| North Carolina: The Queer State |
|
|
| 05:54pm 09/05/2012 |
| |
Every state has a nickname, New York is the Empire State, Idaho is the potato state (liar it's the Gem State). Anyways what I'm saying is every state is known for something, right? Every state has a memorable attribute in which people name them. Quick, what is North Carolina (without looking it up)?
Exactly.
Tar heels? That's so out, and in fact Louisiana finds it down right offensive because if any state deserves that title in recent days they well more then did. Clearly you need to modernize, like Idaho with potatoes after all those gems magically vanished (I blame Spike, he was hungry).
Clearly North Carolina has a problem with gays, not that they have a problem with them mind you, but it's such a social problem and so many of them are living in the state now, the state literally cannot function without a law banning homosexual marriage. If they didn't no one would get straight married. Even those dudes that are straight and married knew that if that law failed to pass they would have divorced their wives and gone and found some male ass to hitch to. I'm talking metaphorically of course... until the metaphor is consummated, then it's literal. Clearly we have a problem in NC of their being so many gays per capita that they were literally bogging down the state resources and this law had to be made in order to keep stability.
Now a lot of North Carolina residents will probably tell me I'm wrong, that California is obviously the queer state because they have so many out and about. Though here's the thing, there was not enough gays in California where it was seen as a priority of the state to ban gays from marriage, obviously this means that they weren't concerned that their straights weren't anything but. You see, in California, unlike North Carolina actual straight people actually exist. It's shocking I know.
Therefore, since there are so many homosexuals in NC it can only be called the queer state. Because as one supporter of the law said "A great moral crisis was averted today", and that's true, had this law not been passed it's clear that all those so called "NC straights" would have had nothing to hold them back from living out their real desires.
In honor of the newly named state, I'll end with a bit of NC trivia: Did you know North Carolina's greatest import are closets? |
|
| |
|
Post |
| |
| Writer's Block: National Pi Day |
|
|
| 06:01am 14/03/2012 |
| |
Oh that's easy in fact I can put the entirety of pi in on journal post:
CircleArea / (CircleRadius * CircleRadius)
You see, fractions are more precise then decimals, that is exactly pi, and I saved memory and space for more important things. |
|
| |
|
Post |
| |
| A method for saving money on gas |
|
|
| 05:05pm 06/03/2012 |
| |
With gas prices going all crazy, you gotta find some way to save money on gas, and I had come up with a method in college while I was in Calculus and stuff that may help people out, so feel free to share it.
The basic principal is this: "When gas prices go up, you best keep to the pump, when gas prices go down just keep driving around."
The expanded explaination for how this works is as follows.
If gas prices are rising if you wait until your car is empty when you get around to filling your tank you will pay more then if you filled up the part of the tank that is empty at the moment in time.
When gas prices are going down, you do the opposite you wait until your tank nears empty and fill it up.
Of course this won't help on long road trips or anything like that this is more for those that use their car sparingly and there is some amount of time between pump sessions if you wait for empty.
AN EXAMPLE
RISING
Let's say gas is 2 bucks a gallon and you have a 10 gallon tank that is empty. You fill up for 20 dollars.
Your car can go for 2 weeks on a full tank so you don't have to fill it until 2 weeks later.
Now let's say gas is rising a dime a day over those two weeks, when you fill up you'll pay 34 dollars for.
Your total expenditure while doing the fill it up method is 54 dollars.
Now what if you drove everyday? That means everyday you go through 1/14 a tank of gas, translates to approximately .714 gallons of gas a day.
Now what we're going to do is fill up the car every day and so we won't get as much gas per stop, but watch what happens. We make a summation of the following where the gas price starts at 2.00 and ends up at 3.40 (.714 * gasprice).
We'll start by saying we filled up at the 2.00 just to start at the same point so 20 dollars, now lets use the new method and compare.
2.10 * .714 + 2.20 * .714 + 2.30 * .714 + ... + 3.40 * .714 = $27.48.
So you saved a total of $6.52 compared to just filling it up when the price went all the way up.
Of course you don't want to do this when the price is going down or you could end up paying more.
FALLING
To show this lets go the opposite we fill up when it is 3.40 a gallon (34 bucks) and the gas price falls to 2.00 a gallon in 2 weeks. When we fill up once every two weeks we get 54 dollars like before, but what if we do the hounding pump method? We end up paying more as opposed to less.
