“Money doesn’t buy happiness” ok and poverty buys what exactly
where is the lie
Out of poverty creates strength and compassion. It’s weird how that works.
i sure wasn’t feeling the strength when i was skipping class because i was too weak to walk there after going 2-3 days without food, and i definitely wasn’t compassionate when i was checking every time i walked home to see if there was an eviction notice on the door. stop trying to fucking make it seem like a good thing.
Poverty is not a virtue. It doesn’t make you a better person. Poverty doesn’t make you “strong and compassionate” it makes you insecure and stressed the fuck out. Poverty makes it so you can’t live your life without the everything being undercut by fear. It makes you hard and angry. We need to do away with the bullshit myth that being poor is somehow better for you as a person. You know who wants you to believe that? Rich people, so you don’t question them.
Mental health worker here. These are things I’ve heard different clients say about being poor:
the only reason they’re considering suicide is because they’re terrified of being poor again and if they’re dead then at least their kids (whom they love) would get their life-insurance payout and not have to live in poverty while growing up
that the poverty they live in is inescapable except by desperation sex work they hate, because they’re so mentally ill that they can’t work other jobs–but the sex work makes their mental illness worse because they hate it so much. So it’s an inescapable cycle of mental illness–>poverty–>mental illness
they’re so poor that they can’t stop their anorexia because they literally don’t have the money to buy food anyway and at least this way they feel good about not eating
that they can’t come in to therapy that week even though they need and want to because they can’t afford the session
Poverty teaches and reinforces misery and self-hatred. It does not teach strength, it leaches strength until there is nothing left and healing is difficult if not impossible. Often, healing, recovery, and the building of true strength and resiliency are reserved only for those who have the money and leisure time to pursue them.
Poverty did not teach me to be strong and compassionate.
Poverty taught me to eat out of trash cans even when people judged me for doing it, because otherwise I threw up and passed out from sheer hunger.
Poverty taught me to let a “friend” treat me like shit because his mother thought we might start dating so she made steak every time I came over, STEAK, and one meal at his house could mean saving enough food at home to feed my sisters twice.
Poverty taught me that the police were never on my side.
Poverty taught me I deserved what I got.
I was nine when we plunged into deep poverty, and I would not wish that on anyone, and I especially would not wish it on a child.
The refusal to confirm Rey’s parentage in Star Wars: The Force Awakens has everyone buzzing, and the theories out there run the gamut. But the most popular by far is simple and well-known to fans of the series—that she’s a Skywalker. Whether she’s Han and Leia’s secret kid, or Luke’s, the going wisdom seems to be that we’ll get one of those “I am your father/mother” reveals before long.
But I’m really holding out hope for a different answer.
Spoilers for Star Wars: The Force Awakens below.
I’ll start off by kiboshing the first theory—she’s not Han and Leia’s daughter. The reason why I’m citing this as fact is because both Rey and Finn were colorblind cast (a point that J.J. Abrams made in interviews and at Comic-Con when discussing their selection), meaning that they could have picked an actor of any race to play Rey. So even though she looks as though she could be their daughter, it’s pretty darned likely that she’s not unless they lied about colorblind casting her, which would be a horrible thing to do for the sake of keeping the mystery alive. I doubt the bad PR would be worth it once that came clear.
That leaves Luke as a possible daddy, right? Sheesh, I hope not. I really hope not. Really, no.
There are two main reasons why I’d prefer that Rey wasn’t at all related to the Skywalker family, and the first is straightforward—it’s boring. We’ve already got Kylo in the ring, and his journey is plenty important. Making the third trilogy yet another tale where two members of the Skywalker family have to battle it out and work on redemption just isn’t interesting. While Episode VII did an excellent job of calling back to the previous trilogy, the next two films should cover new ground and do something different with this universe.
The other reason is connected to the first. If Rey is Luke’s daughter then all this new trilogy is setting out to prove is that the Force is basically safeguarded by their family, and that they’re the only ones who can fix it… or conversely, screw it up. Instead of the previous trilogies being a fascinating blip in their galaxy’s history, the Force becomes all about “The Divine Right of Skywalkers.” Their morality drives the universe, and their philosophy becomes paramount. We’ve already had two solid generations of this, and it was very interesting… now let it be over. Don’t let one family have the biggest say in how Good and Evil function in this sandbox.
See, here’s the real issue; in order for this new arc to be a worthy step forward for the Star Wars universe, it needs to say different things about the Force than the first six films did. (While it’s not essential that Star Wars films center on the Force, it’s clear that these core trilogies are going to do so, which is why I’m belaboring the point.) We’re already off to a good start with Kylo Ren, who is markedly not a Sith Lord—the Knights of Ren are their own group with their own agenda. In order for this to continue, it would be excellent if the new light side users weren’t Jedi, or were at least a different sort of Jedi. If the rhetoric surrounding the Force was allowed to develop and the idea of “balance” was considered from different angles, we would have a new stage in the Star Wars mythos.
