The United States Supreme Court upholds the controversial "Unending Life Mandate" on the principle that anyone who violated it and died in contravention was subject to fines under the taxing power and not the Commerce Clause. The decision is hailed as finally ending the needless scourge of mortality that, supporters argued, was affecting far larger numbers of poor than the rich. "Now that extra layers of poorly qualified bureaucrats are involved, Americans, black or white, 1% or 99%, are no longer forced to die when they just want to live forever, which is a basic human right, like being tall and good looking, and, most basic of all, only having good things happen," proclaimed the President. No word was given on funding as bureaucratic oversight of the mandate is set to exceed the global GDP.
Thursday, June 28, 2012
Wednesday, June 27, 2012
All Grown Up
When my roommates, Harry and Tom (lawyers both), and I come back from trivia, particularly if we've managed to win, a peculiar tradition has developed. Harry will walk directly into his room and emerge with his guitar. He will set the guitar down on the center couch of the den/TV/living room, and, having poured himself a drink, will sit down on the couch (Tom's place is on the smaller love seat on one side of the room and mine is on a barcalounger on the other) and begin to fiddle with the guitar.
To be clear, Harry is an excellent guitar player.
The problem with his guitar playing, much like guitar playing of other excellent guitar players, is that he likes to play the difficult or interesting part of songs, which only last 30-45 seconds, at most. In a band, he'd be forced to play a refrain or something for the lyrics to go over, but since it's just him doing his thing, he shifts to the next song he feels like going to town on.
This produces a level of frustration, at least on my part, because, while I tend to like every single thing he chooses to play, I hate only hearing 30-45 seconds of it before he moves on. Eventually, this will cause me to ask him a question about something he's playing, partly because, well, I'm curious, but also because I want him to pause a second so I'm not getting more annoyed.
I should mention that after trivia, particularly if we've managed to win, we happen to be somewhat loosey-goosey vis-a-vis alcohol and its effects.
As I ask a question about music, a subject I know so painfully little about and which he knows far more, that gives Harry a chance to lecture somewhat pompously and disdainfully. I'm not sure there's a thing Harry loves more than the opportunity to simultaneously teach you something you don't know about while chuckling at your abject foolishness at not knowing it in the first place.
Honestly, that sounds shitty of me to say about him, but we've been friends and roommates for a while now and it's just one of his things and it's by turns amusing and annoying.
One of my things that's amusing and annoying is that, as he's somewhat loosey-goosey vis-a-vis alcohol and its effects and he's mock-contemptuously talking down to me, when he does venture into something I do know about and I catch him overreaching, I will annihilate him and needle him relentlessly.
Tom, meanwhile, curls himself on the loveseat and watches us with bemusement and annoyance and laughs at us.
At any rate, so it was last night, when the subject of The Beatles came up and Harry asserted that they were not "artists" but simply "technicians" who had only "found the formula for pop songs." I won't need to tell you (but will, of course) that even when I've had a sip or two a) I am an argumentative bastard and b) I can still happen to recall a whole bunch of disjointed trivia. I therefore threw out a wall of tidbits and facts about the Beatles, going from Malcolm Gladwell's Outliers to "Harry, you're also the same jackass who says that Ray Charles is more influential than James Brown."
My supreme amusing and annoying fall back is to shift the conversation to things he doesn't know and then teach him and talk down to him.
Turnabout's fair play.
The tradition then devolves into him loudly proclaiming that he's the most educated person in the room (he has a legal masters in International Taxation) and my proclaiming that he doesn't know shit if he says the Beatles aren't artists, and that James Brown is definitely more influential, hell, just flat out better, than Ray Charles.
Tom, meanwhile, went to a much better undergrad, Wake Forest, than either of us, and I think maxed the math portion of the SAT. That smug bastard is a bastard for not being smug at all. His annoying (and not amusing) habit is to not ever jump into the fray to explain that he's smarter than us. It's a crappy thing for a roommate not to have the courtesy to demean himself in front of the others so they can have something on him. Tom is also the funniest of us. That smug bastard.
Usually, there's good-natured cussing and then more drinks and we figure out the next topic for argument. Last night, while in the kitchen making a drink, Harry stepped it up a notch in a fashion I was not prepared for at all.
He snatched my half-loaf of bread from off the top of the fridge, held it in one hand while he punched it to mulch in the other, placed it in the trash, laughed, and then went and sat back down in his spot.
That particular rhetorical device had not been taught in law school.
It was sorta brilliant. I can't really argue with crushed bread.
So I said, "Um. Well..."
Tom laughed. Harry laughed.
We went back to the den/TV room/living room and that was the end of it.
So they thought.
NO ONE CRUSHES/PUNCHES MY DOUBLE FIBER WHEAT BREAD, DAMMIT!!!!
The key to getting proper revenge is patience.