The summation would be the same going the opposite as forward (commutative property for the win) so if we went to the pump everyday when the price is going down we'd spend 27.18. As opposed to 20 dollars if we waited to do it all in one go resulting in a loss of 7.18.
But if all that was too math heavy just remember the phrase I used to start.
Of course this method requires a handle on the oil markets and when you expect them to go up and down so it's a bit of a gamble. I heard oil is starting to go down a little at this point so I probably wouldn't hound the pump yet.
But a simpler method is just keep an eye on the price when you pass the gas station and know what it was last time you looked, if it's going up or down since you last looked and behave accordingly.
Of course prices don't fluctuate as hard as the example so the savings will very and won't be all that much, but if you're on a real tight budget this may be a handy trick. |
|
| |
|
Read 4 - Post |
| |
| A first in politics |
|
|
| 11:51pm 21/02/2012 |
| |
I've seen many outlandish things with my following of politics. Heard many silly things. But if it was one things that both sides could agree on is that this country is founded upon one important word "Freedom". Freedom is America's holy world, so much so that George W Bush said it religiously during his presidency, so much so people made drinking games based on it. Freedom was the one word that American politicans always used in a manner of good. Never was freedom bad. Sure there were always different thoughts on what goes behind freedom. But no matter what, freedom was what was important.
Rick Santorum once again proves why I think he's one of the worst politicians of our time. He is the first politician ever Democrat or Republican to use the word freedom, and in context insinuate that freedom is bad, that it is evil and something to be stopped.
“Woodstock is the great American orgy. This is who the Democratic Party has become. They have become the party of Woodstock. The prey upon our most basic primal lusts, and that’s sex. And the whole abortion culture, it’s not about life. It’s about sexual freedom. That’s what it’s about. Homosexuality. It’s about sexual freedom.”
Yes... the Democrats are about freedom! You should hate them because they promote... freedom!...
The fuck man, the fuck...
I mean, at least Michelle Bachmann was intelligent enough to paint sex as you know... ENSLAVEMENT. As much backlash she got from that statement it still makes more sense to think of homosexuality as unAmerican because it's about enslavement rather then freedom. To say something is bad for America because it's about freedom is the most, I don't know... bat shit nuts things I've heard any politician do. |
|
| |
|
Post |
| |
| The Hidden Blessing of Rick Santorum |
|
|
| 06:39pm 17/02/2012 |
| |
Rick Santorum looks like he might win the Republican nomination at this point, proving if anything Republicans are less predictable then their Democrat counterparts when it comes to primaries. From what I have noted Republican primaries are based on emotions rather then weighing in rationally on odds of victory.
Were there some emotional times in the Democrat primary of '08 sure there were but in the end the worst thing that I can recall happening was Hillary Clinton claiming she was staying in the race in case Obama got assassinated on the trail.
The Republicans, boy howdy. There are two teams pretty much: Paul and Romney (the somewhat rational republicans) VS Newt and Santorum (the emotional 'gut' republicans). Romney has always had a good lead on Paul, though Paul certainly has made progress by leaps and bounds, this shows that truly his ideals are the future of the Republican party whether they want to admit that to themselves or not. If you are a youth and Republican 50% of them prefer Ron Paul in a 4 way (or more) primary.
Paul and Mitt are friendly terms, Santorum on the other hand is pretty much the Anti-Paul. They only agree on abortion, that's it. Rush Limbaugh is of course on the Santorum train, wanting so bad to beat back the Paul train that he so despises. Sanotrum is probably the last man standing on the President to go forth on an anti-gay platform, and Obama is going to do his damnedest to make sure that the republicans get that message.
While campaigning in '08 Obama was kind of mushy on the whole gay thing, he was purposefully in the center of the field because he didn't know the political temperature of the topic. Basically George Bush's overall inability made winning a sure thing for whoever the Democrat was. He just had to keep his head down.
This year though, if Rick Santorum wins the primary, the Republicans will lose a vast majority of independants. If there is anything independants despise it is a man that encourages group think, and nothing is more group think then believing the government should force people to choose how to live their lives using social programs. It's why they're not too fond of Democrats in certain programs, but it is also why they find themselves against Republicans from time to time. They both do this. Santorum is the personifcation of statism of the Republican party. He has gone onto shows and basically admitted he's FOR big government.
