Politics was no longer my thing.
I gave up on it a long while back when I realized the problems we are facing.
I’m not much of a quitter, as much as a I am somewhat uncaring about many things.
But as of late, with crazy Mitt Romney, I thought Obama had it this time.
I’m guessing we’re all thinking Obama’s got this election, so we’re not putting in our effort to ensure his next presidency. People, this is serious. This is no longer about Democrats versus Republicans. It’s about time you leave that stuff behind you, because this time, Liberal, Conservative, Democrat or Republican- it doesn’t matter. It’s Obama vs. Romney, and Romney is the definition of what we consider a cruel selfish individual. We need to vote. I wouldn’t be doing this is this wasn’t becoming a pretty serious deal…
“It’s easy to think Obama has this election in the bag, but the cold reality is that it could go either way. I really don’t want this to come down to a half-dozen crotchety quilters in a swing state. If this chart surprises you too, it might be time to talk to all your friends about voting and getting involved.
I can’t stress this enough: this is not going to be an easy race to win, and it’s going to REQUIRE your help. (original source)”
Remember to REGISTER TO VOTE
Please reblog, share with people on FB or friends, or anyone. And remember, this time, your vote counts.
Say hello to Kulsoom Abdullah, Pakistani-American #Weightlifter currently competing in the #Olympics2012 #weightlifting (Taken with Instagram)
Whye images like this not getting more reblogs? Oh, right, because too many people are squealing about Ryan Lochte or Sam What’s-His-Face-Gymnast or Tom Daley. That’s fine. I’ve done my share, and those are some dudes. But WHY IS A SUCH A HUGE BASE OF TUMBLR FANS NOT REBLOGGING PHOTOS LIKE THIS? I went through the “olympics” tag for a good hour at a fast pace and saw nothing like this. Nothing. (Granted this isn’t from the olympics, but I couldn’t find similar images amid the mass of male gymnasts and swimmers.) THIS IS THE FIRST OLYMPICS IN WHICH EVERY NATION HAS SENT AT LEAST ONE FEMALE REPRESENTATIVE. Celebrate it, ladies. Remember it. It matters. It’s special. Gorgeous women like this one are special. Not just ones in sporty bikini bottoms playing beach volleyball. They are special too. But they’re not the only ones. Show off these female athletes of all shapes, sizes, colors, orientations, and nationalities. They deserve it. They earned it.
Ur so right on this…. Thank you so much!!! & If ur a non-muslim Double Thanks to U!!! :D:D
However you feel about Anne, bravo to her for this take down.
Watch interviews with her and with ScarJo about their comic book films. Watch how they always get questions about their bodies and clothing and diets and blah blah blah fucking blah. Watch as the male cast members do not get the same treatment.
Because apparently all we care about when it comes to actresses are their bodies and not, ya know, their acting.
Seriously, she and Scarjo have just taken the interviewers on on this issue. Well done, well done.
Isn’t this the same interviewer who asked Scarlett Johansson about her underwear?
OMG Scarlett’s interviewer looked just like this guy. I bet they’re the same. Why do they keep letting this douchenozzle near the actresses?
This just makes me love Hathaway even more.
Yes! I think it IS that same guy! Fucking bravo. Good for her! Dude, FUCK OFF! This is the epitome of Shit!Sexist!Journalism and it needs to die in a fire. Fuck off, asshole. >:(
He didn’t save *his* mother. He saved Patricia Legarreta the woman who was abandoned in the theater by her boyfriend with their two kids & somehow the media wants to talk about the white dude’s cowardice, more than the black kid’s bravery.
Oh of course.
I am reblogging this for the heroic act made by Jarrell. Not for the black vs white issue that always seems to pop up during news stories like this. Let’s focus on the fact that he risked his life to save theirs. Way to be a hero Jarrell!
How about we focus on the fact that Jarrell’s race is a factor in why he’s less likely to get feted for his heroism & more likely to be ignored? Because that’s part of this story & you don’t get to erase it from the narrative just because reality makes you uncomfortable.
yes yes yes yes
Fuck your “Let’s not take race into account, let’s just be glad he’s a hero!”
How about we focus on both for a radical change of pace.
I like how they said “always seems to pop up” like it somehow goes away when a news story dies down.
sorry, kiddo. racism doesn’t go away when you turn off the TV.
well, for you it probably does.
