Inspired by my coworkers being baffled at me getting up 2 and a half hours before I come in despite living 20 mins away
(Add reasons why you do or don't get up early in the tags if ya want)
Inspired by my coworkers being baffled at me getting up 2 and a half hours before I come in despite living 20 mins away
(Add reasons why you do or don't get up early in the tags if ya want)
Cleavon Little and Gene Wilder in "Blazing Saddles" (released 50 years ago today in 1974)
This too shall pass but like holy fuck
I had a dream last night that the Beatles were hosting a bake sale as a unit but they were all set up separately at their own tables trying to outdo each other and see who could sell the most items and who would make the most money so now I feel I must pose the question to the masses:
(Bonus points if you rb and give specifics in the tags lol this dream had me cracking up as soon as I woke up this morning)
I wonder from where so many Americans get the idea that voting is supposed to be some expression of your deepest, most beloved values and virtues rather than a pragmatic, political move meant to shift your country as much closer to your ideal as possible. This strikes me as another example of extreme individualism. Voting isn’t about *you*. It’s about your city, state, and/or country. It doesn’t have to feel transcendently good deep down in your bones. It just has to *do* as much good as you can do, in this particular moment in time.
Do these assholes realize that people on food stamps don’t receive unlimited money?
No they don’t. Wait until they find out most of the food stamp recipients are white…
The Food and Nutrition Act of 2008 (the Act) defines eligible food as any food or food product for home consumption and also includes seeds and plants which produce food for consumption by SNAP households. The Act precludes the following items from being purchased with SNAP benefits: alcoholic beverages, tobacco products, hot food and any food sold for on-premises consumption. Nonfood items such as pet foods, soaps, paper products, medicines and vitamins, household supplies, grooming items, and cosmetics, also are ineligible for purchase with SNAP benefits.
So according to law, people cannot get hot food with SNAP. They cannot buy soap, vitamins, medicine, shampoo, Kleenex, or toilet paper–all of which involve hygiene and health, and which most people would consider necessities–with SNAP.
Now the Greedy GOP (in the form of Chris McDaniel of Mississippi) wants to take away two of the foods that ARE allowed. Wouldn’t want poor people actually eating, would they?
You also have NO IDEA why a person is buying something with their food stamps. Maybe they’re buying that steak as a special treat for their anniversary, or that cake is for their kid’s birthday. Just because people are poor doesn’t mean they should have to live without ever having anything nice ever. That’s a shitty thing to expect of anyone, but some of these people act like it’s humane to expect people to live on a diet of rice and beans.
I’ve worked in many stores that accept ebt and the computer accepts whatever amount of their balance qualifies for their food and they have to pay the rest. You can’t buy candy or most junk food. You can’t get anything prepared. I mean you literally get the bare minimum. I had many customers come in with their ebt, that would cover like $20 of their groceries and they would have to shell out like $50 for the rest. It’s not this magical free food card like people be thinking.
Feels relevant to point out also that poverty and being poor is not a natural phenomenon. Poor people are forced to be poor and often given NO real help to escape poverty. Nobody deserve to be treated as lesser just because they’re poor. Stop treating poor people like they’re less than human because they’re poor.
At this point, I’m pretty sure Republicans believe that being a Poor is a deliberate choice they think people willingly make, and the only way to break those sinful moochers out of their hedonistic Poor lifestyle is to cause them enough PAIN. (Resemblances to other terrible social policies rightwingers believe is left as an exercise for the reader.)
Or they’re just sadists.
Can be both
yeah, the electoral college means your vote doesn't count unless you win your state. it's a terrible undemocratic bullshit system. it's not going to change before this election,* so there isn't much point in complaining about it right now.
if you hold the belief that there's no point in voting because your voice will just be downed out by a chorus of bigotry- chances are other people in your state feel the same way. and because those people are not voting, it's impossible to know how many of you there are. the reason it's important to vote EVEN WHEN YOU KNOW YOU ARE GOING TO LOSE is to make this number public.
- other members of the minority party know they aren't alone in their state. this encourages MORE people to vote in the next election
- the majority candidates are forced to divert some of their campaign resources away from swing states to secure a state they were already going to win
- the minority candidates are encouraged to spend some time campaigning in your state instead of abandoning it as a lost cause
- assuming you also vote in local elections, the minority is more likely to win representatives in the house
- who knows there might be so many of you that you fucking flip it by mistake
thousands of people are deciding, right now, that voting is worth it. some of them live in your state. there is going to be a spike in blue votes across the country. this election is going to have the youngest voter turnout in history. this is the best possible time to join them. join us.
what have you got to lose? one afternoon?
I want to remind everyone thinking their state is too red to flip that Georgia went blue in 2020. Georgia. A deep south state that has been red basically forever.
If Georgia can do it, you can too.
A groundswell of young Democratic voters could flip a US Senate seat in Texas. It could easily be the difference between keeping or losing Senate seats in Ohio, Michigan, and even Montana. It is going to be the reason why the House does or does not flip. I don’t care if you are in Mississippi, Alabama, Missouri, North Dakota, go out and vote.
I did phone banking for the Colin Allred campaign last weekend and I was sort of shocked by how many people just said with their whole chest that they don't vote.
But also, one of them kept talking to me, and after a little more chatting, admitted that he HATES Ted Cruz.
"This is a really close race," I said. "He could actually lose! You could go to the polls and just vote against Ted and he could actually lose!"
He said he'd think about it. Anyway, the statement that Texas is not a red state so much as a non-voting state was really tangibly true when I was calling people, and also, a lot of Texans really hate Ted Cruz and it's worth trying to get them out just to vote against Ted.
Many red states are red because of gerrymandering.
