?

Log in

from doctoreon

Okay, this is kind of scary accurate. I do think I am higher than fifth level though :\

What Kind of Dungeons and Dragons Character Would You Be?Collapse )

Tags:

Damn you, Blizzard.

Since quitting WoW, I have to say I haven't really missed it. I was playing for the social interaction, and a lot of the game content had just lost it's magic with me. I've always been in love with the original content of the original game, and always felt that the expansions should have focused more on enriching that content instead leading players out of it.

Today, I saw this.




Goblin and Worgen PC's. Flying mounts in Azeroth. A revitalized(?) Azeroth.

WANT

They could quite seriously drag me back in. This trailer seriously got my blood pumping. My gawd. I have been wanting to play a goblin for a long long time. And I love the look of the worgen. I just... ugh. It looks so fucking amazing.

Edit: OMGLOL!Collapse )

My health care reform test.

Technically, I have health insurance. It's provided by my employer. It's also basically useless. Because of the way it's structured, they basically won't pay a dime until I have incurred $3,000 in medical expenses. And they don't cover prescriptions at all. It's meant to cover catastrophic injuries, ie. if something really really bad happens, in theory they will pay for most of it. Or a lot of it.

Of course, that $3k would break me. If I wasn't in a position where $3k would break me, I'd be able to afford the monthly premiums to get better insurance. And I can guarantee you that any illness or injury that cost more than $3k is going to come with some pretty important RX, which I also could not afford.

So I am sitting back and looking at this health care "debate" and I have one question for all the politicians and their plans. This is my simple test for any health care reforms. When all is said and done, will I be able to walk into the doctor's office when I am sick and walk out with a prescription for antibiotics? Will the entire thing (including the meds) cost me $25 or less? Because at my current income, that's about the cost threshold for whether I can go or not.

Isn't it worth it for every American citizen to chip in a bit to make sure the strangers they rub shoulders with everyday don't become a disease vector? Isn't it worth paying a bit to make sure people get physical ailments treated before they become a chronic disability and they become a drag on our system anyways?

Is this even possible in a system of private insurers? I'm not saying it isn't, but if it is, would somebody tell me how?

I think a major part of the problem here is that there is a huge (mostly white conservative) part of the population who sees income as a marker of social worth. That people who make more money deserve more wealth, status, and comfort. Just look at the language we use--people earn money as if whatever effort they put forth justifies a moral entitlement to large sums of cash. People make money, as if they are some sort of master artisan crafting perfect paychecks through their inherent awesomeness.

Well guess what? I spend my workdays giving unconditional support to developmentally disabled teenagers, some of whom have been lifted out of terrible and traumatic situations. It's a job that few people are both willing and qualified to do. By their moral standards, I should be making bank, but I'm not. Because in the end, income is about power and class, which is also often about race. It's about the power to not care about other people. It's about the power to look at a poor person who has been coughing their lungs out for two weeks and ignore the fact that in other developed countries, they wouldn't have to.

That's my ultimate test then, and I would like to hear it asked repeatedly of the people making the policies. Will anyone off the street be able to walk in and be seen for a cold? Will the system work to keep our population healthy by treating every individual within the population?

Apples and Astronauts

On a completely random note, I have become increasingly annoyed with the saying "That's comparing apples to oranges" as a way to discredit someone's point as being irrelevant to the current discussion. Why? Because comparing apples to oranges is a perfectly legitimate thing to do. There are many ways in which apples and oranges are very comparable. In fact, in the vast universe of things, ideas, and stuff, apples and oranges are much more alike than any other random pair of nouns.

This, in fact, does not in itself invalidate the saying. Properly used, it might even add a bit of depth to the argument, meaning something along the lines of "Yes, I see the point you are making here, and your comparison is valid in a lot of ways. However, I believe there is a subtle but meaningful difference between the two such that your point is being misapplied."

