?

Log in

More TL;DR then you. [entries|archive|friends|userinfo]
sonious

[ userinfo | livejournal userinfo ]
[ archive | journal archive ]

Just gonna put this here... [Sep. 15th, 2012|07:49 pm]
sonious
Rarely do I have to put my big feet down on anything, so I wanted to post this here so people do realize it can happen if things go far enough. The following was taken from a comment from Flayrah in this article where the comment section blew up when someone disliked the video posted in the article.
------------------------------
TL;DRCollapse )
LinkLeave a comment

2012: The year of the Empty Chairs [Sep. 1st, 2012|01:28 am]
sonious
"Clint Eastwooding" has taken off as a meme on the internet. It's based on the premise of presenting a person as an empty chair and having a conversation with it. However, this isn't the first time there has been a conversation of such a manner this year. In fact, representing one as an empty chair has occured at least three times this year in the news/political spectrum.

The not so way back machineCollapse )

So to my empty chair which seats Mr. Romney, I shall not ramble. I only have one simple question: If you cannot truly unify your party through your actions not just your words, then how can you ever dream of unifying a nation?
LinkLeave a comment

Paul Ryan, the fan that no one wanted [Aug. 31st, 2012|04:07 am]
sonious
It seems the one thing that seems pretty consistent when it comes to Paul Ryan (you know that guy running as vice president on the Republican side) is that the people he idols do not share the love back.

First was Rage against the Machine , one of Paul's favorite rock bands.

Now it's Ayn Rand, as one of his favorite philosophers. I could say, beyond a reasonable doubt, if she were truly alive today would not mix words with her denunciation of the candidate despite his like of her. I mean, here is what she had to say about Ronald Reagan not too far before her death. You think she would not completely be against a vice presidential candidate that calls rape a "method of conception" that the government must protect any offspring created from it? Nonsense.
LinkLeave a comment

Marriage VS Government Dependency? [Aug. 28th, 2012|11:41 pm]
sonious
So at the Republican convention Rick Santorum said: "The fact is that marriage is disappearing in places where government dependency is highest. Most single mothers do heroic work and an amazing job raising their children, but if America is going to succeed, we must stop the assault on marriage and the family," he said. "Under President Obama, the dream of freedom and opportunity has become a nightmare of dependency with almost half of America receiving some government benefit."

Now I know what he means by that. He means: "them blue states are liberal and letting gays get married which isn't really marriage and because gays are allowed to marry is why the economy is failing."

Yeah, what he ACTUALLY believes is dumb, but lets take what he said at it's face value. He might actually be right... but of course pointing the finger the wrong way.

Don't you love it when a politician says there's a problem but fails to see this problem in their own constituency?Collapse )
LinkLeave a comment

Individual caused massacres: No Quick Fix to the Problem [Jul. 21st, 2012|06:49 pm]
sonious
The cause of the Colorodo has caused many to be up in arms about arms. However, when reading through the history of the individual behind the attacks and from the possible motive what is actually more likely is that the debate should not be about guns. It should be about the expense of secondary education.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/22/us/pain-and-puzzles-in-wake-of-deadly-colorado-attack.html?pagewanted=all

If my read of this is correct, it sounds like the suspect went to college, and was currently working his way up to a Ph'D. For those in the know that means that you've already been in college for 4 years and now you're on your way to a really expensive endevor of becoming specialized. Luckily I was wise enough to get out before putting myself further in a financial hole. However, unfortunately for this kid he did not. From the article:

"Mr. Holmes’s background was science. Before dropping out he took a class that explored the biological origins of psychiatric and neurological disorders, and was scheduled to give a presentation on “MicroRNA Biomarkers,” according to a class schedule published online. The topic appears to demonstrate an interest in the genetic basis of mental illness.

The field of micro-RNA research is relatively new, and scientists still know little about how the short snippets of genetic material that can turn off or potentially turn up the action of a gene might play a role in illnesses like bipolar disorder or schizophrenia, said Dr. Thomas Lehner, director of the Office of Genomics Research Coordination at the National Institute of Mental Health in Bethesda, Md.

But in recent years, he said, researchers have been searching for differences in micro RNA that might predispose certain people to severe mental illness."

