When Your Father Is A Sociopath

I am re-blogging this mainly because I have only touched on sociopaths from a romantic perspective, but not so much from a relative/family viewpoint. Plus, I think it is very well written…

Thought Catalog

When people ask about your family, you try to not mention him. You describe your beloved siblings and your outstanding mother in elaborate and adoring detail and you try to glide effortlessly into asking them about their family. If you’re lucky, they don’t catch it. They don’t ask “Well, what about your dad?” You never know how to answer. Even a decade later, you’re still caught off guard.

For us, the children of sociopaths, the tales of drunks and addicts and abusers are a fantasy. Granted, a disgustingly twisted one, but a fantasy nonetheless. In the “perfect” world of primetime dramas, the deadbeat dad is just trying to figure himself out. He’s trying to get clean or sober or work through his haunting past. It’s almost no one’s fault. A third-party is involved. Everyone wishes that the father had been better or stronger, but the neglect, the absence, is a…

View original post 1,123 more words

A Slowly Fading Marque?

With Americans having to adjust their budgets now more than ever to modestly harmonize with their incoming cash flow, cutting costs for entertainment expenses is indeed on most everyone’s agenda. Those who enjoy watching movies have had to lay this form of entertainment on the budget chopping block as well, but thanks to mediums such as Netflix and Video On Demand, movies can still be enjoyed for a reasonable price that can easily fit into modest budget. The average cost of going to the cinema is roughly around $25 per person, which includes tickets, snacks, drinks, and other refreshments sold at the concession stands. According to the results of an online survey conducted by “Harris Poll®” in December 2013, 57% of Americans favored watching movies at home as opposed to the 21% of Americans who preferred to go to the cinema. With approximately a little over one-half of American moviegoers faithfully visiting the cinemas, will this amount be enough to keep the cinemas alive within the next few years?

The participants who were surveyed in the aforementioned poll were also asked to give their opinions about the pros and cons of going to the cinema to watch movies verses watching movies using another medium. Being able to experience a movie in 3-D and in digitally mastered sound quality seemed to win the majority of votes on the pros’ list despite the fact that “rude moviegoers” was the number one reason on the cons’ list for why the participants would prefer to watch movies from home. The high cost of refreshments sold at the concession stand was another major turn-off for 62% of those surveyed, and an overwhelming 69% felt theaters take advantage of showing 3-D movies as an excuse to charge outrageously higher prices to view them.

With tablets and smartphones gaining more and more popularity for their video-playing capabilities, a majority of the moviegoers who are constantly on-the-go have converted their medium of viewing pleasure from going to the cinema into indulging in Netflix for downloading movies to their portable device. If the cinemas can come up with an idea that tops this convenience along with figuring out a way to offer lower prices for tickets and refreshments, then the cinema might have a fighting chance to stay alive.

©2014 Learus Ohnine

The Plastic Plague

Outrageous. Abominable. Stupefying. Unbelievable…

These are just a few words that blatantly describes the catastrophe bestowed upon possibly as many as 110 million credit and debit card owners between the months of November and December in 2013. With Target being one of the top-selling leading retailers during the busy holiday shopping season, their announcement of a data breach of confidential information left millions to question whether or not the retail chain was capable of adhering to quality security policies to protect their customers’ information. Hackers reportedly have gained access to approximately 70 million names, phone numbers, and mailing addresses as well as email addresses with little to no further confirmation as to what or not other information was obtained during this invasion of privacy.

But this outlandish activity does not stop there…

Neiman Marcus, another high-end retail store, has recently announced a similar breach of security to its system. On January 1, 2014, evidence of a cyber-security intrusion has result in an investigation that has yet to determine just how many Neiman Marcus customers have been affected. While there is no confirmed statement of this breach being linked to the same Target scandal at this time, the most impertinent suspicious factor of evidence points to both malicious breaches of security being originally discovered approximately at the same time – mid December.

So what does it all mean for consumers? In a nutshell, having the pleasure of enjoying one’s in-store shopping experience without the added nuisance of carrying large amounts of cash around is not only a convenience – it is a luxury. Being able to make purchases from the comfort of your own home via the internet is a convenient luxury in its own right, yet lately the risks involved seem to inadvertently outweigh its advantages.

The main question is this: is there simple solution to protect consumers from the vile acts of privacy invasion? At the moment, the only feasible and seemingly safest way consumers can do their shopping is by carrying lump sums of cash on them at all times. For the banks, this solution spells financial troubles. For the retailers, this should not have any substantial affect on their sales revenue although their accounts receivable department may have less or more work cut out for them. In the end, all that really matters is regaining that trust bond between consumer and retailer once again, and with the rate things have been going lately, there is no current equitable solution to this being offered by retailers… except to advise all shoppers to shop at their own risk.

