WHILE NOT BLIND TO COLOR, I'M STILL COLORBLIND...

     I'm not sure what the point of these tests are except to embarrass me but the following panels (left to right) are tests for three types of colorblindness called protanopia, deuteranopia, and tritanopia respectively.
     Protanopia means the subject has difficulty distinguishing colors in the green-yellow-red end of the spectrum. "For a protanope, the brightness of red, orange, and yellow are much reduced compared to normal." It can be so bad for some people that colors like red appear black or dark gray. It also states that "[v]iolet, lavender, and purple are indistinguishable from various shades of blue because their reddish components are so dimmed as to be invisible."
     Deuteranopia sufferers also have difficulty distinguishing in the green-yellow-red end of the spectrum. "A deuteranope suffers the same hue discrimination problems as protanopes, but without the abnormal dimming."
     Tritanopia is the opposite of protanopia in which its sufferers have difficulty distinguishing the short wavelength colors of blue, indigo, and violet. They, like the protanope example, appear dimmed allowing blues to appear black or as dark gray. This is the rarest of the types.

     That's just the simplified version. There's way more to it than what I've just written. There's also protanomaly, deuteranomaly, and tritanomaly whereby the subjects possess all three cone cell types but with one of the types defective rather than absent like with the above examples.

     Okay, for the example test below, the top row of images is how they appeared on the Wikipedia page I'm getting my information from for this post.

     All I got from this test was just how poorly I perceive colors. Even knowing the answers ahead of time, I could only easily see the 56 on the right panel. The left panel is completely blank and the middle one shows hints of color on it. Now even though I said I see the 56 easily, it's still faint. If your color vision is normal you'll have to tell me if the numbers all appear ghostly or if they're so obviously plain that the test itself seems insulting.
     As you can see, I copied the three panels and I traced around what I could see. If my life depended on seeing the 37, I would be so dead. So very dead...

     But then, in an attempt to make me feel better, I wondered what would happen if I put the original panels into a photo editor and supersaturated the color.
     I've always said that I can see all the colors, just not well. I often need bright light to distinguish them. I've noticed this at work when red and green labelled things are next to each other in shaded areas, I cannot distinguish them even though I know which is which from reading them. But put them in the light and the red and green pops right out.
      I also think of this when looking at the stars. Three stars and the planet Mars are supposed to be noticeably red to the naked eye. Antares (the bright star of Scorpius), Aldeberan (the bright star of Taurus), and Betelgeuse (the topmost bright star of Orion) are all supposed to be ruddy-colored to the eye. They're just bright stars to me. However, if I look at them through binoculars or a telescope, their color becomes apparent.
      I remember the last time Mars became bright in the evening sky, I asked my Best Friend what color that bright "star" was and she replied that it was red thus letting me know that I was missing out on something. I pointed out Betelgeuse and got the same response. I wonder what this colorful world looks like? It's impossible for me to ever know. Do they look like supersaturated color photos? It makes me wonder when I gently uptick the color in some of my photos if to non-colorblind individuals those photos look ridiculously overcolored whereas to me they look simply "enhanced".

Enhanced color or ridiculously overcolored?

Do you see the rainbow's colors as easily on the left image as I can now see them on the right?

      Anyways, I supersaturated the test boxes and much to my joy, the numbers in all the boxes became quite plain to me. I see a red 37, a pale green 49, and a very blue 56. However I will admit that the 49 doesn't stand out, stand out...and the 9 looks like it's missing its top making it look like a crude 4. I see the 49 more as an absence of the darker, reddish looking dots whereas both the 37 and 56 look as though they had been spray-painted on.

     I again traced out the numbers albeit less carefully this time but as you can see (and likely saw all along), I can perceive the numbers now. If I would have to self-diagnose, I would say I am deuteranomalous. I found an anomaloscope online. According to the site, it's not possible to properly emulate the test using a monitor but the results are still useful and mine? My results are bad :-)
      It makes me wish I had money to waste. I would like to be properly diagnosed and alongside a non-colorblind friend because I would want to see just how off my vision is. Using the anomaloscope, where you see yellow, would I see greener light or redder light?

Well... Shit...

A POST LIBERAL/CONSERVATIVE WORLD...