So what it seems right now, with this kid being a loner and faced with a career that no longer existed and a multi-thousand dollar piece of paper struck back blindly at the world he felt had rejected him and his dream. Therefore, what we need to make sure happens is that when we have people who drop out or are kicked out of academia to make sure they receive financial and psychological consoling at the very least. At the most we should be addressing the expense of secondary education and making it so that there are alternatives for people who are victim of shifting job environments.

Obviously this kid didn't go about this the right way, nothing excuses what he did in any sense. However, what I always feel is that to prevent these things isn't to look at the gun, but to look at the person behind the gun and find out what situation made them pull the trigger.

Democrats say "get the guns out of the hands of psychopaths". Well of course, everyone can agree to that. There is one problem with that phrase is that it does not pertain to this case and would not have prevented it. Unless a speeding ticket makes you a psychopath.

The problem is that when an introvertive person who feels their purpose is set in stone and will focus entirely on it. When you put all that money all that planning into a career of it the person will appear normal because they have a plan. Losing that plan can lead to the radical change of behavior. Should the person not have anyone to help them through that transition or to be there during the hard times, it could cause the person to do very unseemly things they wouldn't have had if they had support.

As a person who has lived most of their life alone, I am aware of what handling big things by yourself can do to a psyche. My high school friend tried to handle being gay by himself, and he ended up killing his mother. When I lost my job in NJ I had a furry roommate to have a shoulder to cry on. He was a person who dealt with a lot of hard times in his life, so he knew that what had happened to me wasn't the end of my world though it is still one of the worst experiences I have had and I'm thankful for that. If he hadn't been there, I don't know how I would have handled the situation or what I might have been capable of doing in that state. Though I can never see myself harming others, I could have been capable of harming myself or maybe doing something that would have made the situation worse for myself.

Independence is all and good, when one is of clear mind and body. But one has to remember, sooner or later one or the other is going to give and it is at those moments that the need to rely on others is essential and the need for others to be there for others in those moment is also highlighted.

So when someone is down, being there for them can not only be beneficial to the person you are helping directly, it can impact those that might be impacted should the person who didn't receive the help necessary goes down a more dark path fueled by the lapse of judgement such a major life shift can bring.

This isn't a problem the government can solve, in fact trying to get people to rely more on a faceless entity can make the help seem impersonal. And even then they might not get the help they need if we rely too much on one entity. Because so many need help in this world, if one group or individual tries to do everything they are eventually going to deny some they don't see as a problem. Might think the person is committing fraud, when they are genuine.

Therefore, as hard as it may be to admit, it is not the fault of our system of laws, law enforcement, or guns. It is a failure of community. To be a bit nosy of their neighbors, even when they sometimes don't want you to be. To care for those around you, to ask questions and to make sure others are alright.

I think that's something everyone can do, and can help prevent such incidents in the future. Better yet, people can do this without the intervention of politicians and government who are more then happy to try and use situations like this to flex their muscles.
Link8 comments|Leave a comment

Healthcare Debate [Jul. 8th, 2012|12:27 pm]
sonious
So while I have made an article on Flayrah dealing with the opinion of readers that politics outside the fandom shouldn't really be discussed in the site as it currently is it has brought up to me the a topic where I do have a bit of back and forth on myself. Since before this year I hadn't had to deal with any medical issues at all I find that as I am introducted to the medical world this year I did learn a bit about it, and thus some of the problems in it were highlighted to me.

The problem with Healthcare and Healthcare insurance is one of a system that is rigged towards an assumption that everyone has insurance and those that don't are punished. Wheather this insurance be private or governmentally run is of no consequence.

But really the route of the healthcare issue and the expense of healthcare comes from a variety of sources. Basically every part of our society plays a role in the expense of this. The fact that secondary education is so expensive and to be a doctor requires you to go into it for the longest period means that patients are going to have to pay for the doctor's schooling is one issue that causes it.

However, one of the primary reasons I feel is because there is this middle of the road issue. The solution might be that everyone has insurance, it could also work if health insurance in any way shape or form were illegal. The reason anything in the middle is dangerous is that those that don't have will be forced to take out loans to pay for artificially inflated prices caused by the existence of insurance. In fact to make it worse it seems that when a medical bill is payed with insurance there is a 'discount' to the insurance company which punishes the individual who took it upon themselves to save for their own medical expenses.

This is backwards from any other system I have seen. Gas stations are starting to offer discounts for people who pay with cash rather then credit. So the second hand system of payment there is a 'fee'. Where as the second hand payment is encouraged in the health industry.