©2014 Learus Ohnine

Violence-101: A Syllabus of Higher Awareness

Violence is, and always will be, that uncensored part of human existence to which we are all subjected to becoming exposed to it in one form or another; either as perpetrator, victim, or spectator. For those who have suffered violent acts at the hands of their attackers, there’s a road to recovery for them that seems optimistic for some survivors and yet exasperating for some. Over the past few years, there have been numerous repetitive situations of violence involving a generation that retains a monstrous amount of uncontrollable rage, with their focal point being a desire to strike fear into the hearts of innocent onlookers in one of our most highly regarded traditional environments: our schools.

On December 13, 2013, Karl Pierson opened fire at his school, the Arapahoe High School located in Centennial, Colorado, critically wounding a 17-year old student before killing himself. Originally, detectives had several leads as to a possible motive for the gunman’s violent rampage, however, the most reliable source of information would have to come from the person themselves.

Prior to this incident also in the state of Colorado, Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold entered the Columbine High School located in Littleton to carry out a terroristic massacre that resulted in 15 deaths before both students turned their guns onto themselves. Both suspects left a trail of clues for detectives to decipher the meaning behind this premeditated killing spree with all of their conclusions directing towards the most obvious cause: mental illness.

Both of the above cases, as disturbing as they may be, seems to point to an even bigger issue with youths who suffer from incurable psychological illnesses that, if left ignored, can alter one’s perception of reality in the most tragic of ways. It’s sad when youths turn to violence as a solution for the pain and rejection they feel for not being deemed as “normal”, for so many innocent bystanders have had to have their lives ended without warning or defense. It is time for society to stop brushing this issue under the rug and start taking into consideration the innocent blood that is continuously being shed among the students of our educational institutions.

©2013 Learus Ohnine

Life Science Headed For Extinction

From the days of the Louis Pasteur era until now, scientists have made numerous successful attempts in their exploratory approach to save humanity. Science, along with technology, has become so advanced over the years that what was once thought of by scientists as an uncertainty is now a breakthrough in innovative discoveries, for scientists now have the resourceful devices necessary to further their exploration of the human body with precise detail and remarkable accuracy. With the birth of such remarkable artificial life-saving devices as the pacemaker and the dialysis machine, the possibilities for discovering complete cures to life-threatening illnesses seems more and more possible in the future as science advances in the areas of biomedical engineering, thanks to all of the financial support provided by the U.S. Government to scientific research agencies over the past few decades.

Unfortunately during this decade, one of those resources has been drastically cut this year by 10% at the very least — a percentage that cannot be ignored, especially when it pertains to biomedical research. Since humanity has been anticipating for years to hear of a much awaited breakthrough in the discovery for cures to some of the most deadliest of diseases such as cancer and HIV, it seems all hope will have to be put on hold for what seems to be a much bigger problem that appears to be taking precedence lately over healing the sick: war-related funding.

The National Institutes of Health (NIH), one of the most pertinent sources of funding for biomedical research agencies and institutions, has been commended for increasing the life expectancy of humanity since the early 1800’s. Not only does the NIH conduct their own research at their own facilities, the agency relies on its funding to be allocated within the congressional budget. The United States has already spent approximately $1.7 trillion on war-related expenses from 2001-2011, and is expected to see these expenditures rise above the $6 trillion mark by the end of the 2013 fiscal year. To avoid a government shutdown this year, Congress had to cut all expenditures until March of 2014 by at least 10%, and this includes the financial support the NIH heavily relies upon to continue its research efforts. The NIH has reported their biomedical research expenses to be at $29.5 billion for the 2013 fiscal year alone. With Congress being unable to properly negotiate a suitable national budget plan while continuously financially supporting war-related expenses to the fullest, the NIH has been forced to put a majority of their critical clinical trials on hold with no certainty of when they will resume again.

Eventually along the line, we all reap the benefits of medical research, even those who are currently considered to be in perfect health. At the rate in which science has advanced, humanity’s chances for a greater life expectancy could have been dramatically increased many years ago if it had not been for the extra expenditure of wars… or could it?

©2013 Learus Ohnine

Woman’s Work Is Never Done

For decades on end, woman have been fighting for their equality to be recognized, in one form or another, within the workforce. Former President John F. Kennedy endorsed it – President Barack Obama ensues to enforce it. The Equal Pay Act, signed by Kennedy in June 1963, was the latest attempt to put an end to gender discrimination pertaining to unequal wages earned by women versus men who are employed in identical positions that are of equal job content. President Obama sponsors John F. Kennedy’s Equal Pay Act (or EPA) for gender wage equality with the Paycheck Fairness Act (or PFA), a legislation to end the approximate 77% difference in compensated wages earned by women when compared to that of men. This bill was approved in January 2009 by the House of Representatives, however, the United States Senate fell short of 2 votes for the 60 votes needed in order to move the bill forward. The bill was presented again for a second time in June 2012. Consequently, the United States Senate only acquired 52 votes in favor of proceeding the bill to its final consideration. Why?