     I wonder if the liberal/conservative divide has run its course in American politics? We seem to be at an apex for the two ideologies...at least from the perspective of the House of Representatives. Hell, I'm not even sure what the words liberal and conservative mean politically anymore. I've had this notion that liberality was about embracing change or at least trying something new; that is was akin to progression...future thinking and that conservativism was about preserving the status quo or even retrogressing to a time or way of doing things perceived to be better than the way they are being done now. Liberalism was about trying out untested ideas and Conservativism was about proven ones (even if those ideas had been proven ill-advised).
     Yet that's not what the words mean. Like how "theory" means one thing to scientists and means quite the opposite colloquially, liberal and conservative, when worn as political labels, take on very different senses from the dictionary senses of the words.

     But where do we go from here? If liberalism and conservativism are on the way out, what ideologies replace them?
     In the past, there were liberal and conservative Democrats as well as liberal and conservative Republicans. What was their ideological dividing line? What did the parties back then ultimately disagree on before reaching an apex that allowed the current liberal/conservative paradigm reign?
     I'm not sure. I'm guessing this was the turn of the century (the 20th one) right up and through World War II that defined it. I imagine it came to a head in the McCarthy era. The Cold War paranoia may have ended the one reign bringing about the current liberal/conservative divide.
     Or maybe it goes back further to the ascendancy of the Republican party. Abraham Lincoln was its first President and soon after the Whig party died out. Perhaps a third party will rise soon in this country, electing its first President causing one of the two major parties to go extinct (I'd bank on the Republicans going extinct because they seem to be rushing headlong into it with their Tea Party and overzealous conservative factions).

     What might tomorrow's paradigm be? Libertarianism/authoritarianism? Labor/Capitalists?
     Personally I'd hope for the rise of a true labor party in this country. One emerging paradigm is the Haves vs. the Have Nots and there's a lot of Have Nots in this country who are unrepresented in government or at best marginally so. Congress is comprised as a percentage of their body by many more millionaires than are present as a percentage of the nation's population. Congress is also heavy on lawyers and businessmen. As Neil deGrasse Tyson asked (and I'm paraphrasing), where are the engineers, the scientists, the teachers, the service industry, the philosophers, hell even the ditchdiggers? Can we truly be represented by a government if that government's representatives do not even remotely resemble its constituencies?
      Personally I'd like to see a political party comprised of the actual poor, working, and middle classes and if any of its leaders are wealthy, they should have worked their way up to it. They should know intimately what it is like to be in the trenches so to speak.
       I would think the next divide would be between labor and the capitalists. The Republicans seem almost totally comprised of the latter category and the Democrats mostly so. What about the rest of us?

      But given the very close, very bipartisan vote on defunding the NSA (I believe it was 217 - 205 against defunding it), perhaps the next partisan divide that will shake up and reorganize the parties will be that of libertarians and authoritarians (though I'm sure the latter side will pick a better moniker). Privacy versus Need to Know.

      I hope something happens in the next few election cycles because this current stalemate between the two parties is preventing the government from governing at all and it's really annoying. To paraphrase a line from Babylon 5, the two parties are like divorcing parents fighting in front of their children and trying to make those children choose sides. It's one or the other we're told. I just look forward to a modern-day John Sheridan who can rise up and remind us that we don't need either of those parties anymore.

      As a Facebook friend suggested, we need to form the Mercutio Party...a pox on both your houses!...and figure out our own way through liberalism and conservativism; libertarianism and authoritarianism; labor and capitalists; privacy and publicity; individualism and community; etc. etc. etc.

ADDENDUM: This Daily Kos rant I offer as an example adding weight to my argument that the next division will be between labor and capitalists. If professionals organize in this country into guilds like screen actors and writers have in Hollywood, then I think the country will begin moving toward a real middle class again. Loyalty to companies seems a quaint and antiquated notion these days. It is further brought about by declining benefits and loss of pensions. Why bother sticking around? Accountants, lawyers, secretaries, hell even clerks, et al. need to organize into guilds.

LIFE CAN BE FICKLE...

     While walking to work last night, I thought I had seen something dart across the sidewalk at amazing speed. At first I thought it was one of those eye squigglies, albeit darker than usual or a dark spot from having glanced a bright headlight but no, I saw it had moved into the street. It was a field mouse but a car already on fast approach would prevent the little animal from completing its journey to wherever it was going for whatever it was going to do.

