My console conflict...

I've been posting a lot about video games recently, more specifically the Perfect Dark series, as well as a few consoles, namely the Xbox 360 and Playstation 3. Now, while I came to a conclusion awhile back about which console is better (with the result being a solid tie between the two), I still cannot seem to muster which console I should purchase for myself. This may make one ask however, "What? You don't already have one of these consoles?", and moreover, "How were you able to fairly judge both consoles, and comment on theirs games, if you do not own them?". Allow me to explain a little back story on these points...

I received my first Xbox 360 back in around 2006 when it first came out. I remember it very clearly: I had wanted a Wii for christmas, but my parents and my brother had no luck finding one, as they were red hot that season, and I was at a loss. Instead, they managed to buy an Xbox 360 Pro with Gears of War, as well as dead rising- about the two best games out at that time.

I owned this Xbox for a long time, but eventually, I got tired of it. Frankly, I did almost no exploration in terms of what the console had to offer with games and whatnot, and all I did was play Gears of War- this was a recipe for getting tired the console very fast. Because I was tired with the console however, around 2008 I traded it in and bought my first Playstation 3.

This Playstation 3 was the Uncharted bundle, a game I was incredibly eager to try. Upen playing and ultimately finishing the game, I was left extremely satisfied, not only with the game itself, but with my purchase of the console. Uncharted was an incredibly good game, and it really motivated me to go out and try other games that the Playstation 3 had to offer. Among these games were Warhawk and Killzone 2. While I had enjoyed Killzone 2 somewhat, Warhawk was the game that ultimately sealed my appreciation of the Playstation 3, and to this day remains one of my favorite games of all time. I had never seen a game with such giant scope, with such a sense of epic grandeur, where I really felt like I was on a gigantic battlefield- all against 31 other combatants, no less.

Not long after I had purchased this PS3 however, about a year or so later, the Playstation 3 slim came out. I was eager to have a lighter, smaller, faster, more dust-resistance machine, so I traded in my current PS3 and bought the new slim model. Frankly, upon purchasing it, I was not happy with the result. The slim model felt cheaper to me, and the lack of touch-sensitive buttons like the original fat PS3 was a real downer. Regardless, I was still somewhat happy with my PS3 experience overall.

However, all this occured during a time where, unfortunately, the Playstation 3 was having a drought of games, and was only beginning to establish good franchises. The one game that kept me in the Playstation 3 market was Uncharted 2. I played that game's beta so much that it was ridiculous, and I ended up purchasing it on day one- only to find myself utterly tired of it about a week later. Not because the game was bad, however, but because I had played it so much.

I was then left a sincere problem- the only games I really had at my disposal on the PS3 were Warhawk, the Uncharted series, Killzone 2, and a few hidden gems like Untold Legends. This was a pretty sore lineup of games in my opinion, and though I deeply loved titles like Uncharted and Warhawk, there simply came a point where my interested in them waned- I needed new games.

This was all compounded on by the fact that certain features which I had come to know and love on the 360 earlier, like integrated/cross-game voice chat, and the ability to play music over video games, was all sorely missed on the PS3. After about a year or so of having the PS3, I just couldn't deal with the lack of games and features anymore- I had had enough.

So, as it so happened, I traded in my Playstation 3 slim, and as luck would have it, was able to sell it for almost as much as the price of the 360 Bundle I bought, which was, at the time, a very good deal: 2 controllers, a 60gb hard drive, headset, and console for only $179.99. Very good indeed. I purchased along with this a few of my favorite games, namely: Gears of War and Dead Rising, of which I was so fond. I also sprung for Gears of War 2, Call of Duty 4, Banjo-Kazooie Nuts and Bolts, Perfect Dark Zero,  Halo 3 and Left 4 Dead. When I took this console and its games home, and finally got to try new titles like PDZ and L4D- I was pleasantly surprised. I had finally rid myself of the lack of video games which I was experiencing for about a year.

Of course, as misfortune would have, not long after I spent almost $200 on this bundle and its games, the new Xbox 360 with built-in wifi, 250 gb hard drive, and better build quality was released. I was somewhat disappointed. However, I also realized that I got a pretty good deal overall, and I should remain happy with it.