Fucking all of this^we white people just HATE it when race is brought up to us. We don’t like to break our oblivious state of mind. This poor kid would have been given the FUCKING MOON if he were white.
lol forever at “possible racial motive”
let’s see how many people give a fuck
Need this again for further racism context in light of the OTHER horrific shooting that WILL get the fuck ton of coverage. BOTH SHOOTINGS MATTER! I’m talking about how ONE is treated OVER the OTHER. My thoughts are with all who are effected by both events. NO human being deserves these horrific acts. The point is our UTTER lack of empathy for POC. We don’t give a fuck until we white people are involved. Fuck, we can’t be bothered to call the sick white fucks out FOR WHAT THEY ARE when THEY murder people, no matter how many times. Keep churning that white supremacy America. You wouldn’t be you if you didn’t.
(via The New York Post)
Could we stop using “terrorist” to refer to anyone who kills a lot of people? There’s a difference between politically-motivated violence (Anders Breivik and Timothy McVeigh) and a crazy man going on a fucking killing spree (James Holmes, Seung-Hui Cho).
Terrorism is a specific kind of violence, and not simply a measure of scale.
If it turns out this guy has some political manifesto, then we can start throwing the word terrorist around, okay? As far as we know right now he’s just a crazy asshole.
Killed 12 people, wounded dozens of others. Victims included children. Booby-trapped his apartment. Seemed to be deliberate in the execution of his mass murder — reportedly rushing into the theater via an emergency exit, timing his attack to a part of the film when there as gunfire on the screen; deploying gas canisters before proceeding to shoot. All of this in a very public place that, absent motive, indicates he wanted the widest possible impact on the collective psyche. Sounds like terrorism to me.
I don’t care what his motives were — and such motives would be above and beyond the result, anyway, when defining exactly what happened here. Perhaps he was just unhappy with a pizza he ordered? Who gives a fuck? This was a teroristic act, and James Holmes is a fucking murdering terrorist.
You wouldn’t be saying this if he was white.
V-tech shooter, Fort hood shooter, both Asian. LABELED AS TERRORISTS BY MEDIA.
Guy who flew his plane into a DT Austin, TX building cos he didnt wanna pay luxury taxes?????? NOT A TERRORIST! PATRIOT!
We’ve been hearing a lot about the war on women, which is real enough. But there’s also a war on the young, which is just as real even if it’s better disguised. And it’s doing immense harm, not just to the young, but to the nation’s future.
Let’s start with some advice Mitt Romney gave to college students during an appearance last week. After denouncing President Obama’s “divisiveness,” the candidate told his audience, “Take a shot, go for it, take a risk, get the education, borrow money if you have to from your parents, start a business.”
The first thing you notice here is, of course, the Romney touch — the distinctive lack of empathy for those who weren’t born into affluent families, who can’t rely on the Bank of Mom and Dad to finance their ambitions. But the rest of the remark is just as bad in its own way.
I mean, “get the education”? And pay for it how? Tuition at public colleges and universities has soared, in part thanks to sharp reductions in state aid. Mr. Romney isn’t proposing anything that would fix that; he is, however, a strong supporter of the Ryan budget plan, which would drastically cut federal student aid, causing roughly a million students to lose their Pell grants.
So how, exactly, are young people from cash-strapped families supposed to “get the education”? Back in March Mr. Romney had the answer: Find the college “that has a little lower price where you can get a good education.” Good luck with that. But I guess it’s divisive to point out that Mr. Romney’s prescriptions are useless for Americans who weren’t born with his advantages.
… What should we do to help America’s young? Basically, the opposite of what Mr. Romney and his friends want. We should be expanding student aid, not slashing it. And we should reverse the de facto austerity policies that are holding back the U.S. economy — the unprecedented cutbacks at the state and local level, which have been hitting education especially hard.
Yes, such a policy reversal would cost money. But refusing to spend that money is foolish and shortsighted even in purely fiscal terms. Remember, the young aren’t just America’s future; they’re the future of the tax base, too.
A mind is a terrible thing to waste; wasting the minds of a whole generation is even more terrible. Let’s stop doing it.
Go read the whole damned thing.