      It was completely a bad luck moment for the mouse. The mouse never wavered in its run. It moved in a quick, straight line to cross the street but it mistimed by all of a second bringing it to an encounter with an object evolution could have never prepared it for and for that, it cost the field mouse his/her life.

      The line between life and death is a thin one indeed...

Its broken body brought forth a tear of blood

LINE OF THE DAY, part XXXIV

(from cspackler from this article)

"From Conservatives, all we hear is the constant bitching and crying about how all lazy people want is welfare and to loaf about like lumps of crap on the teat of society. These are people that are working full time and still getting the shaft. When we argue that people should have the dignity of a living wage to encourage more work- we get a resounding no. And why? Because it potentially compromises the profits of the largest corporation in the history of the world.

I have news for you Righties. There are a lot of Americans who are utterly incapable of delivering value in a knowledge based economy, and the number is increasing. This was cool when we had factories, but sadly, even the factories we still have need fewer, more computer literate workers.  So it seems to me that you have two choices: get comfortable with sharing a bit more of the wealth in the form of higher wages, or look forward to seeing them with burning torches at a gated community near you.

And finally, let me demystify this for everyone who believes in the myth of the infallible, omniscient CEO: there isn't anyone alive in business who is worth 500 or 1000X an average worker. No one."

     I tend to agree with this sentiment. I'm also one of those people who gets pissed off when some asinine commenter mentions things like "those jobs are ENTRY LEVEL: they're not meant to support families" or "if you don't like your job/pay, get a different one" or "start your own business" or my favorite of all, "go to college and get an education so you can land a better job".

     Each one of those is stupid and simplistic in its own way. Are there jobs out there which are entry level? Yes. Should they pay less than jobs which require a skill base? Also yes. However there are a couple of things wrong, or at least questions I have, with that sentiment.
     Are there enough living wage jobs out there for everyone who wants one? If the answer is no, as I've ventured before, then it is arguable that the minimum wage must rise. It is also arguable that those jobs which do require a skill base are also not paying enough for the investment of time and money put into them. Perhaps your wages ought to be going up as well. Something tells me everyone working for a large company could get a decent raise if CEO compensation packages were limited to 25-40 times what the lowest paid worker (hired or contracted) for the company gets paid.
     The other thing is, and this may sound harsh, but I simply don't believe that it is possible, no matter how lofty our goals, to educate everyone to the levels necessary to participate in today's economy. Some people just don't have the intellect necessary to take on such difficult learning. Any Bell Curve will see to that. What of those people? Are they not deserving of dignity? And what of those people performing vital services that don't necessarily require a top-notch education like garbage haulers or bus/subway/taxi drivers or other low-level but obviously vital, services? I'm sure you would not want to live in a world where you were responsible for hauling your own trash to the dump or walking around a large city or cleaning your own sewage pipes. Yes, it's arguable that "anybody could do those jobs" but just because that is so, does that mean they are automatically undeserving of a living wage given the scale of the service provided?
     Also, what of those people who perform tasks that are also necessary but seem to add little or no value to the economy like people who work in animal shelters or for sanctuaries? What of librarians, philosophers, and researchers? Those latter jobs require a ton of skill, but offer few good-paying positions and the former jobs require passion, compassion, and dedication yet apparently ensuring the livelihoods of our abandoned furry and feathered friends and providing safety and comfort for abuse victims is not high on the pay priority scale.
     Replacing the low-education jobs with machinery isn't a smart idea either...at least not in a country with a rising population. Those people need work...they need money...and odds are they are not smart enough to compete in a knowledge-based internet level economy. And since we're not the kind of society which would kill such people for their unproductiveness or lack of utility, they have to be housed, clothed, fed, and provided with a measure of dignity. Something you're not going to get by paying poverty wages.
     To put it simply, if you don't like the idea of an entry-level worker making a better wage, then you're not being paid enough too. Don't attack down.

