantamount to genocide. The anti-LGBT are as blind and stupid as the fools who thought Prohibition would end the consumption of alcoholic beverages forever, trying to legislate morality despite behaviors like alcohol consumption and homosexuality having existed as far back as we have recorded history.

Therefore, if these minority holidays are just going to be flashpoints of further societal discord, then yes, I think we'd be better off without them.

Being a Part of a Group Has Become Entire Identity

I have been a member of intensely pro-Christian and LGBT groups. In both, I'm the moderate, and I admit, while I try to get along with these groups, I cannot stand either when it gets to the point it goes beyond "this is who I am" and it gets to the point "and I'll remind you every five seconds".

When I joined said groups, your stance was already known to me. I do NOT need to be reminded, and if you must remind me what you are constantly, then I must ask, why are trying to remind ME so hard, I already know. 

To this, you either get told to shut up and let others speak (how ironic, I must muzzle my tongue but you are above the same restriction) or that you are a bigot trying to silence them (despite the fact they've more than made their position clear)

Again, if you cannot go five minutes without reminding me what you stand for and daring to punish me for getting tired of being reminded, you are the problem. Whatever you stand for, if your position cannot survive without terrifying others into silence while you keep talking lest you punish them for daring to say anything that might offend you, you're the intolerant one. You create your own bigots by stirring resentment against you.

So, if this is already causing resentment, then special holidays for minorities, with this in mind, are just grinding glass in the wounds of societal discord, and we'd be better if they didn't exist.

Conclusion

I am white, male, Christian, and straight. That said, I rarely tell people any of the above unless I'm asked directly. My reason is simple: 

I am secure in this knowledge and do not need to hammer it into the heads of anyone else.

Diversity is the strength of the human race. Without it, we'd be boring and sterile in terms of creativity and endeavour, and I in fact celebrate our diversity. I do not, however, enjoy being forced to simper before any group and keep my mouth shut while they demand special treatment simply for being different. There is no faster way to create a bigot than by demanding special treatment of others, and while I have tried to resist falling into the trap of hatred over this, a lot more actual bigots have been created by this forced love of diversity breeding resentment against forced tolerance and faked acceptance under pain of retribution.

With that in mind, I do not reject the differences of my species, but I'd rather not have them rubbed in my face and be told I'm the intolerant one for daring to say "Who cares what you are, you're human, that's all that matters."

And with that said, minority holidays have become pedestals to elevate certain groups above humanity and trying to force me to revere them as gods. And I will not do that. No one man is god over another, no matter what difference you have from myself.