And so I did, for a good long time. I played my 360, I purchased games like Bad Company 2 and Modern Warfare 2, I watched movies, listened to music, and even hooked up my Zune- yes, Zune- to stream media directly to the console. I was very happy with my console overall. However, there was one thing which bothered me about the 360 I owned: the lack of wifi.

Unfortunately, the Xbox 360 wifi adapters were, and still are, upwards of $50. At the time, I was using a computer with a terrible wifi adapter, and needed the ethernet port. As one could understand, I had to constantly switch between my computer and the Xbox 360 with a very long ethernet cable whenever I needed to use the respective devices. This made life a big hassel in many ways, and it got me thinking about buying the wifi adapter.

However, I also considered the fact that, at $50 plus tax, I could spend $50 more and get the newest Xbox with a whole bevy of new features- this seemed like the best move. So, once again, I took my Xbox 360 to Gamestop, traded it in, and was dead set on purchasing a brand new Xbox 360 Slim.

However, though I had upwards of $100 dollars in credit towards the new console from trading in my old one, I was not able to buy it at the time, as I had no money (other than money in my savings, which I refuse to touch on principal) due to having just purchased my first car as well as some upgrades for it, so I would have to wait till I got some more cash. This game me a lot of time to think.

So here I am, months later, and while I have had the pleasure of playing new Xbox 360 games at my friend's houses and whatnot, I am still without a console of my own. However, it is not because I have no money- I am doing well very in that department as of right now- but because I hate wasting money, and I do not want to go through the trials and tribulations of console purchasing again. When I think of the money I've wasted from being so fickle about my previous console purchases, it's enough to make me sick. Even if it was just a few hundred dollars, which doesn't seem like much- that's a few hundred dollars to help me pay the rent in the future, or tune up my car, or buy the groceries. I do not want to make that mistake again.

That is why I am taking my time in deciding which console will best suit me. However, one might ask- well, if I like the Xbox 360 so much, and I originally planned on buying the slim model, what changed? Why am I reconsidering? Well, truth be told, I am reconsidering because the fact of the matter is, since I owned one, the Playstation 3 has become a much more respectable piece of hardware. It's true, its online/chat functions are very limited compared to Xbox Live, and music while gaming is still an issue, but the sheer number of quality titles available on the system, as well as the overall hardware and media capabilities, have all managed to improve exceedingly well. This is what gives me pause for thought.

I am, as I have mentioned, a frugal person. At least, now I am. No longer am I a 16 year old kid who spends his allowance on cheap games and candy- I'm a man, with responsibilties, a car, and obligations. I shouldn't have to go through life without spending some money on myself, and buying things that I enjoy, but I don't want to spend too much, and I definitely don't want to waste it. The fact of the matter is, whichever of the two consoles I decide to buy, I'm sticking with them, for better or for worse, simply because I no longer have the time or the money to switch back and forth between the two, and lose money each time I do.

This all leads up the main question: which should I buy? That is something I am not sure of. Just as demonstrated in my post before last regarding the console wars, there seems to be an even number of positive and negative qualities within the scope of the Xbox 360 and Playstation 3. The Xbox has a number of great features, a fantastic online mode, and some good games to boot. Likewise, the Playstation 3 has awesome media capabilities, free online, better hardware, and is receiving much more developer attention than it use to. The question lies within which of these feature sets I will utilize the most, and which games I will play the most. This is why this decision is very hard for me- both consoles offer incredible value, with incredible games, and incredible features- and I don't necessarily even like one console's set of games more than another.

Unfortunately, at the given time, coming to a conclusion does not seem possible. However, with that being said, I hope to come to one soon.

Should I stay or should I go?

One thing that consistently bothers me is the lack of continuity and technological integration in today's gaming world. A perfect example of this is how Sony still has no cross-game voice chat for their Playstation 3 console, how not all Xbox 360 games support LAN functionality, and so on. What I do not understand is why such things are these are so difficult to implement. Obviously, many companies are able to pull off such features as voice chat, LAN, and other things with no problems whatsoever. Microsoft, for example, offers voice chat for almost, if not every single game available on the Xbox 360 console. However, they too are lacking in some ways, such as the aforementioned lack of LAN support, or even worse- the lack of split screen multiplayer these days. Of course, many big-sellers like Halo and Call of Duty, which are always party-favorites, are going to include splitscreen. However, not all games do. Killzone 2 for example has no splitscreen function whatsoever. This is a major oversight in my opinion.