Republican Senators, of whom comprise the small minority of congressional voters opposing the PFA, believe that the bill could adversely affect small businesses by making it easier for female employees to file litigation suits in regards to wage discrimination. Ironically, out of the number of Republican Senators who blocked the bill, five of them were women: Senator Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire, Senator Kay Bailey Hutchinson of Texas, Senator Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Senator Olympia Snowe of Maine, and Senator Susan Collins, also of Maine.

In a statement made by Senate Republican Susan Collins on June 5, 2012, she believes the existing workforce laws are already sufficient: “We already have on the books the Equal Pay Act, the Civil Rights Act, and the Lilly Ledbetter Act in which I support, and I believe that they provide adequate protections. I think this bill would impose a real burden, particularly on small businesses.” In a similar statement made by Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky supporting Collins’ viewpoint, McConnell states “We don’t think America suffers from a lack of litigation.” In another statement made by Republican Senator Dean Heller of Nevada, he makes it clear that he does not support pay discrimination within the workforce based on gender, but instead focuses on the issue of workforce inequality in itself: “The question is, will the Paycheck Fairness Act actually address workplace inequality? And the simple answer is no.”

The Paycheck Fairness Act, in comparison to the Equal Pay Act, would provide remedies for the loopholes found within the act signed by former President John F. Kennedy in 1963. The bill would require wages to be paid based on education, training, and/or experience, not sex-based. This bill would also protect employees from retribution from their employers should they happen to discuss their wages for the purposes of evaluating whether or not a gender differential exists. Although American women have come a long way when it comes to putting an end to being shortchanged within their professions, it is still evident that women will have to continue fight even harder for their right to be heard and understood. As the old cliché goes: “Men work from sun to sun, but woman’s work is never done.”

©2013 Learus Ohnine

How To Avoid Being Lured In

One of the most important things to understand when dealing with a sociopath/psychopath is you must know their language. You must be able to understand the meaning behind each word they speak in order to understand them. Almost everything they say has a varied meaning from the norm. They use common everyday terms to express themselves, just like anyone else, but their definitions of certain keywords and phrases are eccentrically different from its originally intended implication.

Below lists just a few phrases most sociopaths/psychopaths use when trying to lure (and keep) their victims. Under each phrase will be the real meaning behind what the phrase means for the sociopath/psychopath when it is spoken. All these phrases are familiar phrases and are spoken by the sociopath/psychopath with the intent to misguide you into believing their motives for you are pure, true, and genuine:

Here it is….

1) “I Love You
Meaning: “You give me a rush at the moment”

2) “You Love Me
Meaning: “You forego your needs to bend to my will”

3) “Trust Me
Meaning: “What a sucker!”

4) “You’re the man/woman of my life
Meaning: “You are one of a long indefinite sequence of women/men that’s also simultaneous”

5) “Mutual Fidelity
Meaning: “YOU need to be faithful to me, while I cheat on you…”

6) “Betrayal
Meaning: “You dared to disapprove of something I did, or, you disobeyed me in some respect”

7) “Mutual Commitment
Meaning: “You need to revolve everything in your life around me, and do exactly what I want”

8) “Honesty
Meaning: “My truth, or, saying whatever it takes to get me what I want at the moment”

9) “I Miss You
Meaning: “I miss the function you used to play in my life, because I’m a little bored right now…”

10) “What My Baby Wants, My Baby Gets
Meaning: “I will give you attention, flattery, and gifts until I hook you emotionally and gain your trust. Afterwards, you’re on your own!”

This last phrase, the most important most common phrase sociopaths/psychopaths use on victims more frequently than we would like to believe (or notice) is the most crucial phrase of them all to remember… a major red flag to watch for:

11) “I cheated because my (insert name here) does not satisfy me
Meaning: “…and neither will you.”

(Source: Unknown)

Bonus Tip!: Whenever you question any of the above phrases, watch them change the subject quickly. VERY quickly. They might flip through several subjects at once. This is what they mean by a “flow” when they speak. That flow is meant to distract you from thinking logically, critically, and reasonably. You will be hit with so many topics at once that you began to feel mentally overwhelmed. When we are mentally overwhelmed, we lose focus. And there it is; a distraction tactic designed perfectly by them for you.

Regardless of your response, they’re not paying one bit of attention to what you’re saying because they are too busy reading your body language to see if their distraction technique is working. They can sense this within the first few moments of your response. If they sense the new topic is not distracting enough, that is when they “zone out” and begin thinking of another topic that seemed to pull a more desired response from you. Usually, they will choose a subject that was never settled during an earlier confrontation in order to cause confusion over getting you to think about not only one, but two unresolved issues at once now. Keyword here: distraction.

Another method they may use will be to focus on some insignificant word in what you have said, such as one that can be understood to have more than one meaning, and will try to start a debate about that particular word’s instead of the meaning of the entire sentence. Their game of confusion begins, until you are frustrated with trying make them understand the definition of the word, you begin to lose focus on the point you were trying to make. Again, this is a form of distraction.

Be safe, be careful, be alert…

©2013 Learus Ohnine