Luke is the perfect teacher for Rey in this sense, because he’s in the ideal position to appreciate how the old systems have failed them. Having taught and lost a fresh crop of students at the hands of his nephew, it’s fair to assume that Luke will be open to new methods of teaching, new modes of philosophy, anything to prevent this constant embittered back-and-forth that only ever leads to destruction. He will likely learn from Rey as much as she learns from him, and with time, he could prepare her to foster this new age. It would be a fitting legacy for Luke Skywalker—he and Leia have worked hard and selflessly all their lives, and they deserve some kind of happy ending.
If it’s unavoidable, there’s really only one way that I’m cool with Rey being a member of the Skywalker line; if her rise is meant to mark out a place where the Skywalker family’s practical ownership over the Force comes to an end. If this story is about Rey recognizing that her family is stuck in a cyclical relationship with the galaxy, and that it’s her job to break that cycle, then I could see a situation where her being Luke’s daughter was worthwhile. But if these films aren’t intending to go down that road, they need to avoid the lineage ploy.
But the lightsaber came to her! That means she’s definitely a Skywalker! Does it, though? I agree, that lightsaber is important, as is Rey’s ability to call it to her when Ren could not. But I think the alignment of the lightsaber is key here, much more than the bloodline of the person who built it. That lightsaber was used by Anakin when he was a Jedi, when he was called the Chosen One. (He used it to slaughter a bunch of Jedi, sure, but it’s not like Palpatine had a nice red blade waiting for him once he was christened Vader. Which actually would have been a good idea….) Then it fell to Luke when he took up that mantle from his father. It comes to Rey because—like all good sentient objects in film—it wants to belong to the person who will use it for the right reasons. So… not Kylo.
What are our options here, then? There’s a popular theory that she could be the granddaughter of Obi-Wan Kenobi, which is cute for more than one reason; she’s got the accent to back her up, and Obi-Wan having an accidental kid out there is a thought that I love very much. (Have you seen him in the Clone Wars cartoon? He flirts with EVERYTHING.) In addition, there’s a poetry to it that plays with the prequel trilogy—if Rey is destined to defeat or redeem Kylo Ren, then she succeeds where her grandfather failed. It’s a cool idea, even if it is a bit too tidy for my tastes.
But I’m not sure that Rey’s parentage needs to be important. The movie certainly seems to indicate that her family is relevant, but what if this is a matter of smart misdirection? It makes sense that we’re all obsessing over the topic, mostly due to Rey’s inability to remember her life before Jakku, and her obsession with their return. But there’s every chance that this “family” she is so concerned over is a fiction, or at least irrelevant to her arc; she pointedly never gives any indication that she recalls specific people in her family, never mentions that she’s looking forward to reuniting with her mother or her uncle or siblings. She gets dropped off by someone in her series of flashbacks after touching Anakin’s lightsaber, but all we’re shown is a retreating ship, making it possible—in fact, I’d go so far as to say likely—that the person who left Rey on Jakku was not her family at all.
Instead, it’s possible that the person who left her there was the one who fitted her with this hopeful fiction: “Your family is coming back for you. Don’t leave, or you might never find them again.” It’s the perfect ploy to keep her grounded on that planet. Because that’s really the focus of Rey’s story in The Force Awakens, her unwillingness to leave Jakku out of fear that she will never see her family if she does. It’s the thing she has to let go of for her journey to continue, the reason why Maz Kanata pointedly tells her that whoever she’s waiting for is never coming back. Rey’s power is what makes her dangerous to the opposition, which makes it likely that whoever told her to wait on that desert world was doing so either to keep her out of the way for good, or to protect her from harm.
Rey’s vision of Kylo Ren standing around the bodies of Luke’s students could mean more than one thing, after all—it could mean that she’s gaining that impression by picking up a lightsaber that Ren formerly had in his possession, or it could mean that she was there. If she was, either Kylo himself or Luke—or anyone connected to the two of them—could have dropped her off on Jakku for safe keeping. Ren seems to know who Rey is, as evidenced by his immediate interest when she’s mentioned in BB-8’s escape from the desert world; “What girl?” he says, abandoning his destructive fit to give the officer his full attention. (In fact, the novelization does suggest that Kylo recognizes Rey within the dialogue, though novelizations are known to get jossed.) But knowing her doesn’t make her family by default. It makes her a known figure of interest, and her considerable strength in the Force is reason enough for that.
The theories are endless here, but the point I’m trying to make is that Rey could be literally anyone. While it’s likely that her heritage will come into play, wouldn’t it be fascinating if her history with the Skywalker family came down to something other than blood? If she was a part of their past some other way?