My general philosophy is: if you're going to do something, do it right. These days, things aren't really being done right. Some games and services have some features, while other games and services have other features. It would be nice to have the comfort of knowing that when I pick up a new game, I will know that it has X, Y, and Z features  without even reading the back of the box. Unfortunately, this lack of technological continuity doesn't bother me because it forces me to read the back of the box, but because I hate feeling as though some games offer advanced options like LAN and achievements, whereas others don't- and that makes me think, "Why doesn't this game have these features? It would be so great if it did...What a shame". That isn't a good feeling at all.

This is something that bothers me greatly about Sony's Playstation 3. Is it a good system? Yes, as I illustrated in my previous console wars post in this blog, the PS3 is a perfectly acceptable console with a lot of features- however, it also has a lot of shortcomings, not the least of which is its lack of continuity in online services. In a game like Warhawk for example, what I consider to be one of the best games on the system, I can play music while playing a video game, I can voice chat, and I can even have my friends come over for some 4-player splitscreen. Unfortunately, with a game like Killzone 2, not all of these features are available, and this is the same story for many games out there.

All of this makes me think: should I stay or should I go? Rather, should I keep playing video games online? Or should I seclude myself into a completely single-player experience? When I do so,  I am cutting down on the many over-par and needless, half-finished feature sets that consoles like the Playstation 3 provide. In a sense, I am cutting off the fat.

Were I to make such a switch, things would not be so terrible however. Games like Perfect Dark Zero, Banjo-Kazooie: Nuts and Bolts, Battlefield: Bad Company 2, and more, all offer respectable offline gameplay modes which offer a lot of enjoyment in their own right, especially when one does not have to worry about paying for Xbox Live, keeping up with the online space, DLC, and all that. Sure, it's a stripped down experience, one with far less options, but in some ways, it's also a much leaner and cleaner experience overall.

Does this mean I will stop playing online however? Probably not. While I do dream of being able to cut myself off from the semi-disgraceful online space which has been carved out by companies like Sony, I am still somewhat of an online junkie, and I enjoy quite thoroughly the ability to play games like Perfect Dark Zero, Warhawk, Gears of War, and Battlefield online. So, while I probably never will leave the online gaming realm, it's definitely some food for thought.

Playstation 3 versus Xbox 360.

Every single generation of video game consoles, since said consoles were popular, has had a set of rivals. While some rivals were a greater match than others, the point still stands that competition is something that the gaming world has had to deal with since its inception. Whether it was the Atari 2600 and the NES, the Genesis and the SNES, or even the N64 and the Playstation 1, companies have always competed to be on top of the gaming market, in hopes of winning the undying loyalty of gamers for their respective brands.

While it is true that, in the past, there have been rivalries which have caused companies to go to great, great lengths to win the console wars, such as poking obvious fun at competing consoles, or using a whole slew of propaganda and ads to shift the focus to themselves, I do not believe that there has ever been another time in the gaming world where the rivalry was so great as it is now. Why? Because, unlike the past days of Genesis and SNES, which are so fondly remembered for their heated battles for supremacy, the success of these consoles have drastic effects on our society as a whole, and also on the companies that produce them.

Now, while it is true that the Nintendo Wii is basically mopping the floor with every other console in existance, with almost twice as many units sold as either the Xbox 360 or Playstation 3, it is widely known that Wii really isn't a "game console", or at least not a hardcore one. It promotes family-style gameplay, with a very casual experience. While the PS3 and 360 offer similar experiences via their respective Move and Kinect peripherals, they are generally focused on the hardcore gaming community, with adult-oriented games and content, and less in the way of a kid-friendly aesthetic.

So this brings us the question: which console is actually better? Now, in a way, this is a stupid question to ask, because as with almost everything in life, it is a matter of opinion. The Playstation 2 is regarded as one of the, if not the best consoles of all time, yet I prefer a N64, or a Gamecube, or even a Dreamcast to it. That's because my personal preference is more geared towards those types of consoles. Is it true then, that there isn't really a best console? That it is just that- opinion? Not necessarily, because while it is true that there will always be features and games that each console has which an individual might prefer, the fact remains that overall, one of the consoles must have broader appeal, and I believe that makes it a superior console.

