Confused by the sheer number of sugars and sweeteners on the market? Here’s a comprehensive guide.
(via wildcat2030)
Bill Nye Is Willing To Make A Deal With People Who Don’t Believe In Evolution
I’m not as willing. Self inflicted ignorance should be called out. Pelople who choose to be stupid should be called out. There is no believing in evolution any more than there is believing in Oxygen, it is a real thing. The details of where and when may be up for debate but denying something because you dont “believe” in it should be called out for what it is. Self interested, self imposed ignorance and a crime against humanity.
A version for tumblr that can be read without opening a new tab, since plenty of people would scroll past this story otherwise.
The bravest woman on Earth.
Today is Women’s Day- a good day to celebrate this incredible young woman.
(via wilwheaton)
The Results of Drug Tests on Welfare Recipients in Florida:
Drug testing only benefits the testing company. Typical on conservatives to waste time and money trying to stop a fake issue.
You have to love how they pander to the “everyone on welfare is a mooch and a druggie” types in order to get public support for such a wasteful program - that did nothing but line the pockets of the owners of drug testing facilities.
You know what would be really crazy? If the Governor who signed the law that introduced drug screening, founded one of the largest companies in Florida that provides drug screening.
Fucking Rick Scott.
Tea Party America, ladies and gentlemen. It’s crony capitalism at it’s finest, and the rubes who vote for these shitbags just clap louder and louder while people like Rick Scott fuck them over.
I think the problem is the people who support the ass-hats in the Tea Party can’t do math.
(Source: liberalsarecool)
Marina Abramovic meets Ulay
“Marina Abramovic and Ulay started an intense love story in the 70s, performing art out of the van they lived in. When they felt the relationship had run its course, they decided to walk the Great Wall of China, each from one end, meeting for one last big hug in the middle and never seeing each other again. at her 2010 MoMa retrospective Marina performed ‘The Artist Is Present’ as part of the show, a minute of silence with each stranger who sat in front of her. Ulay arrived without her knowing it and this is what happened.”
“En los años 70, Marina Abramovic mantuvo una intensa historia de amor con Ulay. Pasaron 5 años viviendo en una furgoneta realizando toda clase de performances. En 1988, cuando su relación ya no daba para más, decidieron recorrer la Gran Muralla China, empezando cada uno de un lado, para encontrarse en el medio, abrazarse y no volver a verse nunca más. En 2010 el MoMa de Nueva York dedicó una retrospectiva a su obra. Dentro de la misma, Marina compartía un minuto en silencio con cada extraño que se sentaba frente a ella. Ulay llegó sin que ella lo supiera, y esto fue lo que pasó”I’m not much of a sentimentalist but this touched me.
(via soupsoup)
The false equivalence pundits are part of the problem
As Josh Marshall puts it:
Over the last few days, as it’s become increasingly clear that the sequester cuts probably reallywillhappen, the big name pundits are coming forward and complaining that President Obama needs to step forward and ‘exercise leadership’ and solve the problem.
It’s all similar to what we saw in the fiscal cliff negotiations. Official Washington is accustomed to having a Democratic safety net — not cash transfers for those who fall through the cracks of the market economy — but that Democrats will come in and solve crises created by GOP government by crisis. When the Democrats or the Democrats’ party leader — in this case, the President — won’t do that, everyone freaks out.
The argument now is basically that the president is the father who must make his problem children behave. Only this is worse than just a dodge. Lots and lots of people are going to get hurt by the sequester. Anyone who helps deflect blame from Republicans — in the full knowledge that they are the primary obstacle to the compromise we need to prevent serious damage from being done to the country — is unwittingly helping to enable their intransigence.
Well said, Greg and Josh. A huge reason the GOP has been able to get away with unprecedented obstructionism and nullification is the absolute refusal of non-partisan media to call them out for it, and explain the consequences to voters. I hope that’s finally beginning to change.
GODWIN’D!
(From my messages. Delightful)
I see arguments like this all the time from the pro-murder and mayhem, paranoia and government conspiracy people (unrestricted gun rights advocates.) These are the same stale arguments are used. First is the cars, alcohol, knives, etc. kill people too, why aren’t you against those. Next is the, guns keep us safe from the government, look what happened in Nazi Germany, Iraq or wherever. And of course, the Constitution protects my right to keep and arm bears … I mean keep and bear arms.