After an hour of stewing on the inside and placidly smiling on the out, it was time for me to go to bed. I bid them adieu. To get to my room, I have to walk through the kitchen and then through Harry's room (old Charleston apartments have crap layouts). Of course (OF COURSE), I took the bread out of the trash.
Then I hid the bread around his room like Easter Eggs. I took photos with my phone and texted them to Tom, asking if he wanted to lay bets on how long it would take Harry to find them. I heard Harry wobble into his room and go to bed about thirty minutes later.
As of this morning, he still hadn't found them.
Wednesday, May 30, 2012
Requiem Aeternam Dona Eis, Domine
You spin; you twirl; you flit about,
possessed of trenchant style.
You dance the dance the others do,
far better by a mile.
And as you blithely dominate,
you condescend to smile
upon the fellow revelers you've
enchanted and beguiled.
They do not know; they cannot know;
and you are in denial:
For all your skill, and all your might,
your soul's been scarred by bile.
The tune once called, the others step,
so you quick to the tile.
Why is it that you've never asked
if dancing is worthwhile?
Friday, May 18, 2012
Sucked In: Women to Ranger School
"The U.S. Army is considering putting female soldiers through Ranger School"
With that, my "I don't talk politics; it's pointless" went right out the window. I'm a hypocrite. I've had several discussions/postings about the topic.
One such commenter, against the grain of "This is idiotic", stated:
"...that is the responce every
time a system or program is considered for change to allow the entry of
women. It is a position designed to bet on failure. I think that there
are a few capable women who would prefer to bet on success.
With the military the way that it is today the roles of women are already blured. Women can command any number of units in combat areas and the current wars and number of women killed and wounded in combat demonstrate that the line has already been crossed. If a female MP goes to Ranger school and passes out she will be a better leader and the MP unit will benefit.
You use boxing as an example of a skill that will have to change. There are any number of martial arts other than boxing. I took classes for years and am a pretty big guy. One of my instructors, and co-owner of the school was a woman who could whup ass with the best of them.
BTW, I can assure you that when the day comes that a woman can run and throw like Eli Manning, some team will pick her up. Is there a rule in the NBA, MLB, or NFL that bars women?"
With the military the way that it is today the roles of women are already blured. Women can command any number of units in combat areas and the current wars and number of women killed and wounded in combat demonstrate that the line has already been crossed. If a female MP goes to Ranger school and passes out she will be a better leader and the MP unit will benefit.
You use boxing as an example of a skill that will have to change. There are any number of martial arts other than boxing. I took classes for years and am a pretty big guy. One of my instructors, and co-owner of the school was a woman who could whup ass with the best of them.
BTW, I can assure you that when the day comes that a woman can run and throw like Eli Manning, some team will pick her up. Is there a rule in the NBA, MLB, or NFL that bars women?"
Who's the more foolish, the fool or the fool who argues with him? I get it. I'm aware. That's my typical position.
But, however
Proverbs 26:4-5 "Do not answer a fool according to his folly, or you
yourself will be just like him. Answer a fool according to his folly, or
he will be wise in his."
For which I found the rather brilliant paraphrase "So: It is unwise to argue with a fool at his own level and recognize his
own foolish suppositions, but it is good sometimes to refute him
soundly, lest his foolishness seem to be confirmed by your silence." http://www.bibletools.org/index.cfm/fuseaction/bible.show/sVerseID/17146/eVerseID/17147#ixzz1vDhpoANc
So off I went:
"...that is a beautiful, lofty
position and one that has been propounded by such heralded minds as
Plato. The problem is that it's beautiful in theory and not reality. You
speak of the Righteous Amazon [let's call her Camilla (Virgil's
Aeneid) to keep with classical concept since the idea is nearly two
thousand years old] who will break the mold and not only be on the same
field as men but lead and possibly dominate. You say "when the day comes
that a woman can run and throw like Eli Manning, some team will pick
her up". Quite right, but I wouldn't bet my paycheck on that being
likely.
To keep with the metaphor, I say that there are 32 teams in the NFL and there are 53 roster spots. That's 1696 possible positions. If she made a team she would represent, of course, not the vanguard of an onslaught of dominant women players, but an oddity, a statistical aberration, a commendable and impressive one to be sure, but an outlier nonetheless. She, alone, would be not 1% of the NFL, nor a tenth of 1%. She would represent .05%.
And that's saying she plays the premier position (QB). Little girls can play football, and have. The crucible of reality has, and will, dictate that no, they will not be quarterbacks. When they have played against men, and they have, they play kickers typically. Why? That's where their obvious physical limitations hold them back least. IF a woman made an NFL team, I'd bet solid money she will be a kicker or punter.