Now before I delve into a heated comparison between the 360 and the PS3, let me state that I am unbiased in this regard, and that allows me to judge both of these consoles fairly. I am a previous owner of both a Playstation 3, Playstation 3 Slim, and also of an original Xbox 360 Pro unit, and later, an Elite. So, I've seen the argument from both sides of the table, and I will do my best, to remain unbiased on the topic. With that out of the way, let's stack up these two consoles and see who really excels.

I will begin by analyzing the Xbox 360, and I will create a brief chart of its pros and cons as well...

Xbox 360: Pros and Cons

+ Has the best online service available, with the most features, most members, and least lag.
+ Can play music on the console on top of any game at any time.
+ Allows you to chat with friends playing other games, using the "Party" system.
+ Tends to get the better ports of multi-platform games, due to being easier to program for.
+ Has voice chat support for almost every (if not every) multiplayer game available.
+ Has Zune integration, allowing you to stream media from Zune devices.
+ Has the best arcade overall, with the most games available, and generally the most highly rated ones.
+ Has almost every single full 360 title available for download direct-to-drive.
- You have to pay around $60 a year for Xbox Live.
-  The controller still runs on regular AA batteries, which get eaten up quickly.
- The build quality (even on newer models) is not all that great, it's made of cheap plastic.
- The console (still) has a fairly high rate of failure.
-  The console uses a disc tray inside of a disc-feeding mechanism, which can scratch your discs easily.
-  There aren't enough exclusives, as many games are on PC or also on PS3.

Console Overview: So, as you can see, the 360 has its fair share of positive and negative attributes. I made no mention of games, because games on both systems are completely preferential, however- that does not mean the 360 has no good qualities. It has highly integrated chat functions, it allows you to play music over any game (whereas PS3 only supports a few), and its very easy to get in and go with the ultimate online experience. That being said, it's also a console which doesn't have the best build quality, still uses an archaic disc tray system, and requires the user to pay for its online service. Overall, if online gaming is your thing, this is the best it gets, especially if you're willing to pay. However, with that being said, there are a lot of negative qualities that come along for the ride.

Playstation 3: Pros and Cons

+ Has a fully functional Blu Ray player built in.
+ Can be used as a media hub to store pictures, movies, music, etc. extremely easily.
+ Has a totally free online service.
+ Has many more truly exclusive games available than Xbox 360.
+ Has the most overall features, like a web browser, and the ability to customize the theme and layout.
+  Has PSP integration, and, while it doesn't do all that much, is a nice feature regardless.
+ Has a solid build and design, and rarely if ever fails. It's made of high quality materials.
+ The controller is rechargeable, and requires no batteries or juice packs.
- Music cannot be played over many games.
- Not  all games support voice chat, and there is no party chat function like on Xbox 360.
- The network tends to be slower, and- especially when accessing the user interface in-game- can be laggy.
- Playstation Network doesn't have all that many games available, and not many full games to download either.
- Is constantly losing features, like USB ports, backwards compatibility with PS 1 and 2, and Linux.

Console Overview: When it comes to online play, the PS3 just isn't as evolved the Xbox 360, as it has no integrated voice chat, the network is slower, there are less people, the PSN arcade offers fewer games, and music can't be played over many titles. That being said, the PS3 sports a more "quality over quantity" take on things, by presenting its users with a truly solid hardware design that will last users for year to come, as well as free online services, the most media options, and best of all- the most exclusive game titles.

So, there you have it, both consoles analyzed and picked through. Now, while I'm sure I've missed a few positive and negative attributes for both systems, I'd say that, overall, this comparison gives you a pretty good idea of what the strengths and weaknesses of both consoles are. On one hand, we have the Xbox 360 with its vast array of online options and features, but its comparatively lacking support of exclusive games and content. On the other hand, we have the Playstation 3, which boasts a whole bunch of media options and exclusive titles, but really flounders in the online space. So, the question is, which console is better?

Contrary to what the beginning of this thread stated, the truth is: there isn't a better console. When it all comes down to it, the Playstation 3 and Xbox 360 are both game systems that have a lot of things going for them, but also a lot of problems. In reality, it's not really about which system is better, but which system isn't as bad, and has the most features that appeal to you, and so on. If you happen to be an online junkie who doesn't mind paying a little extra, go for the Xbox 360, as it will surely meet your needs. Conversely, if you're looking for a console which will provide the longest lasting enjoyment over multiple forms of media, whether it be games, blur ray, or any number of things, the Playstation 3 is probably the best.

