So...

Back to Kansas City. Currently in the middle of an intermittent thunder storm. Beautiful cloud formations and lightning. What should I talk about, on this dark and stormy night? [cracks knuckles]

Should I talk about horror author Stephen King asking J. K. Rowling to avoid killing Harry Potter? Nah, that story speaks for itself.

Should I talk about my fondness for video games colliding headlong with my fondness for eschatology? Here's what I'm referring to: Left Behind Games. It's a game set after the "Christian Rapture," during a period of chaos. Apparently, you can use weapons to kill lots of people, if you want to. I'm anxious to see what the regulating bodies make of this game that combines the wanton destruction of that horrendous bastion of immorality (i.e. videogames), and mixes it with a philosophy that everyone who's not like you (i.e. non-Christian) ends up remaining on Earth with the forces of the Anti-Christ! Thought-provoking discussions, I'm sure.

Should I talk about a law in Las Vegas that makes it a crime to give food to homeless people if they're in parks? What happens in Vegas, stays in Vegas.... but I guess this bit of news escaped. Oh, and if you're wondering, the law describes the quality of being homeless as an indigent "“whom a reasonable ordinary person would believe to be entitled to apply for or receive assistance."” Which makes me, as a poor college student living on government academic assistance, homeless! (Nevermind the fact that I actually HAVE a home.) I'll be happy to sign autographs for Twinkies.

Don't you love a law that depends on the opinions of a reasonable, ordinary person? I wonder what the legal definition for that is. Do you have to apply? Is it like being a notary public? Because I'd really like to get an embossing seal that verifies anything I stamp as being evaluated by a "reasonable, ordinary person." Or maybe it's a metaphysical test! If you ask to be considered a normal person, that's obviously NOT normal, so they won't ask your opinion.

Sneaky...

And if you're convicted of giving food to someone, do they have to prove that you aren't a reasonable and ordinary person, in order to prove that you broke the law? Or do they just have to parade more witnesses that agree with them, to obtain some sort of ordinary opinion "arithmetic mean?"

P.S. The spell check suggested "scatology" instead of "eschatology." That made me laugh out loud. Also, "Twinges" instead of "Twinkies."

P.P.S. While trying to find a picture of a Twinkie, I discovered this:

"According to market research, people from high Twinkie consumption areas in the US are more likely to enjoy bacon, chewing tobacco, professional wrestling, aerosol cheese, and country music."