So all the independants are gone, so now what? Well if Obama's opponent is staunchly anti-gay Obama is going to start going all in with being pro-gay, in fact he's going to start to be a little bolder on social issues, but at the same time show he's willing to compromise.
Because every time obama does something like this is another opportunity for Santorum to go on one of his rants comparing people who have concentual sex to those that rape children or something insane, and everytime Santorum talks about gays, most Americans other then those in the mid-west (where is the only place he's won so far) feel a chill down their spine. Particularly independants.
The proof is in the pudding:
1)Santorum has spiked in the Republican side
2)Despite such a leap Santorum has gain almost no ground on Obama. In fact if we look at how many would vote for Obama, 50% only Gingrich has more votes going to Obama with 53%
3) However, Santorum has devastated any ground or chance Mitt Romney had against Obama
It may make us uncomfortable with Santorum being the nominee, it might make many Americans afraid, but it might in fact be the Red Letter day for gay rights. The time we get to face a personifcation of all the demonic gay bashing hatred of this country, and give it an extreme and loud "NO". It will be a demon which we will finally exercise from the political dialect. And after Santorum is flushed with a devastating loss in the general election he's going to WISH his legacy was the Google neologism. Because his true legacy will be the man that makes all politicians look to him as an example of what can happen when you try and attack homosexual Americans. |
|
| |
|
Post |
| |
| Writer's Block: Singles Awareness Day |
|
|
| 09:22pm 14/02/2012 |
| |
I wouldn't hate it so much, I would be fine, single and just dandy if the day itself didn't seem to do everything in its power to try and make me loathe it. Seriously, if I'm not getting my car towed and having to drive through an 11 foot snow storm to get it back (no I'm not exaggerating, that was the actual accumulation it left). |
|
| |
|
Post |
| |
| Google and Privacy |
|
|
| 06:10pm 27/01/2012 |
| |
You know I like many was worried about the whole Google privacy thing and how this new system would make it so that they would be using their information about me to make it hard to keep things about my life private.
Then I learned Google thinks I'm over 65 years old...
Suddenly I'm not worried about my privacy anymore. |
|
| |
|
Post |
| |
| Why SOPA is getting (or had gotten) government support |
|
|
| 01:06pm 14/01/2012 |
| |
I received an email from the White House in response to signing a petition that made required signatures. Their answer revealed in no uncertain terms the reason they want a law like SOPA. They want to block websites outside the US that are violating US law. So piracy? No Wikileaks.
Below the LJ cut is their response uncut:
( White House's definition of acceptable Internet regulation )
"To minimize this risk, new legislation must be narrowly targeted only at sites beyond the reach of current U.S. law, cover activity clearly prohibited under existing U.S. laws, and be effectively tailored, with strong due process and focused on criminal activity."
Notice the lack of the word "piracy" there... looks like the bill reaches further then the title suggests.
By the way, with all due respect White House, it seems ironic that you're asking the people to come up with something better, I thought the government had all the answers? What are we paying YOU for? If we're the ones who are going to come up with all the laws that you implement, I want to see a paycheck. How about this, stop whining that we are telling you to kill this bill and kill this bill and start from scratch. Clearly it's broken, and there is nothing more American then taking something broken and replacing it with something new. |
|
| |
|
Post |
| |
| Did Newt Gingrich Violate Federal Law? |
|
|
| 08:19pm 13/01/2012 |
| |
If you haven't heard about Super PACs, they are large groups that fund for campaigns and can raise unlimited amounts of money to put up advertisements for campaigns. The catch is this, the person running cannot coordinate in any way with the organization running the ads.
Recently Newt at the final debate in New Hampshire brought out an attack on Romney's Bain record, true or false is not my purpose here. It just seems weird that he happened to bring this out just before his SUPER PAC released an ad about the same thing.
But weather or not he was coordinating with them can't be proved, however as Newt's plan appears to be backfiring and he is making people in the GOP turn sour over it (hey that's Ron Paul's job) he has quote:
"Gingrich, in a written statement, called on the so-called "super PAC" supporting his campaign to either edit or pull ads that portrayed Romney as a corporate raider -- he said the ads contained inaccuracies."