In my own opinion? I like them both equally, in keeping with the result of my comparisons. However, if I absolutely had to choose a console, I'd probably go with the Playstation 3, because while I honestly have more fun playing the Xbox 360, and like many of its titles better than those of the Playstation 3, the PS3 is just a more reliable, well-rounded machine that will provide the most years of service to me, and that counts for something.

Avatars, avatars, avatars...

Don't you just hate it when you can't seem to find a good avatar? I know I do. An avatar, whether it be for use on a forum, a Facebook, or to outfit any number of different social networking sites, is kind of like a representation of yourself. Your avatar is a very noticable, memorable thing, and more often than not, when someone sees your avatar attached to a post, they will not even bother to read the poster's name, because they identify that avatar with you. So, make you have a good avatar.

It took me awhile to come up with a good avatar frankly, but I think that I finally succeeded. Here's what mine looks like...

A black dragon with a two-tone tint, and a buttonized border to give it a little depth. It's simple, but it's nice, elegant, and attractive- at least for an avatar. The dragon itself I did not draw, I found it on google images. However, I thought it worthy enough to use in a little art project of my own, so I added the gradient Goraud Shading and then buttonized it. Looks pretty cool I think.

Perfect Dark: Then, now, and now again.

When I was very young, I played a lot of Goldeneye 007 on the good ol' N64 with my friends. As I got older, and I bought new consoles and such, I had almost completely forgotten about Goldeneye, and replaced it with games like Timesplitters, Halo, and Metroid Prime. Strangely enough, however, in the year 2000, a game which was deemed the "spiritual sequel" of GE007, namely "Perfect Dark", was released for the already-aging Nintendo 64.

This game, Perfect Dark, was released completely unbenounced to me for years, until one day a friend brought it over. I remember it quite fondly- we had just finished a game of Timesplitters: Future Perfect on the Nintendo Gamecube, and he suggested that we play this "Perfect Dark" game that he apparently loved. He took out his own N64, set it up, and we began to play.

Frankly, being the lazy 13 year old boy I was, I made no attempt to understand the game or anything about it. The controls were so foreign to me, as I hadn't played an N64 in years, that I simply did not know what to do, and playing the game felt awkward. Regardless of the game's apparent charms, I refused to play it, and after getting sick of dying over and over because of my lack of skill, I suggested we go back to Timesplitters, and we did.

As it so happened, years and years later, I obtained my own copy of Perfect Dark. After reading much about it, I was to understand that it was actually quite good- I just hadn't given it a chance yet. So, I decided to do just that- give a chance.

When I actually sat down, took the time to master the controls, and really delve into the game, I found what soon became a video game obsession with me, and probably one of my favorite games of all time. Perfect Dark was everything that a gamer, especially a console gamer, could hope for. Endless piles of weapons, characters, and maps to choose from, a fantastic multiplayer setup mode, a riveting story mode, amazing music, and frankly- given the limitations of the god aweful N64 controller, the controls weren't all that bad.

Something about Perfect Dark really clicked with me. Who knows- maybe it was the funky, techno-inspired, futuristic, alien music. Maybe it was the bevy of colorful yet dark and brooding environments. Maybe it was the impressive array of features and options. Maybe it was all of the above. Who knows- I'm not sure I do. What I do know however, is that regardless of the reason, I was, and still am, in love with Perfect Dark.

It is for this reason that a few things trouble me. First and foremost, do the "sequels", namely Perfect Dark Zero, and the Perfect Dark remake for XBLA, stack up against the original PD? And moreover, is the series still alive?

Let's start off by talking about the true sequel, or prequel depending on how you see it, "Perfect Dark Zero". Now, I'm not going to lie. When I first saw this game advertised, I thought it looked like complete bologna.
To further compound on this feeling of disdain that I had with the game just from looking at it, once I actually (tried) to play it, I was not pleased with it. First and foremost, it did not seem at all like Perfect Dark. Secondly, I thought the art style and design was far too cartoonish, and moreover- I just did not like the style of the gameplay itself.

However, all that being said, I've come to learn that I didn't really give PDZ a fair shot. Instead of trying to immerse myself in the multiplayer experience and whatnot, I really just mucked around with preset games and didn't even bother to complete the first level of the story mode, as I found it too tedious.