That’s what I’m keeping my fingers crossed for. I don’t need Star Wars to be full of unexpected twists and turns, but taking at least a partial step back from the family drama (Ben not withstanding) would be an excellent way to move forward from here.
Emily Asher-Perrin just wants Rey to have her own unique journey that’s not burdened by family politics. You can bug her on Twitter and Tumblr, and read more of her work here and elsewhere.
Alan was my friend and so this is hard to write because I have just kissed him goodbye.
What I remember most in this moment of painful leave-taking is his humour, intelligence, wisdom and kindness. His capacity to fell you with a look or lift you with a word. The intransigence which made him the great artist he was—his ineffable and cynical wit, the clarity with which he saw most things, including me, and the fact that he never spared me the view. I learned a lot from him.
He was the finest of actors and directors. I couldn’t wait to see what he was going to do with his face next. I consider myself hugely privileged to have worked with him so many times and to have been directed by him.
He was the ultimate ally. In life, art and politics. I trusted him absolutely.
He was, above all things, a rare and unique human being and we shall not see his like again.
Whenever someone tries to claim that evolution is a lie, I send them a picture of platybelodon.
1. It’s an excellent example of transitional evolution.
2. It’s a mess who would intentionally do this and why
3. It makes them piss themselves a little.
“Evolution is just a theory-”
I busted out laughing in the middle of Christmas dinner. This is the best post of 2015 that I’ve seen.
Not to be rude, but evolution is just a theory, albeit a probable one.
You can’t prove it, the only thing you can do is disprove it, which is what good scientists are supposed to do, try to disprove their theory.
Ah, but that’s the thing; A scientific theory IS a proven fact, and evolution is a very good example of an undeniably true one!
I’ve been meaning to write a post about what the meaning of a scientific theory is, and this seems like a good opportunity.
In science we have theories, and we have laws. It’s a very common misconception that a scientific theory is a an unproven hypothesis. This is understandable, but leads to a fundamental misunderstanding of how science works. A scientific theory isn’t the same as what we commonly refer to as a ‘theory’. Here’s a definition:
A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation. x
Compare this to the definition of a scientific law:
A scientific law is a statement based on repeated experimental observations that describes some aspects of the universe. A scientific law always applies under the same conditions, and implies that there is a causal relationship involving its elements. x
This means, basically, that a law summarizes observations about some sort of natural phenomena (usually mathematically). A good example is Newton’s law of gravity!
Newton’s Law of Gravity explains through mathematics how different bodies react to each other because of this force we call gravity, both on earth and in space, but it doesn’t explain why it happens or even what gravity actually is. No explanation, therefor a law!
Then we have theories, which not only document phenomena, but give explainations as to why these phenomena happen and what they are. A scientific theory requires more testable evidence than a law, and usually encompasses multiple laws and explains them more thoroughly. For example, Albert Einstein’s theory of relativity.
Newton’s law of gravity was testable, but it was only after Einstein proposed the theory of relativity that we started to understand what gravity actually is and how it functions. Einstein was able to give us explainations mathematically for why the laws of physics work as they do. Explanations for how it worked, therefor a theory!
(It’s also important to remember that a scientific theory and a scientific law are two very different things, and one can never become the other. A theory will always be a theory, and a law will always be a law.)
One of my favorite examples of this is the laws of Mendelian inheritance.
Long before we knew what genetics were, farmers were breeding for favorable traits. They didn’t know where they came from or how they were passed from one organism to the next, but they knew that if they bred a large dog with another large dog, they’d get large puppies, and they knew that if they bred only their best produce that their plants would produce better produce in the future.
Gregor Johann Mendel started conducting experiments by hybridizing pea plants, and was able to prove that this consistently happened. By doing this he created three separate laws that all fall under the Laws of Inheritance; The Law of Segregation, the Law of Independent Assortment, and the Law of Dominance. It gets a little complicated here and I’m not an expert on DNA, but I’ll try to summarize.
The Law of Segregation states that all organisms contain two alleles for each trait, and that those separate during meiosis so each gamete only contains one of them. That means that offspring receives a pair of alleles from its parents for each trait, resulting in one allele for each trait from each parent. For example, a calico cat and a tabby may breed and produce 4 tabby kittens, but all of those kittens will also carry the genetic information of a calico.
The Law of Independent Assortment states that alleles for these traits are passed independently of one another during gamete formation. For example, if the calico is a manx and the tabby is a scottish fold, the kittens can inherit a short tail without inheriting their calico parents coloring. They can also look entirely like one parent despite carrying the genetic information of both. Each trait is passed independently of all other traits.