     I've also always hated the fallacious argument of leaving your job for another if you don't like it. This couples with the going back to school argument because while perfectly simple on paper, both arguments fail to take into account that these things cost money. And then there's logistics.
     I'd love to leave my job for something where I feel like a person and not a number on a budgetary spreadsheet, but where would I go that would pay me as much or more than what I'm making now and accessible from my home without a car? I'm trapped. My job pays too much to just up and go, but too little to really live off of (as evidenced by me not owning a car). I'm sure there are many people like me. Plus jobs, even in the best of times, are not abundant or at least readily available. And forget about quitting on principle. Unless you have a ton of cash you're sitting on, that's not even an option. Believe me, I'd love to have fuck-you money in the bank, but I don't...so I have to suck it up and take the hits to my dignity, to my pride, and to my sense of self-worth practically daily.
      Going back to school is just as stupid an argument because that costs a shit-ton of money...even with loans. And odds are you will not be able to go to school full time to get a degree in four years. No, you'll be working too, trying to stay afloat while studying complex and difficult subjects...and that's if you don't have children. If you have a spouse, you might stand a chance if s/he's supportive of the idea and willing to carry you during that time. But still, there's no guarantee that your degree will get you a job that not only pays better, but enough to also pay off your loans while living your life. Otherwise, you may have been better off where you had been. It's simply not an option without a society willing to pay for such an education socially.
      The value of an education is at an all-time low I would say. In days of yore, your father could have taught you ironworking and you would have that skill for life. And you could take that skill and teach it to your son and pass along the family business just as your grandfather had taught your father. A skilled, once learned, was worth a lifetime of labor and then some.
      How many jobs can you say that about nowadays? A lifetime career traditionally spanned forty years (I guess 25-65). Think about what goes on today. Imagine you were 65 right now. That means, you would have embarked on your career in 1973. That means you would've been formally educated in the 1960s. Life's changed a lot since then. If you were picking up where a retiree was leaving off in 1973, he would have begun his career in the 1930s. The world changed a lot in those forty years too, but not so much that a (wo)man couldn't have relied on their education to last them throughout most, if not all, of their career.
      How long does an education last now? I figure at an ideal minimum, it should last for at least as many years as it would take to pay off the student loans...or at the very minimum, an education should be worth at least as many years on the market as it took to earn it (in other words, if it takes four years to get a degree, the education received should last at least four years before needing to re-up on it). Does that even come close to how long an education lasts these days? How quickly does skill obsolescence take hold forcing workers to increase their knowledge and skills these days? It sounds all so very stressful and while I'm sure there are numbers among us who can handle (and even welcome) that kind of stress, I feel most people would burn out.

      As for starting your own business, the numbers bear this one out. Unless it's all sole proprietorships, we can't all be business owners. Some people lead, others follow. I suspect in any given group there are more followers than leaders. It's a great sentiment to try to make it on one's own but you still need investment capital which the poorer among us certainly don't have and you'll also need a marketable idea and an education in business and accounting (which brings us back to the prior example).

      Just pay people better. It's also a numbers game. Ultimately businesses have to sell shit and they can't sell shit if the people on the bottom have no money to spend because it's all going into housing, food, and transportation. The few people on top, the One Percenters as they've been called lately, can't buy it all and charity from the ultra-wealthy is ultimately insufficient. Until the wealth up top is spread to the lower classes, dreamers can't dream. I'm sure there are plenty of people out there with good ideas worth trying out but they'll never get the chance because they're too busy trying to survive, unable to save a few bucks to get ahead or take risks with.

      I can't think anymore so I'm done...

'TIL DEATH DO US PART...

     Someone I am trying to get to know had this to say recently when someone close to her died: "I am convinced that when someone you are close to dies, a part of that person then becomes a part of you."

     It makes me think she and I have fundamentally different ways of looking at the world. Another example before commenting on the original point was when she said she loved performing on stage because it was only in front of so many people that she felt she could finally be herself.
     I responded that I had felt oppositely; that one could only truly be themselves when alone. The very existence of another person causes you necessarily to react to that person and that reaction causes you to filter your thoughts and actions. The more people you are around, the more generic (in a sense) you become (and thus, less like yourself).
     She found my explanation rational even if she herself did not subscribe to the notion. It makes me feel she would respond similarly to my thoughts on the death of a person close to you.

     I wrote long ago about the death of someone I had barely known and how acutely I had felt it simply because her presence in my life was so limited. I had never written about how the death of someone I knew on far greater levels affects me and my perceptions of that kind of death.

     So no, I don't feel that when someone you are close to dies that they become a part of you. I feel instead like a part of me is lost...like my soul (my sense of self, my memories/experiences, etc.) has had a piece of itself forcibly removed leaving behind this sucking void, however tiny, which can never be refilled because there will never again be a piece exactly like the one taken to fill in what has been lost. Sure (to stick with the analogy), it could be covered either entirely or partially obstructed, but never completely. There will always be some kind of gap...some kind of hissing sound. Perhaps we die, if not felled by sickness or injury, when simply too much of ourselves has been lost and we surrender to despair.