Upon playing the game again, and actually trying to relish the experience a bit, I have found the result to be more much satisfactory. PDZ is not a game without faults, but it is certainly not a bad game, and is, for the most part, a good sequel to the original game.

There are a few nice touches, too. For one thing, the graphics are about as pretty and colorful as you could ask for. It's also nice to see some of the weapons return in full-form, such as the Laptop Gun (one of my personal favorite weapons from the original game). Moreover, I think that the story mode is well-constructed, and presents a lot of interesting locales. It's all very well-done and presentable, for the most part.

So, all in all, PDZ is a good game. Is it better than the original Perfect Dark? I don't believe so. Though, to some extent, it's not just about being "better", but being different. PDZ is a more reserved, tactil game than its predecessor, and in the context of the game world, that can be a good thing. However, in other ways, it can be very alienating as well. Thankfully, the good aspects outweigh the bad.

This brings us to the latest entry in the Perfect Dark series, that being the official Xbox Live Arcade remake by Rare. This version is essentially identical to that of the original, except with higher resolution graphics, a new online multiplayer option, newly recorded voice acting, and better controls- all of which are welcome additions in my opinion.

What I dislike about these kind of games is, however, that they aren't necessarily faithful to the original game, even though they are remakes. Call me crazy, but I like playing games how they were intended- on the console they were made for. Were the game a complete overhaul with new weapons, completely new graphics, etc, that would be one thing. I would like it to be packaged and sealed as its own separate game, and sold in-store, just as the original game was. Alas, however, not that much work has gone into it. It's an XBLA game which seems to build only slightly upon the strengths of its namesake, without really adding anything at all.

This is what bothers me about it. The fact that it is trying to refine the original form of this game so that it will be as close to the original as possible, but better. However, in doing so, you lose many of the charms of the original. Something about the blocky, burry N64 texts, compressed MIDI music, and lonely atmosphere of the original game holds a nostalgia which cannot be recreated. If they wanted to update the game, they should have truly updated it, by making the graphics next-gen, adding new weapons and modes, and changing things up enough so that it was a new game, or at the very least, a re-imagined version of the original. Calling this a remake is simply offensive.

This is not to say that the game is bad, however. From what I can tell (as I have not truly played it myself yet) the game is nearly identical in terms of gameplay to the N64 version, and such updates as better controls, online play, and achievements are all welcome additions- so, to some extent, it might be understandable to think of this as a new game, but one that simply emulates an older title. Regardless, it's a good game- perhaps just not as nostalgic as the real thing.

Introductions...

I don't think it would be appropriate to write a blog for people to read without having some indication as to what the blog is about, or let alone, who the writer is. Thankfully, I'm (generally) an appropriate person, and because of this, I'm going to write a little bit about myself, this blog, and why I made it...

I believe that everyone has a way of expressing the inner workings of their mind. Whether it's pondering one's day over a freshly lit cigarette and a cup of coffee, or sitting down and talking about your feelings with a significant other- the way in which you release all of the mental tension going on inside your head is unimportant, so long as you are able to do it freely and easily. I, for one, like to write. I am a person who can best express themselves not through word of mouth, but by what I write. I think that this is because I'm generally a very thoughtful and linguistic person, but the confines of oral language hold me back from really having time to consider my true thoughts. Writing is a way for me to get everything that is on my mind out in the open, examine it, and come to the best conclusion possible.

It is for this reason that I have decided to start this blog. Finding an outlet where I can simply piece together my thoughts and ideas is not generally easy- but using a tool such as this, my quest for written reflection and thought becomes much easier.

This all leads to one question, however: what exactly will I be writing about? Surely, describing my blog as simply a place to relieve my mental stresses and ponder is far too broad. After all, blogging, let alone writing in general, concerns this entirely. However, allow me to define the parameters of my writing a tad more. This blog is essentially the place where I will be posting my thoughts on past, present, and future occurences, items of intrigue, and political happenings. One day, I may post a review of a movie, another I may speak of a car I fancy, or perhaps I'll even delve into why I dislike certain aspects of the American government. As you can see, continuity of ideas and premises is not my strong suit, as I like to spend my time considering a whole broad spectrum of subjects. However, what I do decide to share with you all, my readers, will be thought-provoking, interesting, and unique. That is my promise.

Enjoy the blog.