The Law of Dominance states that recessive alleles will be masked by dominant alleles. For example, blue eyes in cats is a recessive trait. Therefor even if the scottish fold has blue eyes (is a carrier and affected), the dominant trait eyes of the manx will determine the color of the kittens eyes, and we’ll only have a slim chance of producing affected, blue eyed kittens if the manx also carries the recessive blue eyed gene, and those genes line up. (If I’ve made any mistakes here, I’d appreciate someone with more knowledge on genetics letting me know)
But you’ll notice he didn’t show how or why this happened, he was just able to observe it and prove that it did. It wasn’t until the Chromosome Theory of Inheritance was discovered that we could explain why. This was the theory that explained that chromosomes are what carry genetic material and pass these traits from one generation to the next.
It’s a fundamental, unifying theory of genetics that shapes how we conduct our science today. This theory is the basis of genetic engineering, which has had a huge impact on modern science. Just for example, the manufacturing of drugs (insulin and vaccines!), gene therapy, the genetic engineering of lab animals, and, most famously, agriculture. AKA, GMOs.
This leads into another requirement of a theory; Being supported by numerous other fields of science. Genetics is one of the sciences that hugely supports the Theory of Evolution. This is how we’ve been able to sequence DNA and discover how closely all life on earth is related, and how the DNA of humans and chimps is nearly identical.
x And this isn’t the only field of science that supports the validity of the Theory of Evolution.
We have radioisotope dating! Isotopes make up all matter on earth, and by measuring the decay of radioactive isotopes, we can date rock layers. We can do this because we know the rate of radioactive decay. This is how we know that the Earth is around 4.5 billion years old. We’ve used this to date fossils and prove that transitional forms came between connected species, and that humans and modern animals didn’t live alongside dinosaurs.
We have paleontology! The fossil record shows extremely detailed evidence of evolution occurring. Evolution is so accurate in its predictions that there’s never been a single fossil found in a place that it shouldn’t be. For example, the transitional fossils between dinosaurs and modern birds is found right in the middle, exactly where we’d expect it to be. So is the ancestor of platybelodon, and its relatives as they became our modern elephants! We’re able to predict so accurately where fossils should be located that we’ve been able to pick sites to excavate based entirely on that, then find the fossils we expected! Predictive power is a huge part of a proven scientific theory.
We have molecular biology! Which proves that gene sequences among extremely different organisms are still related. The basic structure of all DNA on the planet is in the form of the double helix, and while we predictably have nearly all the same DNA as our primate cousins, over half of our DNA is also identical to banana plants!
Then we have embryology! When we compare embryos, not only are most animals nearly indistinguishable from each other, but we see holdover traits from our previous ancestors. The most compelling examples are the fact that human fetuses, and all other mammals, have gill slits as embryos. In mammals these develop into the eustachian tubes and the ear canal, while they continue to develop into gills in fish. Humans also have tails and yolk sacs as embryos! (Also look up lanugo in fetuses, very interesting and shared among other mammals)
Then there’s biochemistry! The basic chemistry that occurs in the cells of all life on earth is extremely similar, and shows that all modern organisms had a common ancestor. For example, all animals have enzymes and hormones. Trypsin is just one that’s found in everything from humans to sea sponges.
Then biogeography! The fact that groups of organisms that are related are all found near one another is more evidence for the validity of evolution. If life didn’t evolve, there’d be no reason for certain life to only exist on certain continents, or for species to be distributed in a pattern that reflects their genetic relationships with one another.
Modern observations are extremely helpful as well! This is why we now see antibiotic resistant strains of viruses, elephants becoming less likely to have tusks because of poaching, and the peppered moth becoming darker to better camouflage itself during the industrial revolution.
There are others, but I’ll end with comparative anatomy, which is one of the coolest, imo. (I’m probably biased because I collect bones lol)
When you compare the skeletal structures of vertebrates, we have extremely similar structures regardless of how wildly different our environments and behaviors are. The skeletal structure of a fin is hardly the best way for a fin to be designed, but because whales evolved from terrestrial mammals, they adapted using what they had. (we can also show the full evolution of cetaceans through the fossil record, which is very cool if you want to look it up.)
This is true in non-mammals as well. An excellent example is the laryngeal nerve! In fish, the nerve makes a direct line from the brain down to the larynx, which is practical and to be expected. In animals that developed longer necks, however, we see that the nerve is trapped under the aortic arch!
The nerve had to evolve with us as we evolved from our aquatic ancestors, so our laryngeal nerve is forced to not go from our brain to our larynx, but rather to take a detour into our chest and around the aortic arch before doubling back!
This is amazing in giraffes, where the nerve is nearly 15 feet long because it was forced to grow as the giraffe’s neck did, and now takes a detour down the entirety of the giraffe’s neck and around the heart before returning the the larynx, which was its destination.
x There are mountains more evidence, but it’d take a lifetime to cover it all.