So a presidential candidate has made a written statement to a super PAC supporting him on what the content of the advertising should or should not contain? I'm reading this correctly, right?
Hope you enjoy fines Gingrich. |
|
| |
|
Post |
| |
| The Three Republican options, and my three votes |
|
|
| 05:49pm 04/01/2012 |
| |
If Barack Obama VS Mitt Romney
--------------------------------
This is kind of a meh if you do meh if you don't. It's not doubt that in my mind Obama will continue to do the George W Bush thing and erode our civil liberties and cause weakened enamel for a future president to start putting American Muslims into contraction camps, but HE won't use those powers of course, just put them in our laws. I don't think Mitt Romney would detain American indefinitely either, he's too into his own image and at least appearing sane in front of the public. Though would he repeal these civil liberty injustices? No. He'll keep them around so that he doesn't appear 'soft on terror', kicking the future Holocaust to future generations.
Since there would be little noticeable change I would vote for Gary Johnson in the Libertarian party. I'm done voting for cotton mouthed individuals of either party who'd get nothing done, or that when they do they don't have the balls to stand up to congress when they give the executive branch undo power. And if it's a choice between nothing and nothing, then I'll vote for the one who "doesn't stand a chance" because then I can complain how Americans are idiots by voting for nothing.
Obama VS Ron Paul
---------------------------------
It should come as no surprise that I'd vote for Ron Paul. The reason I would and am not on the fence of this in the least is because of the signing statement Obama placed on the Defense act he signed. A lot of Democrat apologists tried to convince themselves how this act wasn't like the Patriot Act, how it DIDN'T include a clause to indefinitely detain civilians without trial.
Well really? If that was the case then WHY THE HELL WOULD HE NEED THE SIGNING STATEMENT?
You know Obama, even through you think the Constitution is a piece of paper just like your predecessor there is still an amendment in there called the 5th. You know that by saying that you won't use the provision that violates the Constitution you just ADMITTED you signed into law a bill that violates the constitution? That you just admitted you violated your Oath of Office? You know how easily impeachable that makes you? Oh wait, that's right, you didn't have sex with a staffer, so the Republicans won't even try it. Hell, having that in there gives THEM more power to arrest Democrats without trial right before an election. Opps.
So yes, if Ron Paul is in the office, civil liberties would certainly be a high priority, and despite whatever bat shit things he'd do to the economy it doesn't matter, because what good is money when you're in prison for being who you are?
Obama VS Rick Santorum
-----------------------
Obama...
"But wait I thought you just said..."
YES, yes I did. Obama violated the Oath of Office, but here's the thing, he at least said he would not use that provision and I believe him, Santorum is NOT bound by that signing statement and for the love of God (literally) he'll abuse the shit out of that thing.
You think I'm being paranoid? Maybe, but I've seen the interview with Jon Stewart, heard his speech in Iowa, and this guy WILL be the one to fully exploit all those structural weaknesses placed by our predecessors:
Basically this man is the closest thing to a Statist that I've ever seen in American politic: He believes the government should be involved in providing the "optimal solution". In his victory (well he was winning when he made it) in Iowa speech he blamed the state of the economy on poor family structure, many would argue it's the other way around, including myself. Why the hell would I want to get married and have a child in this world? At this rate they'd be drafted by the time they were 18, and I certainly wouldn't be able to afford to put them in college so maybe that'd be for the best.
It's a politically correct way of saying "the tanking economy is the gays' fault". So if the poor family structure is the REASON for the bad economy. The direct quote that made me see the Hitler in this seeming harmless individual was this: "We should have a system that builds around what's best, and that is the tradition natural family". So it's the state's job to make sure we all have blonde hair and blue eyes? Or in a less Godwin Law way, it's the state's job to make sure that people are growing up in "optimal" households? Well you know the easiest way to do that? Make sure the gays are put away, indefinitely so they can't harm our kids. And now that we've gone that far, let's start to send people in to the house and make sure they have a Bible, because if they kids don't have access to a Bible my God, they're harming the growth of the child those atheist/agnotsic/muslim bastards!
And then Google and Savage! (Until they take down that definition in the search results they are defaming the United States of America by attacking their God's Chosen Leader President)
So no, if it's between those two, less of the two evils most definitely. Because Obama might be a little bit evil in my mind for attacking the Constitution, but he won't piss all over it like Santorum would.
