"It was in a book I read."

I'm not exactly the passionate writer. However, I decided last night that I want to write a book; a useful, information-packed book. It will give the reader the power of unverifiable credibility, and Dogbert isn't even involved.

For who said the information must be real?

The book in question will have two main features:

1) It will contain thousands of made-up statements.
2) It will be titled, "a book I read," in that casing.

The purpose is, obviously, for people to buy this book, read its contents, and proclaim those statements with the 100% true citation of "a book I read."

A feature I have not yet decided on would be a blank page for the owner to write in their own statements, magically giving them credibility.

I'm somewhat surprised Dogbert has not thought of this himself. Ironically, this morning's comics contained an acknowledgement of the flawed reality that makes my idea naught but a joke:

But as a joke, you must admit the Wikipedia article for it will be twice the fun.

SMB2 Inception

You've all seen Inception, right? You've all played Super Mario Bros. 2, right? You realize the connection is better inferred for oneself than explained, right? Behold a 20-second video and an original cartoon on the subject!

Calvin on Facebook

Not really much to say here. I joined a website, not Facebook, and whatever that sounds like, I'm not a hypocrite; but that's information for another time, another post (someday when I actually make a commitment to this fraction of a pensieve I call a blog). Suffice it to say, I once asked for a virtual showing of hands for not doing Facebook, and after a decent turnout and some joking, I whipped up the following strip edit. It's not cut-and-pasted lettering from other strips like the "All Your Base..." Spaceman Spiff panel at the bottom of the post bar (did I ever mention you can share that with people? Go do that. Getting a pic all over the web would be more realistic than pointing people here at this point), but that's an awful lot of text to stitch together and I don't find it necessary for the joke.

Why I'm going to get a PS3

I decided a while back that I wanted my own game console to play if I go live with my brother in Indiana to go to college or anything. I compared the Xbox 360 and the PS3 along with their game libraries and decided the PS3 had more that I'd want, including:

• Current-gen games


• Free internet


• Previous-gen games

The last one, of course, recently changed. I checked out everything I would want on a backwards compatibility list and they were all covered--then realized the list was moot with the new PS3 Slim. That's okay, actually, because buying a PS2 Slim for $100 would guarantee previous-gen playability and ultimately cost less than keeping an Xbox Live subscription anyway.

Now, I've always been a Nintendo fanboy; and like most Nintendo fanboys, I hated when others favored Sony because they had "real games" that weren't just "for kids." The trouble is, those age-old accusations are gaining more and more truth as time wears on. I'm not saying Nintendo needs to make more M-rated games or anything like that, but they're trying a little too hard to assume that there are new gamers whose only way to get into their franchises is through increasingly dumbed-down everything. Call me old-fashioned, but I don't buy into the philosophy that novelty, real or faked, makes games automatically worthwhile by way of graphics (no-brainer), storyline (Spirit Tracks comes to mind) or gameplay (gimmickry comes to mind).

To spare you from my potential to write a thorough analysis of this issue as a ten-page essay (a "proof," as I would say in logic or philosophy), let me use the following videos to point out a simple fact: Sony is on Nintendo's turf, and darn it, they're doing a better job.



Those are two of the games I intend to get. I may get LittleBig Planet while I wait for LBP2. Then there's Joe Danger, the enhanced Exitebike that Nintendo never made, and a nifty action-puzzle game called echochrome. Final Fantasy XIII is obvious, and after SC played and liked the unique RPG Star Ocean (thanks to emulation and translation patching) I figured I'd go for the whole series. I also became attracted to stealth series Metal Gear Solid when I learned about its storyline and had conversations with SC about its drawing on American culture in the reconnaissance war zone. I recently got my hands on the Metal Gear Solid: Essential Collection (containing the series through the PS2) just as the prices for it began the "rare and out of print" ascent, snagging it for $40 instead of the base $30--still a good deal. For the sake of the old Metal Gears 1 & 2 I purchased the special edition of MGS3 from the nerd-run small business at nintendosforsale.com, which was the best bargain I could find at the time. I also possess copies of Chrono Cross and Mega Man Legends, the latter of which I got years ago since my eldest brother left his PS1 and I happened to see the game at GameStop for nine bucks back when they carried PS1 games at all. As per my standards of reliability vs. practicality, the only items above that I own used copies of are MML and the expanded MGS3.