     You might say I have a Tolkien-esque view of the human soul or perhaps a variation on that idea. For me, so long as a person is alive, their soul - their essence of being if you will - is an abstraction. It permeates all those things around them and all the lives they touch while alive. I guess you could say life is not so much defined by its presence, but by its absence. Life is nebulous. It is temporary. It is a chaos. It is a possibility.
     But death...death is far from abstract. It is concrete. It is a returning to the lifelessness whence you came. Existence is ultimately a loan and a loan which will be repaid.

     It is through death that the flow of existence is suddenly crystallized. Now that this individual has left this world, it puts an end to how they might have further influenced it. In some cases, like with painters, it's easy to see the crystallization. Their souls are crystallized in the paintings they have left behind and should a painting of theirs be lost, what remains of their existence is diminished and can never be replaced. For others, the objects remaining can be comparatively simple or even non-sequitur like.
    
     A person lives on in our memories until we too pass on, further taking from this world what little of them still remains.

     At least, that's how I see things...

The crystallization of a soul, fixing itself in those people and things which it had touched and created...or the shattering of the Shikon Jewel by Kagome in episode 2 of Inuyasha, I'm not sure which ;-)

WHO KNEW CONSOLIDATION TOOK SO LONG?

     I've been dismantling an old blog account of mine for the past two days now and reposting most of the old entries here since I can assign false posting dates to them. I thought this would be an afternoon but then I remembered this journal was from my early internetting when I used real names and actually wanted to be found so I've been forced to reread them and scrub identifying information and remove pictures and links that could lead to identification of both me and the people in my life whom I'm talking about.

      Long, difficult work. This Blogspot started in August 2010 so any entry prior to that month is from That Other Journal. Do you want a taste of my shitty past? Then click on the tag "That Other Journal" and read away to your heart's content...or not (as will more likely be the case).

      I'll have to finish my task another time. I'm getting close to the end though. If I stick to it, maybe by the end of the week. We'll see...or not (as will more likely be the case).

DESPERATELY SEEKING INTERNET ATTENTION

     I really can't believe that this hasn't been done before but a cursory image search revealed nothing. I keep seeing the various paper towel and toilet paper rackets issuing products with labels like "6 Super Rolls = 11 Regular Rolls!" or "6 Big Rolls = 8 Regular Rolls" and other variations on that kind of torturous math.

     In the Star Trek: TNG episode, "Chain of Command (part 2)", Captain Picard is tortured by a Cardassian named Gul Madred. One of the key points of the interrogator's attempts to break Picard was to ask him how many lights were there behind him shining on Picard.

Indeed.

     And yes, there were four lights. But every time Picard admitted this, he would be made to experience terrible pain. The interrogator insisted that there were in fact five lights in his efforts to break the captain. By the end, Picard was not only ready to admit that he saw five lights but that he believed he actually could see five lights. Instead, another guard came in and told Gul Madred that Picard had to leave. Picard, now knowing he had been rescued, screams at Madred, "THERE. ARE. FOUR. LIGHTS!!!" in a shining moment of awesome for the audience.

     Anyhow, with Charmin, Bounty, Cottonelle, Brawny, etc. all doing this inanity with fewer rolls somehow equalling more rolls (even though the "original" sized rolls no longer seem to be for sale), I had a moment of inspiration for this insipid attempt at a macro that yes, I'm hoping will somehow make the rounds on the internet because I'm desperate for attention and validation from anonymous strangers.

      At least I admit it...

Seriously...Charmin, Cottonelle, Brawny, Bounty, et al. Cut this shit out already...

RATIOS & MINIMUM WAGE...

     In yet another article talking about the high cost of living in states like New Jersey, the comments section blazes with arguments about whether the minimum wage needs to be raised or the educational level of the citizenry with each side ready with its talking points and no hope of a consensus ever being reached.

     I had a thought. Why not let math be our guide?

     It's simple really (and yes I'm aware that simple answers fly in the face of complicated situations like these) and my intent is to use it as a guide post for further debate, not a be-all/end-all solution.