IF that woman punter or kicker achieves the highest level (NFL) she will be a specimen and a sight to see, but she'll still be a kicker or punter and still represent .05%. No one, and I mean NO ONE with any sense is gonna tell you the kicker is the Acme of NFL Athletes. A kicker can be a hell of an athlete, yes. He/she can do a billionty pushups and walk on his/her hands for hours and at the end of the day he's/she's a sight to see at 195lbs. And yet football requires so, so, so much more. That's why kickers and punters don't get drafted first (other than Sebastian Janikowski, who looks like a lineman, coincidentally). Merely being an impressive specimen ain't enough. You need to also fit in the game.
THEREIN lies the problem with your Camilla theory. The NFL, of course, is not the Army, but it's an easier stand-in. Instead of a spectator sport that ultimately can vanish and not truly cause a problem, we're talking about the Army. The Army that is not a social concept. The Army that is not a "We Can Do It!" jingo-istic application.
We're talking about the people, men, who will face death and deal in it. The army, men, who protect the rest of us so that we can watch silly spectator sports that might one day, theoretically, have a woman compete with hundreds of men. This is not to be considered intellectually. Killing is not an intellectual exercise. Viscera, guts, brains, severed limbs, intestines, feces, urine, screaming agony. That's the bottom line of the Army. Common sense, reality, and history, not beautiful, lofty theory, have proven as much.
And yet, women have and will continue to face combat and succeed. This is not to be ignored or played down. We do have female warriors and thank God we do. With non-linear combat now a part of modern combat and one that will be for the foreseeable future, we will see a female Medal of Honor recipient (and not a PC one, but a deserved one). I stand by that.
When women have been in combat in the US, it has not been on purpose. It has been a coincidence of circumstance. "Our supply convoy got ambushed and the female driver exited her vehicle, laid down suppressive fire while her fellow soldiers found cover, and..." That story and it's ilk have happened repeatedly during the War on Terror. That's not to take away from what women have achieved. Well done. But it doesn't change the fact that it was unintended.
Rangers and infantry are not about coincidence, nor should they be. We don't put weaklings in the infantry (well we do, but that's because the Army is a bureaucratic machine and has problems...the weak typically wash out). They're the tip of the spear, as it were, and we need/want/require the best. The Rangers represent the best of the best. No, they're not Special Forces (I think women much better, if still unlikely or unnecessary, candidates for Special Operations). They are Elite Infantry.
"Rangers lead the way." They are symbols. They are also a very real force. Outside of Ranger Qualified soldiers and officers, there are Ranger Battalions and/in the Ranger Regiment (75th). When we need the best of the best, we use them.
Ranger School is a gauntlet of physical hell. Men die at Ranger School. (My cousin's) case of losing 55lbs in just over 2 months isn't an outlier. That's about the norm. Ranger School is designed to break men, to push them past their limits. The men who get sent to Ranger School aren't plucked from the street. They are tough to begin with. I was an artilleryman. I tried to go to Ranger School and got hurt just doing the training to qualify for a slot (Caveat: I am in NO way pulling the "I'd have been a Ranger if I hadn't blown out my knee" excuse/lie that one will hear from time to time; I sincerely doubt I could have made it through had I even gotten there). I was a 22yo LT (6'2", 195lbs) in the best shape of my life and could not hack it.
For us, the United States, to upend our system of selecting those Titans for an implausible, hypothetical, truly miniscule number of women (probably singular, woman) is nothing short of abject foolishness.
To keep with your NFL metaphor it would be like saying that hypothetical female kicker should be able to compete for a Pro Bowl Middle Linebacker slot.
To keep with the metaphor, I say that there are 32 teams in the NFL and there are 53 roster spots. That's 1696 possible positions. If she made a team she would represent, of course, not the vanguard of an onslaught of dominant women players, but an oddity, a statistical aberration, a commendable and impressive one to be sure, but an outlier nonetheless. She, alone, would be not 1% of the NFL, nor a tenth of 1%. She would represent .05%.
And that's saying she plays the premier position (QB). Little girls can play football, and have. The crucible of reality has, and will, dictate that no, they will not be quarterbacks. When they have played against men, and they have, they play kickers typically. Why? That's where their obvious physical limitations hold them back least. IF a woman made an NFL team, I'd bet solid money she will be a kicker or punter.
IF that woman punter or kicker achieves the highest level (NFL) she will be a specimen and a sight to see, but she'll still be a kicker or punter and still represent .05%. No one, and I mean NO ONE with any sense is gonna tell you the kicker is the Acme of NFL Athletes. A kicker can be a hell of an athlete, yes. He/she can do a billionty pushups and walk on his/her hands for hours and at the end of the day he's/she's a sight to see at 195lbs. And yet football requires so, so, so much more. That's why kickers and punters don't get drafted first (other than Sebastian Janikowski, who looks like a lineman, coincidentally). Merely being an impressive specimen ain't enough. You need to also fit in the game.