First, let’s get something clear most gun control advocates are not advocating making guns illegal but simply putting controls around their ownership, like we have controls around the use of alcohol, carrying knives, use of cars and too many more to mention. Not, taking them away from people who have a legitimate use. So, I’ll address each of the arguments in turn. To the point that other things, cars, alcohol, knives, etc. cause deaths why aren’t we doing something about that? Well, we are. You need to prove you can drive a car safely before you can get a license. If you drive poorly you can loose your right to drive or go to jail if the offense is severe enough. Alcohol is also regulated, you must be a certain age and you are not, in most places, allowed to be dangerously drunk in public. And knives. This is amusing to me. I could cary a loaded AR-15 anywhere I want in public today without fear of being arrested, but in many states there are restrictions on knife length. Also, no one has ever been injured or killed by a stray knife from a knife fight. Oh, right and knives, unlike guns, are good for day to day things like cutting up food to eat, cutting rope, opening packages and when, as I do, you live on a farm a myriad of other uses. So, why are you afraid of registering your gun and proving that you are sufficiently capable of using it in a safe and responsible way?
The next big argument is that it keeps us safe from the big bad government which wants to enslave and subjugate us like the Nazi’s did the Germans. My first thought on this is that I’m really sorry you are that afraid of the world and second, you should open a history book. The Nazi’s didn’t take away gun ownership rights they grew to power because of them. They had militias, perhaps a better description would be well organized and trained gangs, which took advantage of gun ownership laws. These gang’s, as they took legal power via the constitutional process, were used to suppress the opposition. So, unrestricted gun rights gave the Nazi’s the power they needed to take over, not the protection the people needed to protect themselves from the Nazis. So, why didn’t people stand up to them? First, to stand up to someone with a gun you have to be willing to kill them, most people are not killers at hart. I think the number of professional soldiers with psychological scaring from having to kill in time of war is a good indication that it’s not something people are willing to just do. Second, you have to be willing to die if you fail. Have a family? Children? A wife? Willing to die because something might happen? Thought so, you fucking hypocrite. I recently read where someone made the comment if the Jews had juns the Nazi’s would have been stopped. Because a couple million civilian’s with a rifles could have stopped a military machine which rolled through Holland, Belgium, Norway, Denmark and Poland like a bowling ball through paper mache pins. Those few jews could have stopped what took several years of all out war by most of the worlds professional armies. Ya, grasping for anything to justify your view much?
Now to the most reasonable of the arguments, our Constitutional right to keep and bare arms. Here’s the full first amendment text from the transcript of the Bill of Rights hosted by the National Archive:
Amendment IIA well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Note that the first sentence includes the word regulated and militia. So, if you’re forming a well regulated militia, you have the right to have weapons. How many guns do you need in your militia duties? 1, 2, 3 - 40? I’m sure you would not be effective protecting the nation if you’re carying 20 rifles and pistols, you’d just be a heavy slow target Also, at the time of the writing the most advanced guns people could own were smooth barrel muzzle loading black powder muskets. I’m OK not regulating those, you can have as many as you like, but AR15 with 100+ round clips? At the very least you should need to prove you are capable of using it safe and effective and it should be tracked so if it is used in a crime it can be traced back to your ass and you can be held liable for your negligence.
I would like to go on about all the other bull shit statements like, if everyone had a gun we’d all be safer? We should arm our teachers? Maybe some of these ass holes should go live in areas of Chicago or other major cities where guns are everywhere and people are in a constant state of fear of being shot. Having a gun doesn’t protect you from someone walking up behind you and shooting you or driving by and shooting you or knocking on the door and when you open it, shooting you. Having a gun doesn’t protect you from the bad guys but the easy access to and large number of guns available does make the bad guy’s more able to kill and the likelihood of getting shot going up. That’s just statistics people, more guns, more bullets higher chance of getting shot.
Here’s a proposal for the no restrictions on guns people. We leave it as no restrictions but if a gun you purchased was used in a crime, even if you didn’t do it, you are responsible. Here’s my reasoning. You either sold or gave the gun to someone who was not responsible enough to use it safely or you didn’t take adequate steps to ensure it wouldn’t get into the hands of someone who would use it irresponsibly. Just like you can be responsible for the results if you give someone under-aged alcohol, you should be responsible if you give someone a gun who uses it irresponsibly. Do you have a problem with taking responsibility for you’re actions? Thought so, you hypocritical dick.
Evolution Simplified
This photoset should be required reading for every citizen.
Necessary