I am also getting the impression that, while they expected a movie with a female protagonist, a lot of the reviewers didn’t actually expect a female-centered movie in the way Brave turned out to be - not just focused on a woman, but focused on a particularly female relationship. The whole movie is about women and their emotions and the delicate politics of mothers and daughters, and I think quite a few reviewers expected another adventure film, just with a genderswap. Not to say that that sort of movie isn’t important and needed - we need to see girls having the sorts of adventures that Remy and Carl and all of Pixar’s other male characters have - but at the same time the fact that Pixar made a great movie which is really about a specifically female experience gives me hope. They have proven that they can write women who are whole people and have complicated experiences and relationships and inner lives, and that they can do this with multiple types of women, and that they can put several female characters in a story without resorting to cliches of bitchy infighting or shallow friendship or stupid drama over men.
Of course, now that Pixar’s proven that they’re capable of all this, I expect to see a lot more central female characters from them in the next several years. Brave is wonderful, but it’s not a step forward if they immediately take two steps back and make more male buddy movies.
I FUCKING HATE FUCKING CRITICS.
THIS IS WHY WE CAN’T HAVE NICE THINGS.
Glee And Women: Rachel Barbra Berry:
It’s hard to discuss Rachel Berry, because there are so many different versions of her it’s hard to pinpoint just who she actually is – In Season 1 she was an ambitious young woman who often let her own wants blindly lead all her decisions, regardless of how her actions and behaviour would affect others, but over this Season she also grew, she became much more of a teamplayer, a pleasant and kind young woman, who starting thinking about others just as much as she thought about herself.
But then there’s Season 2 Rachel, a ridiculously over the top walking crazy woman you’d be forgiven for mistaking as a cartoon character – Gone was her development from Season 1 and in its place a borderline insane annoyance all of us wanted to slap, thankfully Quinn took care of that for us.
And then we have Season 3, the age of Rachel Hudson – The spineless whiner who had to have every other character constantly make decisions for her, make her mind up for her, convince her of what she should want and should be doing, and in general reducing her to nothing more than a reactionary character, seemingly unable to do, think or feel anything for herself.
It’s difficult because like a lot of the show, Rachel works on the principle of tell don’t show, we see one version of Rachel and yet we’re told to see her as something entirely different – And it just does not work. You can’t show us Rachel badmouthing Quinn behind her back and then tell us that Rachel’s a great friend who really cares about her, you can’t show us Rachel pursuing Finn when she knows he’s already in a relationship with someone else and then tell us that we’re supposed to view Rachel as the victim and the unfairly treated one in the situation – It doesn’t work, but just like the tone and content of the show, Glee thinks that with Rachel they can have their cake and eat it to, they can show her doing and saying terrible things, but so long as they tell us she’s the good guy and the victim we’ll sympathise with her unconditionally – Well I’m sorry, but it doesn’t work that way.
We saw in Season 1 that while Rachel could get very selfish, manipulative and unpleasant, she was still a good person deep down, with the ability to be good without something benefiting her being the incentive behind her kindness. We saw that she was a complicated character with multiple layers to be explored, a character who could learn and grow, who could still pursue her dreams and carry out her ambitions without having to do so at the expense of others, that while unpleasant and questionable she could still be a good person with the ability to change for the better, for good.
This is sadly something which was completely abandoned by the start of the second season, suddenly Rachel had to learn the exact same lessons, over and over and over again, without ever learning or changing, suddenly her growth and development from Season 1 was completely regressed, she was manipulative, self-centred, cruel, unpleasant and unsympathetic, and yet this time there was no change, there wasn’t even a hint that deep down she was a better person anymore, she was not a nice, kind or sympathetic, complicated character anymore, there were no layers to peel back, no depth, nothing – Just this new Rachel, the not so improved, not so enjoyable and not so rootable or sympathetic. And it’s a good example of character assassination on this show – By letting Rachel develop, learn and change in Season 1 they had also made it more difficult to write in her over the top diva moments without having to sacrifice all her development, it would have been difficult to do, but they had managed it in the second half of Season 1, so surely they could do it again? Well no, they didn’t even try, they just regressed all her character development, because apparently the comedy gold of Rachel’s atrocious behaviour just couldn’t be sacrificed in favour of good character development and writing.
And that raises an interesting question – Which version of Rachel is ultimately worse? The Season 2 Rachel who had to be cut down and regressed in order to work, but who at least controlled and motivated her own actions, or Rachel Hudson from Season 3? The barely recognisable character who’s every decision, every action, every motive and every single step of her journey is made for her?