THEREIN lies the problem with your Camilla theory. The NFL, of course, is not the Army, but it's an easier stand-in. Instead of a spectator sport that ultimately can vanish and not truly cause a problem, we're talking about the Army. The Army that is not a social concept. The Army that is not a "We Can Do It!" jingo-istic application.
We're talking about the people, men, who will face death and deal in it. The army, men, who protect the rest of us so that we can watch silly spectator sports that might one day, theoretically, have a woman compete with hundreds of men. This is not to be considered intellectually. Killing is not an intellectual exercise. Viscera, guts, brains, severed limbs, intestines, feces, urine, screaming agony. That's the bottom line of the Army. Common sense, reality, and history, not beautiful, lofty theory, have proven as much.
And yet, women have and will continue to face combat and succeed. This is not to be ignored or played down. We do have female warriors and thank God we do. With non-linear combat now a part of modern combat and one that will be for the foreseeable future, we will see a female Medal of Honor recipient (and not a PC one, but a deserved one). I stand by that.
When women have been in combat in the US, it has not been on purpose. It has been a coincidence of circumstance. "Our supply convoy got ambushed and the female driver exited her vehicle, laid down suppressive fire while her fellow soldiers found cover, and..." That story and it's ilk have happened repeatedly during the War on Terror. That's not to take away from what women have achieved. Well done. But it doesn't change the fact that it was unintended.
Rangers and infantry are not about coincidence, nor should they be. We don't put weaklings in the infantry (well we do, but that's because the Army is a bureaucratic machine and has problems...the weak typically wash out). They're the tip of the spear, as it were, and we need/want/require the best. The Rangers represent the best of the best. No, they're not Special Forces (I think women much better, if still unlikely or unnecessary, candidates for Special Operations). They are Elite Infantry.
"Rangers lead the way." They are symbols. They are also a very real force. Outside of Ranger Qualified soldiers and officers, there are Ranger Battalions and/in the Ranger Regiment (75th). When we need the best of the best, we use them.
Ranger School is a gauntlet of physical hell. Men die at Ranger School. (My cousin's) case of losing 55lbs in just over 2 months isn't an outlier. That's about the norm. Ranger School is designed to break men, to push them past their limits. The men who get sent to Ranger School aren't plucked from the street. They are tough to begin with. I was an artilleryman. I tried to go to Ranger School and got hurt just doing the training to qualify for a slot (Caveat: I am in NO way pulling the "I'd have been a Ranger if I hadn't blown out my knee" excuse/lie that one will hear from time to time; I sincerely doubt I could have made it through had I even gotten there). I was a 22yo LT (6'2", 195lbs) in the best shape of my life and could not hack it.
For us, the United States, to upend our system of selecting those Titans for an implausible, hypothetical, truly miniscule number of women (probably singular, woman) is nothing short of abject foolishness.
To keep with your NFL metaphor it would be like saying that hypothetical female kicker should be able to compete for a Pro Bowl Middle Linebacker slot.
Of course (OF COURSE) the gentleman could not let that go as the final word.
"I have no problem being in league with Plato. You do know that my use of QB was just an
example. The question remains: is there a rule in the NBA, NHL, MLB or
NFL that bars women? I don't think so, and a woman who can cut the
mustard will make the team. The ham-fisted analogy, was in response to
Bill's reference to pro sports. It is a meritocracy and entertainment.
The sport and the crowd must be fed.
I have heard your arguments and Bill's arguments that women were not capable in reference to the inclusion of all "minorities." I say, let them try and let them succeed or let them fail just like the significant percentage of men who don't make it. "
I have heard your arguments and Bill's arguments that women were not capable in reference to the inclusion of all "minorities." I say, let them try and let them succeed or let them fail just like the significant percentage of men who don't make it. "
This time I kept it short:
"I say that just because one
man might be able to run around the bases faster than a horse (might),
you don't therefore put him in the Kentucky Derby."
Wednesday, May 16, 2012
Goddam Politics (Us v. Them Is @#$!ing Childish)
A relative emailed me this recently:
|
7:49 PM (45 minutes ago)
 | | ||
| ||||
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: "POLITICO"
Date: Sun, May 6, 2012 at 5:10 PM
Subject: Fw: New law just signed by the President
To:
Subject: New law just signed by the President
YOU
DON'T HAVE TO CHECK THIS OUT ON SNOPES - IT MADE FOX NEWS WHICH YOU
CAN SEE THE VIDEO BY CLICKING ON BELOW! PRETTY SCARY
FOLKS!!!
This is really
frightening. Why
did I not know about this? sneaked
another one in on us.
New
law makes it illegal to protest in Obama's
presence
This
means that, wherever Obama is, you do not have a
right to ask him anything you want to. His
secret service can have you arrested, fined, and
imprisoned for more than a YEAR if you ask him
something he doesn’t like. Sound like he’s more like
Hitler than Lincoln to you?
WATCH
AND BE AMAZED AT HIS LATEST ATTEMPT TO STAGE A
TAKEOVER OF AMERICA
...