     The article focuses on the cost of living in New Jersey for a family of four (the typical metric) and what that cost would be to barely get by. You'll do better on this amount if you manage to avoid emergency expenses for health and transportation but still, an amount was given. In this case, the answer comes in at almost exactly $80,000 a year for a family of four.
     So if you're going to have the traditional nuclear family with one stay-at-home parent, then a living wage job pays $80,000 a year. But that might be a bit too idealistic in this day and age where everybody is expected to work so it instead could be thought of as two $40,000 a year jobs (one for each parent). Taken from the latter perspective, a living wage job in New Jersey pays $40,000 a year.

     For the record, I make about $28,000 a year so an extra $12,000 would go a long way toward improving my life. I get by because I don't drive, I am very careful with my money, and most importantly, I have neither been sick nor injured enough to require hospitalization since I was 2½. But luck is not a game plan for life.

     Anyways, as for whether or not the minimum wage should be raised to reflect actual living costs in New Jersey (and elsewhere in the country to their respective rates), I think using a simple ratio would prove sufficient to answer the question.

     My question is this: What is the number of jobs in New Jersey which pay a living wage divided by the number of people who need a job which pays a living wage? I don't have the necessary information at hand to answer that question. However...

     If the ratio is less than one, then I think it would strongly suggest the need to raise the minimum wage.

     However, if the ratio is greater than one, then it would strongly suggest the population needs to be better educated. 

THOUGHTS I NORMALLY KEEP IN MY HEAD, part XIX

     The essence of conservativism is the desire to return to a previous state of being. I think we all "suffer" from this longing, do we not? Is there no time in your life that you wish could be again? The internet fans the flames of nostalgia daily and I will admit that I find myself longing at times to return to periods like the 1980s and 1990s...those "simpler" times...those "better" times. But were they? And at what cost?

     The 1980s is simple. I was a child. So saying I wish to return to the '80s is merely a wish to relive my childhood. A life of simple schooling, playing outside, Atari & Nintendo, boredom, Cartoon Express & Nickelodeon, train sets, and general goofing off. The real world was shielded from me by my parents. No real work because it was being done by my parents. Food and snacks were always around. Good times paid for out of ignorance.

     The 1990s were my teenage years. Saying I wish to return to those years is a reflection of my desire to feel infatuation again for the first time; to explore more sophisticated forms of creativity like drawing, computer programming, and making up languages; to hear the music of "my era" as it was being made rather than as the poseur I am now (I do like the music of the 1990s, but I shunned it at the time in favor of the 1970s and 1980s music that my parents listened to...I blame it on a lack of peer pressure and friends); to relive college and get it "right" this time; to take part in the emerging internet as it happened; and again, to live in a time where I didn't have to work and keep house. My "job" was school and my willful ignorance kept me largely unaware of the world around me.

     Purely selfish motives. Now in my approaching middle age I might think these eras were also somehow better, or at least more understandable. I know I could certainly navigate technologically better in the 1990s and even more so in the 1980s. Hell, I would appreciate the 1970s for its understandability as well.

     But I guess what keeps me from fulling embracing conservativism is knowing that a return to those simpler times means also a return to times where groups of people are increasingly marginalized by society and with tacit (if not legislative) approval by said society. Going back means turning up the hatred on homosexuals (it's amazing how even revered '80s movies would casually drop fag(got) into the scripts...it's uncomfortable to watch now), decreasing women's rights (or eliminating them if you go back far enough), restoring blacks to second-class citizenry (at best), and so on. As Louis CK joked, going back in time is only good if you're a white male.

     As much as the future can frighten me and as much as I feel the pace of technological and sociological change is increasing faster than I can keep up with it, going back to an earlier era is basically just me (or anyone wishing to do so) being all-too-willing to sacrifice whole groups of people because I fear, what? Obsolescence? Irrelevance? My impending death?

     I guess at best I could become a retired liberal. One day I will simply end my active fighting for progress and instead just passively let it happen because they won't be my generation's battles anymore. I may not be happy about the changes the future will bring, but that doesn't mean I have to oppose them. I figure if you're going to be conservative, be so not in the temporal sense of "the past was better" but that of "let's proceed with caution" or "let's build a consensus before committing to this idea". At least that's how I intend to do it. I'll restrict my "past was better" thinking for fantasy only because condemning whole groups of people and ways of life simply for my comfort seems...just wrong.