Enough voters turning up can beat it.
i cannot hate myself into a version of me i will love.
i cannot punish myself in any way that will unmake the past.
I've never seen anyone collect different Beatles resources all in one place, so I thought it would be nice to create a masterpost for newer or less research savvy Beatles fans looking for where to find them and learn more
Included below are Beatles movies, autobiographies, biographies, magazines, miscellaneous files, archive sites, and much more
This is by no means a comprehensive list of Beatles resources, as there is an often overwhelming amount of sources relating to and informative about the Beatles; this is simply a post to gather more important, prominent, and larger Beatle related texts and media together, as I would love for the online Beatles fan community to be more organized in its research and archive efforts
This is an extremely long post, enjoy!
If every single person who says "my vote wouldn't matter anyway" voted, then every single one of those votes would matter. Gerrymandering is not insurmountable, it's based on "likely voters". The opposing party just keeps stoking the "it's pointless" line alive because it keeps it true.
Actually, gerrymandering is especially vulnerable to sudden bursts of "unlikely" voters showing up to the polls. The whole point of gerrymandering is to spread your conservative voters thinly across the districts you let them exist in such that they juuuuuuuuuuust barely outcompete the liberal ones while packing all the other liberals into one or a couple of "dump" safe-Democrat districts.
So if you suddenly add more blue voters to the equation in a gerrymandered district, the odds become higher that the overall surge in voting swamps the amount of conservative votes "accounted" to win the district and it flips instead. The more voters you get overall, the more likely this is to happen.
Remember, gerrymandering is about distributing votes carefully to jigger the predicted distribution of votes such that the gerrymandering party (nearly always Republicans) wins a proportionately higher number of seats than would be expected if seats were apportioned based on overall voting choices within a larger geographic area.
By gerrymandering the districts, you inherently opt to trade many reasonably narrow wins for fewer practical, safer wins. Narrow wins are vulnerable to sudden unexpected surges of Democratic voters, but the GOP has historically been able to expect much more predictable turnout levels from their constituents of the vindictive and elderly, so their gamble has tended to pay off in gerrymandered regions.
For now.
I have been saying this since I was 13 years old.
OSCAR ISAAC Brioni | Fall/Winter 2024
I don’t think you’re ready to have an adult conversation about politics until you’re able to admit that there are things you love and enjoy that would not and should not exist in a just world. $8 billion dollar budget movies every other month don’t exist in a just world. New 900 GB AAA video games every year don’t exist in a just world. Next day delivery doesn’t exist in a just world. 80 different soda brands don’t exist in a just world.
All of those things come from exploitation on some level, and if you wouldn’t trade those for a world where everyone can eat and have a home no matter who they are or what they do, I don’t know what to tell you.
Man, this post makes me feel conflicted, because on the one hand, of the things listed, next-day delivery is the only one that DOES actually exist in the world today. The others are exaggerations, and while I understand the point being made, they do detract from it.
I understand—and agree with—that sentiment of, “I want slower deliveries by drivers who are paid better,” as one recent tumblr post put it. I absolutely agree with the idea that we need to produce and consume less as a culture, and that an actual substantive conversation about politics should involve willingness to relinquish the many modern luxuries that are built on exploitation.
I don’t think these are good examples of those luxuries, though.
Large budget movies are possible because consumers (and investors) are willing to pay for them. A large budget is actually a necessary component in making sure workers are being adequately compensated; the fact that they currently are often exploited by studios is a result of deliberate misallocation of resources, not anything intrinsic to the size of the production. Same thing goes with high-quality video games. As for releasing a new film/game every month/year, that’s only unsustainable because there’s only a handful of monopolistic studios doing it. In a well-regulated industry that encourages growth and competition, we could see tens, if not hundreds of studios producing big-budget films and games. And, with a well-compensated and socially-supported citizenry, consumers would have enough disposable income to support it.
Similarly, the problem with soda isn’t that we have 80 brands; it’s that we have two. And those two brands each own 800 different labels. In a healthy economy, these monopolies would be dissolved, and we could support well over 80 moderately-sized independent beverage companies producing their own sodas.
Same-day delivery, again, could be easily supported with proper allocation of resources. Currently, we have huge centralized distributors like Amazon exploiting gig-workers with slave-wages to ferry cheap mass-produced crap to people, and that’s what makes it bad, not the speed at which they do it. If instead, we had something like a super-robust USPS, with well-compensated deliverypeople working reasonable hours within a decentralized network of independent-but-cooperative suppliers, there would be absolutely no reason why you couldn’t get something delivered to you from the distro ten miles down the road within a day.
When we critique capitalism, and they respond, “Yeah, well capitalism made the cell phone you’re using!” our response shouldn’t be, “Oh shit u right,” it should be, “No, capitalism made the cell phone I’m using break after a year so I’ll buy a new one, and they use slave labor to do it while they pocket the rest.”
There are luxuries, and there are artificially-valued, mass-produced, built-to-break trash that are marketed as luxuries. But we don’t solve the problems of fast-fashion by saying, “Welp I guess I shouldn’t wear clothes.”
yeah that’s a decent rebuttal imma reblog now
one of the saddest things is when someone in your family tells you you would've loved someone who died before you were born. like my mother has told me & my best friend that we would have loved talking to her father. that me & my brothers have the same humor as our late uncle & even look like him. everyone is everywhere & nowhere & here & gone & dying & coming back. it's as though you know them through their shadow or their ghost or your own actions, but you won't ever really know. haunts me, i guess
Maybe it's because I lost a lot of family members at a young age, but I find it soothing. Long after we are gone, and long after the ones we love are gone, there is still an echo that continues.