Guess
you’ve probably heard about this, but sending it on
anyway. It’s probably the scariest thing this
guy has done yet.
Are you
aware of this new law, signed by “Obama” in early
March 2012?
____________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________
My (Ajax's) response:
It's only alarming if you take the news at face value, which I don't. Here's the Library of Congress text of the bill:
In order to protest, it has long been established that you may need a
permit and that those permits are typically freely given though with
minor restrictions to location for security purposes.
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
We'll go line by line by this bill for the relevant parts:
(a)Whoever,
(1) knowingly enters or remains in any restricted building or grounds without lawful authority to do so
(1) knowingly enters or remains in any restricted building or grounds without lawful authority to do so
"restricted buildings or ground without lawful authority to do so".
Think about that couple who purposely crashed a White House dinner a
few years ago for a publicity stunt. They knew they were
entering the White House and knew they weren't supposed to be there (http://www.nbcwashington.com/
(2) knowingly, and with intent to impede or disrupt the orderly
conduct of Government business or official functions, engages in
disorderly or disruptive conduct in, or within such proximity to, any
restricted building or grounds when, or so that, such conduct, in fact,
impedes or disrupts the orderly conduct of Government business or
official functions;
This the one that journalists are using to play up the "Obama is
EVIL and taking away our right to protest just because he doesn't want
to hear dissent!" angle. The only problem is that it has nothing to do
with people disagreeing with the President. It has to do with people
making a scene at events where the President is. At a town hall
meeting, if someone wants to hold the President's feet to the fire when they are given the microphone, they
are in no way "in fact" impeding or disrupting the function. If the
President's at a townhall meeting though, and someone who hasn't been
given the microphone suddenly stands up and starts shouting at the
President and his conduct is so egregious that the Secret Service has to intervene, well, yes, that person would be violating. Free Speech
does not allow you to endanger the President or VP. Causing a scene out
of context, again, would distract the Secret Service and open up the
President or VP to assassins/danger.
(3) knowingly, and with the intent to impede or disrupt the
orderly conduct of Government business or official functions, obstructs
or impedes ingress or egress to or from any restricted building or
grounds
What this will prevent is people knowingly blocking the president's
(and VP's) ability to enter and exit his residence, which I'm fairly
certain is illegal as it is (and should be), or places where he is
speaking. If our nations' enemies were able to foment protests that
blocked evacuation or entry of the Pres or VP, then they would be easier
targets for assassination. Regardless of party, this is unacceptable.
or (4) knowingly engages in any act of physical violence against
any person or property in any restricted building or grounds; or
attempts or conspires to do so, shall be punished as provided
Surely this is straightforward.
_____________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________
There are only a handful of people that I've ever discussed my political affiliation with so this isn't a matter of me "siding" with the President. Outside of Republican or Democrat, this bill is not akin to "Hitler" ramming anti-dissent legislation through. The Republicans control the House. They don't help Obama with squat if they don't want to. This got passed because it's common damn sense and reasonable.
If you hate Obama or hated Bush, good for you. Stick with "@#$! that guy"; that's enough; people get that. The only thing that happens when you try to pump up stuff like this to justify/class up your "@#$! that guy" and manufacture a controversy where there isn't one is that you're showing you don't really have any idea what you're talking about.
But then you'd be like most people I've met who are into politics, so what do I know?
Wednesday, May 2, 2012
Self-Assessment Time (For You Beautiful People, Not Me)
There's only one rule: Be honest.
Suggested Time: As long as it takes.
If a blind man wouldn't enjoy being around you or like you as a human being, it's time to tone down the "I know I'm hot!" or take a shower (hell, maybe both just to be safe) and then shut the hell up and think of something actually intelligent or interesting to say other than the prodigious amounts of useless drivel that lazily falls out of your face.
I'm not blind, but what I would say to you, if I saw you out and about making an inadvertent ass out of yourself and being a walking advertisement for why I sometimes (just sometimes) fervently pray for zombie apocalypse or planet-wide sterility, is this:
"Hi, 'The Sexiest/Most Ripped Person Here!,' I'm 'The Smartest Guy in the Room!.' However, because I'm relatively smart, I know I'm one of many 'The Smartest Guy(s) in the Room!' and probably not the only one in this particular room. What I'm saying is...tone down the arrogance. It's great that you're pretty/strong/tanned/particularly hump-worthy. Go about your business, hang out with your friends, make them laugh by actually being funny, and stop dressing and strutting like an attention whore.
"I promise, promise!, PROMISE! that human beings are not peacocks. If you're not so bright, or super clever, that's okay; work on being nice. Everyone likes nice (except weirdos). We'll still see that you're hot. If a hot person in normal clothes not making a scene is in a room of not-hot people also not making a scene, trust me, all the not-hot people will be aware of the one hottie. Painfully aware. Other hotties will too.