So you’ve got the way a theory works a little backwards; A theory only remains a theory when it can’t be disproven, and therefor is proven accurate. For a theory to be a theory, it has to be proven true. This is why we teach other theories, for example:
Plate tectonics theory: Plate tectonics is the theory that the outer rigid layer of the earth (the lithosphere) is divided into a couple of dozen “plates” that move around across the earth’s surface relative to each other, like slabs of ice on a lake.
Cell theory: In biology, cell theory is a scientific theory which describes the properties of cells. These cells are the basic unit of structure in all organisms and also the basic unit of reproduction. and
Atomic theory: In chemistry and physics, atomic theory is a scientific theory of the nature of matter, which states that matter is composed of discrete units called atoms.
In your tags you state that evolution is a theory, and therefor can’t be taught as fact. I’m sure you don’t believe that we shouldn’t teach about the existence of atoms and the function of cells because they’re ‘only theory’, so I hope this makes clearer why that notion is flawed. We accept all of these as true because we know factually that they are.
The reason that evolution is given such intense scrutiny is because it disproves the notion that humans are a separate, superior entity to all other life on earth. This is a blow to some egos and contradicts some people’s religious beliefs. The discovery that Earth wasn’t the center of our solar system, much less the universe, was met with the same sort of scrutiny for the same reasons. The ever building proof that we’re only a tiny flicker of what has been and will be in the universe inspires strong reactions in people, for good or bad. Personally, I find it endlessly interesting!
Also, to clarify, attempting continually to disprove a theory wouldn’t necessarily be good science. When you have a theory like plate tectonics, trying to disprove it at this point really isn’t a good use of your time. We know how it works, we’ve seen it working, we can predict how it’ll work, we can prove this is how mountains formed and earthquakes happen and continents drift. Being critical and making sure things line up properly is good science, but trying to continuously disprove something we know to be fact is a waste of energy and resources.
Evolutionary theory is the basis of everything from vaccines and Glofish to agriculture, modern medicine and decoding DNA. It’s so ingrained in everything that we do, that it’s vital for people to understand how it works.
If it were proven false tomorrow, it’d take a lot of other fields of science down with it. But most of us are understandably doubtful that it’ll happen, because it’s been undergoing this same intense scrutiny since Darwin published The Origin of Species in 1859. That’s an awfully long time and a lot of scientific advances for there to have never been a single, solitary piece of evidence that disproved it.
To stay on theme, let’s end with a platybelodon family reunion.
"There was also crucial opposition to national health insurance from Southern Democrats, despite the fact that the impoverished South, where many people couldn't afford adequate medical care, would have gained a financial windfall. But Southern politicians believed that a national health insurance system would force the region to racially integrate its hospitals. (They were probably right. Medicare, a program for seniors equivalent in many ways to the system Truman wanted for everyone, was introduced in 1966-and one result was the desegregation of hospitals across the United States.) Keeping black people out of white hospitals was more important to Southern politicians than providing poor whites with the means to get medical treatment." Paul Krugman, Conscience of a Liberal http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Krugman_Paul/Conscience_Of_Liberal.html https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/1169429.The_Conscience_of_a_Liberal
Maybe this explains just why America is so generally awful at so many health metrics. A new article in the American Journal of Public Health indicates that people who live in communities of higher racial prejudice, regardless of whether they personally hold such prejudices, have higher risks of mortality. Healthline reports:
“Racial prejudice affects community health significantly even after controlling for individual- and community-level socioeconomic status, such as poverty, level of education, and racial composition,” study author YeonJin Lee of the University of Pennsylvania, told Healthline.
The study doesn’t prove that racial prejudice causes premature death. But researchers suggest that racism can weaken a community’s social resources or social capital. For example, racial tensions may limit a community’s ability to come together and advocate for policies and services that promote health.
“Low levels of prejudice are associated with greater trust and diminished threat at the neighborhood level,” Lee said, “[while] high levels of prejudice likely discourage residents from developing social capital with their neighbors, given reduced levels of trust and mutual reciprocity.
Social capital, defined as the degree to which community decisions are marked by reciprocity and increase in the common good, has been found to be a key factor in public health and mortality. Income inequality also degrades social capital, and through this mechanism it degrades health independently of income itself.
A robust body of research has found that perceived and enforced racism negatively impacts the health of racial minorities. This interacts with the aspects of poverty, environmental injustices, and health access disparities that are also more diluted products of racism to make for a double whammy. But there hasn’t been much to study the effects of racism at a community level or for people who hold the prejudices themselves.
This new study in the Journal of Public Health adds to that body of knowledge. And in today’s climate, with outright racial prejudice holding fast and not receding the way common knowledge expected and with inequality skyrocketing, social capital may be degrading even faster. And that seems to be a fever that no amount of health policy can fix.
this is just filled to the brim with wackiness and excitement aint it
andi is a bad bachelorette?