Needless to say, I'm getting a head start on securing the games I want. They don't stick around as long as the systems; although I ought to get my PS2 as soon as I can. So goodbye, Nintendo; you no longer provide what I look for in games with enough consistency for me to stick with you after I move and leave behind the family Nintendo merchandise.

Strength of (and through) the Will

Before I begin, let me point out that I am not a theologian, nor am I well versed in the psychosomatic phenomena of human nature. I don't really know the ins and outs of what follows, but I have gathered some facts that lead to an interesting question about the nature of man.

When Adam and Eve sinned they lost all the super- and preternatural powers God gave them, and their natural abilities were greatly weakened. Not only did mankind become mortal, susceptible to pain, and prone to countless diseases and defects, but its physical and mental powers were greatly handicapped in themselves. The strength of the body is comparably poor to the pre-fall human, as is the integrity of the soul--the intellect and will.

Now I ask, how much of our bodily weakness stems from the weakness of the soul? Man is a union of matter and spirit, the body and soul. The soul is the ultimate principle of life and therefore the "first act" of all powers, the root of all human abilities. The weakening of the soul, then, would cause a weakening of physical powers; however, the body itself can be (and was, through sin) independently weakened as well. The question is, how much weakness is in which?

I cannot jump out of a two-story window and keep running. I would categorize that as weakness of the body, for I could will myself to do it and would still be injured. But what if a person were invincibly determined, and their will was set undivided to performing such an action?

The curious fact is that this has actually happened. A comedian named Mike Birbiglia tells a story of doing it in his sleep due to a neurological disorder. He explains that he has a condition that is essentially a lack of a chemical produced by the brain that paralyzes the body during sleep. What I find most interesting is his mentioning that people with this disorder are known to do things that would ordinarily be impossible. For example, Mike dreamt that a missile was headed at him while he stayed in a hotel, so he promptly leaped out of his window--which was closed and on the second floor. He crashed through the pane and fell onto the front lawn, stumbled, and then kept running! He took himself to the hospital after waking up, and the doctor was surprised he was alive.

This scenario suggests the reality of the dangerous idea that "it's all in the mind." Certainly the body has limitations; so how can this be explained? Perhaps in the same way many desperate feats of superhuman strength have: the miracle of an adrenaline rush. Adrenaline enhances muscular ability (among other things) so that a person can confront extreme situations; it's the same response that lets many animals stay alive in the wild. But does it allow the muscles to be exercised beyond their limit, or merely reach their full potential? How would this function if the body were not in a weakened state from original sin? And where would the mind come into play, in that case? All the current evidence says that the mind is barely involved; it is a reflex that comes without bidding. However, it can be controlled in the way of limiting or preventing it; adrenaline tends to come hand in hand with fear or excitement, and certain military personnel are trained to suppress these so that their concentration isn't impaired.

All of this seems to say that the body is capable through hormonal enhancement, and the will has little to do with it. By the same token, though, it is probably only meant for the occasional circumstances in which it has been known to be naturally put to use. In the long run our muscles are not built for great strain, as evidenced by the destruction of prolonged steroid use; athletes who take steroids often do what their bodies are simply not made for, and though the steroids make it possible, it is seriously damaging.

There is proof, then, that the body has limitations, and exceeding them is not altogether healthy. Just how limited the body is is still a mystery. A friend of mine was recently talking about an Indian (I think) who learned to psychologically transcend nature. He could go weeks without food and survive in harsh climates because he simply didn't allow it to affect him. This obviously screams, "Legend!" but there is some degree of truth to it. Often we can withstand more than we think, either because we make ourselves or we have to.

I realize I haven't made any conclusions here, but it's definitely some food for thought. Is the key to ability more in the mind or in the body? Someday I'd like to know.

The Best Football Game That Doesn't Exist

I don't play sports games, but I would definitely play this.

Plays of Plays

Last week I had a creative writing assignment for American literature class. I had to write a short story, a poem, or a play about something American. My mind remained blank up through the deadline for formulating a basic idea; then when my teacher asked us to hand in our concepts I ripped out a sheet of paper and wrote, "Play about a student having to do this assignment. Dialogue about American stuff."

I successfully wrote the play from that single premise. The student struggles to write something with meaning while meeting the assigned requirements, commenting on the general mind of society when it comes to producing individual works.

My classmates thought it was ingenius, mostly because the kid writes a play about a kid who writes a play about a kid writing a play to infinity.