"But get this...it works better for you to tone it down. Really.
"The people you're attracting with that aggravating, ignorant crap? Complete and utter shitheads. So if you're a hot guy wondering why you can't find a nice girl or you're hot chick who always seems to be attracting jerks, put two and two together. There's a reason why annoying-ass, beautiful celebrities marry and divorce in record time. Think about it.
"Or, you know, remain completely and utterly un-self-aware. Perhaps life will be roses for you in your obnoxious obliviousness.
"But I'll be rolling my eyes and wishing hateful things upon you and taking some small solace in the fact that, eventually, hot goes away and you'll be stuck having to put up with yourself, because no one else will."
Monday, March 19, 2012
Zombies- Problems & Solutions
The problem with Zombies is what the hell?
I'm practical. I really am. If I wake up and there are zombies stumbling amok, I'm going to accept it. It's not going to do me any good to yell at the Zombies,
"Hey, you make no sense. You're decaying matter; you have no fluid coursing through your veins. How the hell do your joints and muscles work without lubrication?"
I know people want zombies to be the living dead and think that 28 Days Later was not really a zombie movie since that was just sick people, but I think that's about the only way we'd ever see zombies for real.
That being said, the not-making-sense aspect of zombies also would be a key factor for me if it turned out there were in fact zombies. "Okay. This shouldn't be happening, but it is. The laws of science are out the window. Time to propitiate God."
I'd be pretty damn religious is what I'm saying.
Religious does not mean stupid though.
Viral or Wrath of God, the way to deal with zombies/survive are the same.
WEAPONS
BLADES- You're going to want a good blade. I'd recommend a hatchet. Yes, an ax might work well, but I think the length might be a problem. You want to make sure you don't miss and that you have enough heft to get into the skull, which is why I like a hatchet/axe over a machete or sword. The human skull is really damn hard.
I might even carry a spear too. You laugh, but how the hell is zombie-ism transferred? Lore has it that it comes from a bite, but I'm not taking the chance that it comes from a scratch if I don't have to. Get a nice long spear and aim for the mouth.
It's important to have a stabbing weapon to go along with swinging weapons because if you get stuck in a contained area, say a hallway, you might not have the room to swing. You know how much good an ax does you when you don't have room to swing it? Dick. That's how much good.
GUNS- There are many, many reasons to have the blade be the weapon of choice for Zombies. First of all, no ammo, so you don't have to worry about running out and then being screwed. So long as you have strength left, you can keep killin' zombies. TV shows and books never ever talk about ammo. Bullets are made out of lead. Lead is damn heavy. I wore 210 rounds of ammo on me in Iraq and that was a bitch. 210 rounds, by the way, is probably what you shot within the first 3 minutes of one of the Call of Duty games you played. In real life, you are a hell of a lot more careful with your ammo because you don't want to be stuck in the middle of people/zombies trying to kill you with an empty gun.
You do need a gun though. The blades will only work one with onesies and twosies coming at you. You'd be idiotic to waste a bullet on a onesie or twosie. First and foremost, guns will make noise and draw more zombies, so you don't want to use them if you don't have to. Guns are when there isn't a swarm, but there are enough that you couldn't stab enough of them before they overwhelmed you. You get in that situation, whip out the gun and blast an exit. Don't shoot all of them, just enough to get out of the bad situation.
I'd have two guns. One would be a heavy revolver. Those don't jam. The problem is that they have six shots. Reloading a revolver when zombies are coming at you is horrible. That's why you use it as the trusty backup. Always save the last bullet of the revolver for yourself.
You use the automatic primarily. You can carry clips/magazines and kill way more and reload very quickly. Don't be like Hollywood and just drop your empties on the ground. An automatic without a magazine/clip is worse than a revolver. Hell, it's probably worse than a sock with a sack of quarters in it. Keep those empties for later.
Guns really aren't for zombies. You need to make sure of your surroundings so that you don't have to get away from blades. If there are, say, 10 zombies coming at you, see if you can get yourself to a position where they are coming at you from the same direction. Get behind a door and stab them in the head one at a time as they try to come through or run down a hallway, turn around, and wait for them to come at you lined up and then stab, stab, stab. Again, unless you have gotten yourself into a position where you absolutely have to use the gun, don't. Guns are for the other human survivors roaming around competing with you for supplies and shelter.
FIRE- Unless your zombie apocalypse is one where God made zombies fireproof, fire will be your failsafe. You have to think about zombies in numbers. A few zombies, you can handle with a blade. A few too many zombies and you need the gun. A vast zombie horde of hundreds/thousands/millions? You need fire.
Prep work is key to zombies. You want to get somewhere that you can control/contain their numbers. If you're going to have an above ground sanctuary (which I wouldn't but that's just me), then you need to funnel zombies towards you so you can manage them.