----
Conclusion
So ironically we have three different candidates leading in the Republican party, and also interestingly it seems like each party has an opportunity to grab my vote depending on who they finally choose. If Romney, Libertarian Party; if Ron Paul, Republican Party; if Rick Santorum, Democrat Party.
It's all up to you GOP, where should my loyalties be laid? |
|
| |
|
Post |
| |
| McDonalds VS Bank of America |
|
|
| 08:17pm 30/12/2011 |
| |
Ironically, I was going to write an article about this thought that had crossed my mind when reading an article about McDonald's response to the passing of the San Francisco law banning toys from happy meals.
-http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/12/05/idUS57113862420111205
I was going to say how it shows that the people running our fast food industries have infinitely better business sense then our banking industry. I was going to compare how the two companies were both faced with an law that would reshape their business and how they reacted to it.
McDonalds, instead of blaming the government with a "Woe is me" attitude that Bank of America reeked of when the law changed, decided to give the government a middle finger. The San Francisco McDonalds manager saw a loop hole around the law that all this time and effort was wasted upon by the government passing. She said "Well if we can't GIVE the toys away, we'll simply charge for them."
Now of course if McDonalds were Bank of America they would have saw dollar signs in their eyes and went. "Toys are a dollar, and we'll keep the change thanks." Instead... McDonalds did the unthinkable, they went to their customers and asked if a dime was reasonable. Then when they put the charge into place they said that the dime would NOT go to McDonald's bottom line, instead it would be donated to Ronald McDonald charities. So after all that effort, the lobbying, the court dates, the voting McDonalds basically laughed and flipped the government the bird without breaking a sweat or complaint.
Instead of taking this kind of a route in the banking sector we all know what Bank of America did. They went to charge their customer for a service that was touted as free. When their customers had the audacity to get angry they put on their crocodile tears and said, "It's the government's fault, they're the enemy."
They knew this bill was coming, they had plenty of time to figure out a reasonable strategy against it, ask their customers question as McDonalds did. But talking and figuring out your customers feelings? That's for burger flippers not accountants.
The reason I said this was ironic that I was going to write this earlier, and the reason I am posting it now. The changes in share prices came in for 2011. Guess who the biggest winner and the biggest loser were?
http://money.cnn.com/2011/12/30/markets/biggest_losers_winners/index.htm?iid=GM
No big surprise by me. Maybe the people flipping our burgers should be the one in charge of the finances of this country. Lord knows all the people in BoA care about is their bottom line, so they'd probably be better at making customers fill out their "bottom line" then making money. McDonalds, however, is apparently better at making money. |
|
| |
|
Read 1 - Post |
| |
| So that's how Ron has been earing Social Conservatives... |
|
|
| 12:03pm 28/12/2011 |
| |
So perhaps I had jumped the gone thinking that bigotry was dying in the GOP, and certainly when it comes to Ron's campaign. Still, is he using the blindness of those who hate as a tool to do good? I don't know. What I do know is that he certainly was mixed with the dark side of conservatism in the early 90s.
But alot of people has said he let that kind of thing go, but apparently not, as a more recent article shows Ron Paul's religion interactive director http://www.ontopmag.com/article.aspx?id=10485&MediaType=1&Category=26
I still am kind of on the fence here, if Mr. Paul is using this gentlemen to take advantage of the ignorance of the ignorant all power to him. However, at the same time, they will still be ignorant after they vote for him and still ignorant members of society, a society under Ron Paul which would have more power.
So at this part it really is a weight game. Does one have faith that the ignorant are in the minority and won't impose on their neighbors in a libertarian society or does one reject it because the ignorant are in the majority so protections for such neighbors are needed.
Perhaps he is the Goku of the field in that he naively sees the good in absolutely everyone and he thinks he can covert them in time. It is a bit disappointing to me to learn that Ron Paul isn't winning on his own merits and using deception to win over social conservatives. But I'm certainly not going to hate him for it. It just goes to show how easily manipulatable they are, it'd be good for them to be manipulated into doing some good for a change.
However it is clear that the death of social conservatism is still a pipe dream on my part. |
|
| |
|
Post |
| |
| Ron Paul VS Trump VS Obama 2012 Part 2 |
|
|
| 01:41am 24/12/2011 |
| |
Last post on the 12th I made a prediction that Ron Paul would gain in Iowa, since then he has. I made a prediction that Donald Trump would run against him as an independent, and guess who just signed into the Independant party?