“emily is a theory”
im just a theory
Doing it with the name I use online (cuz I’m a paranoid lil twit who doesn’t like using her real name on the scary interweb),
“Ti is a felon.”
I would like to inform you all that NO.
“taylor is a stupid name”
how dare
Abigail is a ghost
“Sunny is a professional shoplifter”
well there goes my cover
“Erica is actually a robot”
Beep boop no I’m not
“Kat is down”
oh well you’re not wrong
“Elizabeth is afraid that her husband” They my husband is what?? “Elizabeth is afraid” would have been accurate. I also checked what most people call me, “Liz is awesome” thanks google :)
“Ellie is a nickname for what”
pffft
“Eleanore is a triplet”
Nope… we’re not.
I will never escape the fact that my name is also a religion.
“Elise is awesome”
aww
“sara is a frequent business traveler”
dude i haven’t left my house in four days
“…a kid who is always up to party and have a good time. Dude, I don’t wanna go to that party unless Chris comes.”
That was unexpectedly delightful.
i just came out to have a good meme and
My real concern is that I didn’t even get to to type the “a ” and everything filled in with “Not on Fire”.
What do you know, google.
Google knows how much I love you.
laurie is a shy child who avoids social gatherings – accurate
“Wow. Busy week,” Peter said (a little sheepishly). “Mmm,” the soul replied, its mouth in a grim line. “The reckoning is just wrapping up; everything’s looking good. You need anything?” “Nope,” the soul said, one eyebrow raising. Peter laughed nervously. “Really liked your movies,” he said, adding, “a lot.” “Did you?” asked the soul, in a cool voice. “Me. Too.” Peter laughed awkwardly again and then sighed in relief when he heard the Pearl Gate unlock. “Processing complete! We’re all good. You’re cleared to go right in.” The eyes narrowed. “Thanks,” the soul said slowly (and lingered on the “s” like a hiss). “Snape incoming,” Peter said softly into the mic as the soul entered. “And fuck cancer,” he added with a sigh.
“Does magic defy the laws of physics? Or does it bend them in differing directions as the core principle of magic? Or do the laws of physics exist in a layer above our understanding and magic plays into that – and our limited grasp of both account for these seemingly unnatural phenomenon?! Damn it I WANT TO KNOW!!”
“Oh, you want our paradox help line. One moment, please.”
In his final State of the Union address, President Obama laid out a vision of America seriously at odds with the vision of hate and exclusion the Republican presidential candidates have been pushing. It was hard to miss what Obama was talking about when he said things like, “we need to reject any politics that targets people because of race or religion.” Well, obviously Republicans cannot allow themselves to agree with anything the president says. In fact, it always has to be BAD BAD BAD, no matter what.
And so it is: House Speaker Paul Ryan agrees with Obama that Donald Trump’s proposal to ban Muslims from entering the country is a bad idea. But if Ryan agrees with the president on substance, he has to disagree on style, because heaven knows he can’t be seen just plain agreeing with Obama on anything. So ...
"But I think it sort of degrades the presidency to then talk about primary politics in the other party, during primaries. That's not what presidents ought to be talking about in State of the Union addresses," Ryan added. "Speaking up for our values and speaking up for our beliefs is one thing. But kind of wading into the primary politics of the other party is just not really what presidents ought to do."
Let’s recast just a bit. Ryan is saying it “degrades the presidency” for the president to speak out against bigotry when bigotry is in the news. He’s saying the president must keep quiet about one of the major political debates of our time just because it’s being driven by presidential primary candidates. It’s not good enough that Obama didn’t name names, just said we shouldn’t target people because of race or religion and that throughout American history, “there have been those who told us to fear the future; who claimed we could slam the brakes on change, promising to restore past glory if we just got some group or idea that was threatening America under control,” but that “each time, we overcame those fears.” This is degrading the presidency by wading into the primary politics of the other party? Pfft.
And seriously. Republicans have been saying Obama has been degrading the presidency since the day he took office, if not before. Remember how, in the first month of Obama’s presidency, former George W. Bush chief of staff Andrew Card got up on a soapbox about how Obama needed to wear a jacket in the Oval Office at all times, including weekends, because “I think it’s appropriate to have an expectation that there will be a dress code that respects the office of the President”? Except it turned out that Card’s own boss had gone jacket-less in the Oval Office, as had John F. Kennedy, Gerald Ford, Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, and Bill Clinton. What could it possibly be about Obama that moves Republicans straight past “I would do things differently, myself” to “degrading the presidency” or failing to “respect the office of the president” adequately?
“George Lucas, the creator of Star Wars, gave me the part of Wicket, the Ewok who has a five-minute scene with Carrie Fisher. Wicket finds Carrie, as Princess Leia, unconscious after she crashes her speeder bike.