The Walking Dead just had the survivors living on a farm. A farm! They know there's a zombie apocalypse and they just tra-la-la-la-la around like there's no issue. You always have to think that the zombie horde is just over the horizon. You have to work under the assumption that if one comes, you will not be able to escape and will have to fight it out to survive. How the hell were they going to do that on that farm?
Fire. Fire's how. Well, fire and a shovel. It would suck, but what you would do is dig a huge, huge ditch/moat around your sanctuary. The dirt you took from the ground, you'd put on the sanctuary side so form a makeshift wall as well. I'd reinforce that wall with logs so that if somehow the zombies crawled out of the ditch, they couldn't get up the logwall or tear through it.
Anyway, they shouldn't be able to crawl out because I would have set sticks and branches in that ditch. I see the horde coming, I'm waiting as long as I can. I'm waiting for them to come and fall in the ditch and get stuck in there in their thousands, then I'm spraying fuel on them and chucking a torch on them. They're all packed in like sardines. They'll go up nicely, and it should take long enough that more zombies will just keep packing into the inferno.
It'll smell like hell, but that's the best way to take care of a horde.
MOTHER EARTH
As I said, I sure wouldn't pick my sanctuary above ground if I didn't have to. I'd find some bunker/cave system. The key is that you want a defensible entrance where they can't overwhelm with numbers. If you chose a castle, thinking you were safe, well, even if your walls are 40 feet high, if the zombie horde is big enough, they can just trample each other and slowly make a zombie ramp, at which point they pour over and you are screwed. Yes, it would take a metric shit-ton of zombies for that, but, you know, you're supposed to think of these things.
I'd want a bunker with a door (steel) that was wide enough for a man. I don't care if a million zombies are pushing the one at the door as much as they can, they're not pushing through that. Sure, you're trapped, but you're safe.
That being said, while starving to death is not as sucky as being torn limb from limb and eaten alive, it still sucks. That's why you must have a backup/escape tunnel. That outdoor sanctuary surrounded by the fire ditch I told you about? Yeah, you better be digging an escape tunnel there, for if the zombie horde is fireproof/attacks on a rainy week. They manage to get over the walls, you don't want to be standing there holding your pecker and whistling dixie. You want out. Your shovel is going to be as important as your weapons.
PERFECT SANCTUARY
I know I said underground, but that's if I'm on connected land. An island with a fresh water source would be great. One with high cliffs would be best. Bunkers/sanctuaries are great on mainland, but there's always a risk of running out of supplies. On an island, you should be able to handle the smaller amount of zombies, if any. Then you have the ocean to feed you. Of course still dig your ditches and walls and whatnot, but food and water and wait for the zombie bodies to decompose to the point that they can't move.
Unless the angry God who made the zombies allows them to continue on as skeletons, or worse, zombie-ism transfers to sealife too.
In which place, you're probably in hell already and just don't know it.
I'm practical. I really am. If I wake up and there are zombies stumbling amok, I'm going to accept it. It's not going to do me any good to yell at the Zombies,
"Hey, you make no sense. You're decaying matter; you have no fluid coursing through your veins. How the hell do your joints and muscles work without lubrication?"
I know people want zombies to be the living dead and think that 28 Days Later was not really a zombie movie since that was just sick people, but I think that's about the only way we'd ever see zombies for real.
That being said, the not-making-sense aspect of zombies also would be a key factor for me if it turned out there were in fact zombies. "Okay. This shouldn't be happening, but it is. The laws of science are out the window. Time to propitiate God."
I'd be pretty damn religious is what I'm saying.
Religious does not mean stupid though.
Viral or Wrath of God, the way to deal with zombies/survive are the same.
WEAPONS
BLADES- You're going to want a good blade. I'd recommend a hatchet. Yes, an ax might work well, but I think the length might be a problem. You want to make sure you don't miss and that you have enough heft to get into the skull, which is why I like a hatchet/axe over a machete or sword. The human skull is really damn hard.
I might even carry a spear too. You laugh, but how the hell is zombie-ism transferred? Lore has it that it comes from a bite, but I'm not taking the chance that it comes from a scratch if I don't have to. Get a nice long spear and aim for the mouth.
It's important to have a stabbing weapon to go along with swinging weapons because if you get stuck in a contained area, say a hallway, you might not have the room to swing. You know how much good an ax does you when you don't have room to swing it? Dick. That's how much good.
GUNS- There are many, many reasons to have the blade be the weapon of choice for Zombies. First of all, no ammo, so you don't have to worry about running out and then being screwed. So long as you have strength left, you can keep killin' zombies. TV shows and books never ever talk about ammo. Bullets are made out of lead. Lead is damn heavy. I wore 210 rounds of ammo on me in Iraq and that was a bitch. 210 rounds, by the way, is probably what you shot within the first 3 minutes of one of the Call of Duty games you played. In real life, you are a hell of a lot more careful with your ammo because you don't want to be stuck in the middle of people/zombies trying to kill you with an empty gun.