More interestingly it was an action I was thinking "Why now?" but then this article kind of gave me the laugh out loud moment I hadn't had in a few days with all this SOPA, tax deals and other stressing nonsense.
Ron Paul appeared on Friday’s Your World with Neil Cavuto and was asked about the potential of a third-party Donald Trump run. “To each his own, he may do it. I doubt he’ll do it — if he really wanted to be president, why did he walk away? Why did he become concerned he couldn’t do it as a Republican?” '
Ron Paul getting a little cockier then usual, and Trump appears livid. Even if he doesn't win the primaries he's certainly (which I'm hoping he gets that far to show the GOP that they don't have to attack gays in one's campaign message to get elected, and in fact its been hurting them) making this entertaining to say the least.
But that's two steps down in my prediction, time will tell how close my title is to the actual ticket. Stay tuned. |
|
| |
|
Read 21 - Post |
| |
| Open Letter to John Stewart/Steven Colbert |
|
|
| 07:36pm 22/12/2011 |
| |
Dear John Stewart and Steven Colbert,
I have been a long time fan of your television show and currently watch it on your webpages the day following its airing. You have helped a lot of people through difficult times, you have spoken about power and it's hypocrisies in engaging and educating matters, as well as humorous of course. You have given light to sides of the world which were once unseen and for that you have my greatest of gratitudes.
However, I regret to inform you that this message is not just a fan letter, it is also a letter of dire warning. Your very humor which has made your bosses very wealthy may be being used to attack the nation and its industries that you hold dear. http://www.filmon.com/cbsyousuck/ shows an entrepreneur's struggle against your bosses at CBS and Viacom, it also shows that they (CBS) have had a hand in the pirating industry that they now lash out at the Internet against.
Mr. Colbert I understand is a great fan of the arts, musicians and has brought light unto them as independent as they may be. Mr. Stewart, you have had on your show many celebrities of newly released films. Did you know the money generated from those interviews for your bosses have been going towards the funding of the creation and distribution of pirating software which take they money right out of your guest's pockets? They also had a hand in working and providing "protection" services for content, a market which they generated with the tools they developed to unlawfully distribute these items.
Not only this they have actively enabled this pirating, and exploited children to do it (not too unlike the iPad fish bowl game you did a segment not too long ago). They are now using the very piracy culture they generated to try and sniffle competing information distribution networks such as YouTube, Twitter, Reddit and other content providers. I'm sure you have heard of the SOPA bill, and I'm sure your bosses are passing it during the holiday season because they know you will be on vacation. They know that if you two find out the truth about what is going on in your corporation that you would not stand for it. I know you wouldn't.
We on the internet are trying to get this message out as fast as we can, but we need you. Make history, save an industry, don't be a tool used to destroy free speech in a nation where you prove every day how vital it is. What I ask is of no small service, however you have done this before during the writer's strike, you need to have another strike against your bosses. Have them back off SOPA, a bill which their own actions have caused the "need" for. Make them stop distributing (and getting paid for doing so) what their own lawyers have called pirating software. Stand up for the little man once again. Make a true difference in the world and be brave.
I too will be making a sacrifice, if you don't take this stand I am going to have to, I will no longer be watching your shows and providing funding for piracy. We the Internet users will not stand for a false-flag attack and be blamed for behaviors promoted by your company.
May joy and laughter follow in your endeavors,
(REAL NAME HERE) |
|
| |
|
Post |
| |
| Now I'm scaring myself |
|
|
| 02:04am 21/12/2011 |
| |
You know that post I made on 12/12, well it's happening... didn't think it'd be so soon, but it's happening none the less. |
|
| |
|
Post |
| |
| Writer's Block: B.Y.O.B. Holidays |
|
|
| 04:20pm 13/12/2011 |
| |
That the person who defamed the word "War" with this whole "War on Christmas" thing gets their stockings stuffed. I'm sure they've never been in a real war, if they did they'd know it's not a word to use lightly and on trivial semantics they read too much into. |
|
| |
|
Post |
| |
|
|
|
![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif?v=91.7){kind=small}
sonious's journal