When she appeared on set, Carrie showed her concern for my wellbeing in the sweltering Ewok costume. ‘Are you OK in there, Warwick?’ she said. ‘It must be so hot.’
She reached down behind a log and pulled out a carton of chocolate milk with a long straw and fed me cookies in between takes. She was everything an 11-year-old Ewok could possibly wish for…” [Daily Mail interview covering Davis’ career]
Honestly it’s so perplexing because I think tumblr assumes that body positivity is a movement that’s already done and over with but seriously, no really, activists still really hate fat women. and I’m not talking about sizes 12-16, I’m talking 18+, the “obese girls” who have “no excuse” and have “no redemption.” Bring up body positivity in a room full of white vegans and watch what happens. Ask some feminists, radical or liberal or queer, to support a fat woman who isn’t wearing some primadonna lingerie and sitting a poised photoset waiting for your half-assed material consumption. Talk about the experience of gender nonconforming, nonwhite, disabled, minority fat women for more than five posts and watch your follower count plummet and bring it up in an activist space and listen to the “I don’t promote unhealthy lifestyles, I don’t know about this, I don’t really think this is an oppression.” Talk to fat girls who are oppressed on more than one axis than their weight and ask them what they were bullied most for in school; their weight. “Fat bitch, ugly fat girl, fucking fat head, she’s so big.” Talk to us girls that aren’t thick, curvy, or bodacious, who are just fat, lumpy, and existing in a large space. Stop assuming that it’s just clothes and no one finding us fuckable. People hate us, and contrary to popular belief, our fatness doesn’t save us from being raped, sex trafficked, pimped out, and beaten. Our “uglyness” isn’t a safeguard. I just don’t get it.
Cooking show I desperately want: Professional chefs compete to wow and astound totally amateur food critics who don’t know dick about shit. Get eliminated on totally arbitrary grounds such as “I don’t like sour cream.”
So it’s like actors on auditions, but with chefs. I’m into it.
In an explosive new piece, the New York Times reports that Republican Sen.Ted Cruz failed to disclose a six-figure loan from Goldman Sachs, the Wall Street investment bank where his wife Heidi works, that he used to support his successful upset bid for Senate back in 2012. Cruz was required to report the loan (and another similar one from Citibank)—which may have been worth as much as $500,000—in filings with the Federal Elections Commission but never did so.
Instead, he reported putting some $1.2 million in unspecified "personal funds” into his campaign, claiming to the Times several years ago that he and his wife had “liquidated our entire net worth” to support his quest for public office. This turns out to have been a deception, uncovered because Cruz later filed personal financial disclosures with the Senate that detailed the two low-interest loans.
And, explains former FEC attorney Kenneth Gross, that’s a serious problem:
“They’re two different reporting regimes. The law says if you get a loan for the purpose of funding a campaign, you have to show the original source of the loan, the terms of the loan, and you even have to provide a copy of the loan document to the Federal Election Commission.”
In other words, reporting the loans on his Senate disclosures at some later date didn’t and can’t fix the fact that Cruz failed to report the loans on his FEC reports at the time they were made—something the campaign claims was “inadvertent.”
But you can ask yourself: Does it seem more likely that Cruz was just careless and “forgot” he’d taken out huge sums from Goldman and Citibank—money he badly needed, seeing as his GOP primary opponent, Lt. Gov. David Dewhurst, was busy spending $24 million of his own money on the race? Or did Cruz, a fire-breathing tea partier who constantly railed against the Wall Street bailout on the campaign trail, have a reason for not wanting to tell the public that he’d borrowed money from some of the very same entities that had just destroyed the economy?
never being able to participate in group conversations because by the time you have processed what people have said and thought of a response the opportunity to say it has passed and everyone is on to the next thing
Hey, now don't hate so much on Chad. He's been raised to think this way, he's just starting to open his mind to the idea that things are different for other people than they are for him.
ok here we go pet peeve no. 45678: when girls are made fun of for behaviour that has literally been drilled into them by society. let’s go through some of these.
haha girls are all like “don’t look at me without makeup on!!!!”: maybe because we are taught from a very young age that we’re ugly without makeup. if we don’t wear it we’re asked why we look so tired, why we didn’t make an effort today, why we seem slobbish. as we grow older if we don’t wear makeup we’re seen as unprofessional and it can actually affect our careers but no yeah it definitely doesn’t make sense that we’re insecure about our naked faces whatever
man my gf always takes food from my plate so annoying lol #relatablecontent: probably because she’s fucking starving but it was instilled in her that cute girls eat like precious baby bunnies so she got a salad but all she fuCKING WANTS ARE FRIES. JUST GIVE HER THE FUCKING FRIES.