But that's not how people use it. The most common usage I hear is meant to say that the thing brought in as a comparison bears no resemblance to the topic under discussion. It's a good thing to point out, especially when talking to conservatives. But for fuck's sake, don't use the apples to oranges simile. Use something that's actually not alike. Like apples and astronauts. Because I said so.

But sometimes people do use it closer its proper meaning. But that makes it worse, because they aren't saying "Yes, that's a very reasonable thing to bring up, however..." What they really mean is "I want to frame this discussion in a very particular way which supports my point of view, and if I have to accept valid references to an external reality then my argument will fall apart, so fuck you." In this case, yes, I will insist on comparing apples to oranges, thank you. For instance, a bag of apples is much more effective for whomping idiots over the head with than a bag of oranges.

More arts to share

It would appear that I haven't posted any artwork here since March. And this is odd, because I would swear that I have done more artwork than this in the past 4 1/2 months, but maybe not. I guess I kinda went through a dry-spell for a while, and then there's in-progress stuff that's not exactly ready to post yet.

Anyway, a lot of my time lately (too much, truth-be-told as I have been sacrificing sleep and other important things for it) has been taken up with 3d modeling and animation. It started when one of the kids I work with (it seems like that's how everything starts lately :\ ) started playing Unreal Tournament, a first-person shooter game. I am not a big fan of such games at all. But what hooked me is that it came with a sophisticated level editor. So yeah, if you want to hook me on something, give me a creative outlet through it. So I started creating for it. Turns out there's a heck of a learning curve.

So in the process of creating characters and vehicles and whatnot, I had to learn 3d Studio. And that got me sucked into creating computer animation (which has been an ongoing interest of mine anyways). And unfortunately, this has all been an enormous amount of time and effort, because there really is nothing simple about any of this. Except when it is. But then you have to know exactly what simple thing to do in order to accomplish what you want to do simply. Ugh.

Anyways, here are some of the results of my labors...

Oh hey, I bet I could stick a cut in here, huh?Collapse )

Tags:

I've held back my opinion on this subject for a long time, mainly because everything of value was being said by other people and I had nothing original or substantive to add. But recently, I've been hearing more and more of a backlash from the queer community, from my community, and it got me to thinking, questioning my own position, and trying to express not just where I stand on the issue, but why as well.

This part is amusing. You should read it.Collapse )

In short, the banning of same-sex marriage is so fundamentally stupid and flawed that I don't think we can in good conscience leave it unchallenged. Like all gay rights issues, it is at its core a gender issue. Person X cannot marry person Y because of person Y's gender. It is gender discrimination. It is not just opening up marriage for the GL part of GLBTQ, it is removing one of the legal cornerstones which enforces the gender binary in this country. And I do think that removing this, getting past it, is going to shift public perception and make everything else easier for the queer community as a whole.

*obviously, in this example, "gay people" is problematic. Same-sex marriage bans, by definition, exclude people who want to marry someone of the same sex. I have no idea how the law would define a "gay driver." It's a parable. Go with it.
Am so upset I want to scream.

Went to Costco today, even though I really didn't have time as I work today, dragging both kids with me. It was really crowded. I managed to get all the really important things we are out of and up to the register. Everything got scanned, I pulled out my debit card... and realized I was fucked.

We recently got issued new cards. I've been using the new card for a week now, but we still don't have the new PIN's yet, so I have been running it as a credit card everywhere. Except at Costco, you can't do that. At all. And I couldn't pull it out of the cash machine because... I'd need the PIN. And of course I had left my checkbook at home.

So I had to leave a cart full of stuff we really need sitting there and came home empty handed. Urgh.

Jun. 25th, 2009

If there is one person (or more) on your friends list who makes your world a better place just because they exist, and who you would not have met without the Internet, post this sentence in your journal.

Seriously, this is most of my flist <3

May. 8th, 2009

It's very odd. Been friended lately by russian accounts that aren't obvious bot accounts. But still, an account with a creation date of '07 whose only journal entries are in the last week...? I dunno, strange.

Seriously, if you are enagopa, jmiltlju, miprhs, or welmaph, this would be an excellent time to provide a word of explanation.