Of course, because the health industry wants to encourage everyone to get on insurance, because if insurance didn't exist people would actually look at their bills. So they can charge 800 dollars for a sigmoidoscopy (which I got, and yes they do), or another couple hundred dollars to put the palyp they took out through a lab test. I would think the lab process would be alot more expensive then rolling me on a bed and shoving a camera up my ass, but as I said, doctors have their medical schooling to pay off.

The problem with having those off insurance and on with a world where the "normal" is considered having it is that those without are treated like they have two heads. So they end up having to pay more not only in the punishment of a quite factual artificially inflated cost, if they have to take out a loan they would have to pay interest on that.

In a world with zero insurance, the health industry would have a major decision to make. Cut prices so that they could have customers, or starve themselves as the people who can't afford them die off. Give me liberty or give me death indeed.

Of course the reason this second place would not be seen as good is because people would have to suffer, but they already do, this would just make the healthcare industry suffer from their hubris as well. One would also argue you'd see a growing in free clinics as the demand would increase. People tend to have this encouragement to do the right thing for less when people are suffering if they don't do otherwise.

Now before you start blaming Democrats for jury-rigging the laws so that insurance would be all but an inevitability there is one big law that has caused this to come about. Ronald Reagan made it a law that doctors had to treat patients seeking treatment no matter the circumstances. This from what I would say is the start of the issue. Most of our economy works in this way: you go to a store to buy something, you pay for it then you get the service. Now in the medical industry this is reversed. You get the treatment and then you pay. So then of course doctors are going to charge a mint since they don't have to advertise their prices like others do, they have a captive customer. You can fix their broken leg and then make up a price. So doctors said, "we're charging more" and as the doctors made more the colleges said, "hey we can make more too since the doctors we graduate will make more", and here we are where both healthcare and education are inflated to no end, and all because of the Republican's so-called hero Ronald Reagan.

People lost faith in people's generosity, in their willingness to help a stranger in need. We've gathered a mentality that charity is something that isn't acceptable for an American to receive in their time of need that's something we do for other countries. It's beneath America to allow any of its citizens to have to rely on private charity. So we replaced the individual generosity of Americans with a government mandated generosity. This is not a good thing to rely on, as politicians, like individuals will only donate to causes that they want their money going to and so others who may really need it may suffer. Individuals on the ground level can see who needs money more then a man behind a desk hundreds of miles away so when we take away money form the individual it makes them less able to be charitable themselves and less able to make decisions on where their money should go that is well more informed then their political overlords.

Now that we have a law where everyone is supposedly insured (seeings as in states where car insurance is mandated there are people that drive around without it, I'm doubtful) we'll see if this will fix the problem. We'll see if the insurance companies see that they are getting more money from their new captive audience and lower their costs for everyone.

Not going to happen.

They'll make the excuse that now they have to take people with pre-existing conditions so they might even increase the cost. If the books were revealed to the people I'm sure you'd find these pencil pushers behind a desk, whose only task is to send a check from one person to the other, are doing just fine. How much can it really cost to write a check? How much of a service really is that? It's not. All they do is take money from one's paycheck and getting a cut from the hospitals, making money on both sides of the aisle and draining from people on both sides of the transaction. They'll continue to do so, but now they'll be able to do so more efficiently.

I hope I'm wrong on this, I really do hope to see a cut in my insurance premium and everyone's but until we do remember these words and start asking yourself. Is it really a good idea to replace a society where we call for the generosity of others to a society where we rely upon the greed of others?
Link8 comments|Leave a comment

North Carolina: The Queer State [May. 9th, 2012|05:54 pm]
sonious
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?
LinkLeave a comment

Writer's Block: Little People, Big Fairytale [Mar. 17th, 2012|02:55 am]
sonious
[Tags|]

Which is your favorite of the seven dwarfs?


Fluttershy! Wait... I mean bashful...
Twightlight Sprakle! Wait... I mean Doc.
Durpy! Wait I mean Dopey...
LinkLeave a comment

Writer's Block: National Pi Day [Mar. 14th, 2012|06:01 am]
sonious
[Tags|]

How many digits of pi have you memorized?


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.
LinkLeave a comment

A method for saving money on gas [Mar. 6th, 2012|05:05 pm]
sonious
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.
Link4 comments|Leave a comment

navigation
[ viewing | 10 entries back ]
[ go | earlier/later ]