girls always go to the bathroom together haha lame and weird: mainly so we don’t get attacked asshole. also having a pee buddy is fun i pity you and your pee-buddy-less experience. when do your friends tell you how nice your hair is. oh that’s right they don’t because guys are the fucking worst
look at these drunk girls tottering around on high heels they look ridiculous: i will defend to the death women’s right to get just as completely shitfaced as men and don’t even ACT like it’s not practically fucking mandated that if a woman isn’t wearing high heels she isn’t dressed up. high heels LITERALLY GIVE ME BACK PROBLEMS but i have to wear them for work because if I don’t i’m not “””””professionally dressed”””””” give me a fucking break
WOMAN AND SHOPPING. OHOHOHO BOY.: yeah ok so we have to spend money you don’t on makeup products, skin products, hair removal products, pads and tampons, and on top of that we’re expected to change our clothes more often than you which means we need more of them, and also women’s clothing sizes are voodoo so every fitting session is a battle with your self confidence. AND we pay the gender tax. i fucking hate shopping. i do it because i have to, you buttnerd. and even if some women enjoy shopping im sure some men also enjoy shopping??? why must you gender??? activities??? why is this the world we live in????
girls on their periods are fucking psycho hahaha!!!: no we’re just in more or less constant pain so we have less patience to put up with your your bullshit. not to mention that a woman’s testosterone levels actually INCREASE on her period so GUESS WHO WE’RE MORE FUCKING LIKE, CHAD. GIVE A FUCKING GUESS.
lol girls spend forever in the bathroom lololol: all right first of all if we’re talking about say, a sporting event, and you’re complaining about all the women who are queueing to go to the bathroom, we have a COUPLE MORE STEPS INVOLVED THAN PEOPLE WHO CAN JUST WHIP IT OUT AND THEN TUCK IT AWAY. not to mention the fact that yeah we have to take a second to double check the paint smeared on our faces or the socially acceptable hairstyle we’re wearing. we’re not allowed have fucking buzzcuts chad. apparently having less than the requisite amount of dead protein on the top of our head makes us a target for verbal abuse on the street chad. how about ranting about the people who built the stadium or whatever who KNOW it takes women longer to go to the bathroom but normally lot the same amount of stalls to men and women?? AND IF WE’RE TALKING ABOUT PERSONAL MAINTENANCE yeah ok buddy and how long does it take you to shave your legs? you think I like spending SEVENTY TWO DAYS OUT OF MY LIFE accidentally cutting myself and pulling muscles in my thighs??? well. i dont. so that’s why i don’t do it mainly. but we probably spend the rest of the time slathering ourselves with anti-aging creams because everyone is falling over themselves to tells us that our sell-by date is 35 while George Clooney and RDJ will probably continue to play wry sexy playboys until their fucking hips fall off. go fuck yourself chad.
GOD. I CAN’T EVEN GO ON. ADD YOUR OWN IF YOU THINK OF MORE.
this post is gold
I hate you Chad
i was not expecting this to get popular at all but i will tell you one joyous thing: over 2,000 notes so far and not one single person has disagreed. WE ALL KNOW ITS BULLSHIT AND THAT IS SOMETHING AT LEAST.
“Let me be crystal clear: if you’ve faced a tragedy and someone tells you in any way, shape or form that your tragedy was meant to be, that it happened for a reason, that it will make you a better person, or that taking responsibility for it will fix it, you have every right to remove them from your life.
Grief is brutally painful. Grief does not only occur when someone dies. When relationships fall apart, you grieve. When opportunities are shattered, you grieve. When dreams die, you grieve. When illnesses wreck you, you grieve.
So I’m going to repeat a few words I’ve uttered countless times; words so powerful and honest they tear at the hubris of every jackass who participates in the debasing of the grieving:
Some things in life cannot be fixed. They can only be carried.”
luke skywalker: hey kids wanna know something neat
luke skywalker: it turns out that saving thousands, millions, billions of lives from the empire does not, necessarily, make you a qualified teacher
luke skywalker: see i studied under a little known art called "kind of winging it"
luke skywalker: and many jedi teaching records are lost to the years
luke skywalker: so uh
luke skywalker: who wants to see some lightsaber tricks
jedi academy kids: LIGHTSABER TRICKS
if you’re one of those people that complains about the ever increasing amount of donation posts and campaigns then consider this: you’re ugly. this stage of capitalism has left people (your peers, ppl the same age and generation as you…people who look like you…) so destitute and completely abandoned that they have to beg for basic necessities on the Internet. it’s not fun or a joke to have to do so. there’s so much shame projected on people who have to ask for financial help even tho it’s like literally not their fault they’re poor and as you can see by which groups have to ask the most, this shit is systematic. and often times it’s not even well off people donating!!! it’s others who are themselves on the edge of survival. the problem is not their calls for charity like wtf. what do you want them to do??? starve to death because you think there’s too many posts going around???