You do need a gun though. The blades will only work one with onesies and twosies coming at you. You'd be idiotic to waste a bullet on a onesie or twosie. First and foremost, guns will make noise and draw more zombies, so you don't want to use them if you don't have to. Guns are when there isn't a swarm, but there are enough that you couldn't stab enough of them before they overwhelmed you. You get in that situation, whip out the gun and blast an exit. Don't shoot all of them, just enough to get out of the bad situation.
I'd have two guns. One would be a heavy revolver. Those don't jam. The problem is that they have six shots. Reloading a revolver when zombies are coming at you is horrible. That's why you use it as the trusty backup. Always save the last bullet of the revolver for yourself.
You use the automatic primarily. You can carry clips/magazines and kill way more and reload very quickly. Don't be like Hollywood and just drop your empties on the ground. An automatic without a magazine/clip is worse than a revolver. Hell, it's probably worse than a sock with a sack of quarters in it. Keep those empties for later.
Guns really aren't for zombies. You need to make sure of your surroundings so that you don't have to get away from blades. If there are, say, 10 zombies coming at you, see if you can get yourself to a position where they are coming at you from the same direction. Get behind a door and stab them in the head one at a time as they try to come through or run down a hallway, turn around, and wait for them to come at you lined up and then stab, stab, stab. Again, unless you have gotten yourself into a position where you absolutely have to use the gun, don't. Guns are for the other human survivors roaming around competing with you for supplies and shelter.
FIRE- Unless your zombie apocalypse is one where God made zombies fireproof, fire will be your failsafe. You have to think about zombies in numbers. A few zombies, you can handle with a blade. A few too many zombies and you need the gun. A vast zombie horde of hundreds/thousands/millions? You need fire.
Prep work is key to zombies. You want to get somewhere that you can control/contain their numbers. If you're going to have an above ground sanctuary (which I wouldn't but that's just me), then you need to funnel zombies towards you so you can manage them.
The Walking Dead just had the survivors living on a farm. A farm! They know there's a zombie apocalypse and they just tra-la-la-la-la around like there's no issue. You always have to think that the zombie horde is just over the horizon. You have to work under the assumption that if one comes, you will not be able to escape and will have to fight it out to survive. How the hell were they going to do that on that farm?
Fire. Fire's how. Well, fire and a shovel. It would suck, but what you would do is dig a huge, huge ditch/moat around your sanctuary. The dirt you took from the ground, you'd put on the sanctuary side so form a makeshift wall as well. I'd reinforce that wall with logs so that if somehow the zombies crawled out of the ditch, they couldn't get up the logwall or tear through it.
Anyway, they shouldn't be able to crawl out because I would have set sticks and branches in that ditch. I see the horde coming, I'm waiting as long as I can. I'm waiting for them to come and fall in the ditch and get stuck in there in their thousands, then I'm spraying fuel on them and chucking a torch on them. They're all packed in like sardines. They'll go up nicely, and it should take long enough that more zombies will just keep packing into the inferno.
It'll smell like hell, but that's the best way to take care of a horde.
MOTHER EARTH
As I said, I sure wouldn't pick my sanctuary above ground if I didn't have to. I'd find some bunker/cave system. The key is that you want a defensible entrance where they can't overwhelm with numbers. If you chose a castle, thinking you were safe, well, even if your walls are 40 feet high, if the zombie horde is big enough, they can just trample each other and slowly make a zombie ramp, at which point they pour over and you are screwed. Yes, it would take a metric shit-ton of zombies for that, but, you know, you're supposed to think of these things.
I'd want a bunker with a door (steel) that was wide enough for a man. I don't care if a million zombies are pushing the one at the door as much as they can, they're not pushing through that. Sure, you're trapped, but you're safe.
That being said, while starving to death is not as sucky as being torn limb from limb and eaten alive, it still sucks. That's why you must have a backup/escape tunnel. That outdoor sanctuary surrounded by the fire ditch I told you about? Yeah, you better be digging an escape tunnel there, for if the zombie horde is fireproof/attacks on a rainy week. They manage to get over the walls, you don't want to be standing there holding your pecker and whistling dixie. You want out. Your shovel is going to be as important as your weapons.
PERFECT SANCTUARY
I know I said underground, but that's if I'm on connected land. An island with a fresh water source would be great. One with high cliffs would be best. Bunkers/sanctuaries are great on mainland, but there's always a risk of running out of supplies. On an island, you should be able to handle the smaller amount of zombies, if any. Then you have the ocean to feed you. Of course still dig your ditches and walls and whatnot, but food and water and wait for the zombie bodies to decompose to the point that they can't move.
Unless the angry God who made the zombies allows them to continue on as skeletons, or worse, zombie-ism transfers to sealife too.
In which place, you're probably in hell already and just don't know it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)