Just look at Rachel in Season 3:
Rachel decides not to give up on her dreams and future not because of her own ambition and confidence, but because Kurt talks her out of it, he gives her a confidence boost and has to remind her of what she wants from life.
Rachel decides to take a big step in her relationship with Finn by having sex with him, not because she wants to or feels ready, but first because Artie convinces her that she needs to, and then ultimately because Finn’s needs compel her to.
Rachel accepts Finn’s marriage proposal, not because she feels like it’s the right decision for the both of them or because she feels ready, but because her NYADA letter has not arrived yet, and therefore she feels she has nothing in her life or foreseeable future.
Rachel does not end up marrying Finn, not because she admitted that she didn’t feel ready or confident about the decision, not because she realised it was a mistake and too soon, but because Quinn was involved in an accident on her way to the wedding.
When Rachel decides to put Finn before her dreams, it is Finn’s decision to go to New York in order to be an actor which resolves the situation, not Rachel herself, not her dreams or wants, but Finn’s.
After Rachel choked in her NYADA audition and failed to reach Carmen in an attempt to achieve a second chance, it’s Tina who has to tell Rachel where Carmen is, to convince her to go see Carmen in person, and who ultimately makes Rachel’s case for her, Rachel sits back and lets what happened happen, she was ready to leave with her tail between her legs when Carmen rightfully questioned why Rachel believed herself to be more important than others with the exact same dreams and ambition, where it not for Tina, Rachel would have left without question and Carmen wouldn’t have been convinced to come see her at Nationals, which is why she was ultimately accepted into NYADA.
When Rachel is once again about to give up on her dreams because Kurt and Finn won’t be going to New York with her, it’s Finn who makes the decision for her, he plots with her fathers behind her back, he applies for the army so she can’t follow him, takes her to the train station, and practically forces a hysterical and crying Rachel onto the train and off to New York.
So we must ask, which is worse? The abhorrent Rachel of Season 2 because she at least motivated, decided upon and made all her own decisions and actions occur, or the Rachel of Season 3, who while mellowed out had to have everything decided for her by others, the seemingly spineless girl who the writers stripped all dignity from? Is it easier or more bearable to endure the horrid Rachel from Season 2 simply because she was still able to carve her own way in the world, or to put up with the pathetic excuse from Season 3 simply because she was a little less abrasive and unpleasant? It’s a hard question to answer, and it’s a question that shouldn’t have had to be asked, if only the writers had bothered to maintain her development and growth from Season 1.
Rachel Berry is difficult for me to talk about, because I’m overwhelmingly depressed at the squander of potential she represents, both for just her character and the show in general – Rachel had potential, the potential to be one of the most likeable, intriguing and rootable characters of the show, we were treated to watching this young woman grow from being closed off from everyone else because of her selfish actions and refusal to work as part of a group, to a teamplayer who was willing to open up and let others in, to earn the friendship and trust of others, while still remaining focused and dedicated to achieving her dreams. But now what do we have? A collection of unpleasant memories leaving us to wonder why we even liked this character in the first place.
The writers did Rachel Berry a great disservice, and it’s still one of the hardest things to forgive them for.
Year of the Archers: Katniss Everdeen - The Hunger Games, Hawkeye - The Avengers, Legolas - The Hobbit, Mireda - Brave, Connor Kenway - Assassin’s Creed III
excuse you you are missing someone
See if you’re going to bring up The Hobbit, you might want to include Kili.
in the movie I saw, Black Widow pretty much saved the day. yeah, everyone had their time to shine but she handled all kinds of business and if she weren’t there, they would have been up shit’s creek.
just because you, Beardy McNeckbeard, were too busy staring at her catsuit spanking it into your popcorn to get that, doesn’t mean the rest of us weren’t paying attention to what she was actually doing in the movie.
George R. R. Martin, on reviewing the Avengers. [SOURCE]
Okay, George, I do totally agree with your earlier assessment of Hawkeye. I’ll give you that he didn’t have enough screentime to get proper development. But no. I can’t even let you finish, there will be no finishing of the Kanye West meme here. WERE WE WATCHING THE SAME FILM?
I don’t want to automatically fall back on the “you think she’s just eye candy, because you’re a male” argument, because that’s unfair. Fuck, you write some really damned decent females yourself (all things considered). But honestly? No. No, we were not watching the same film.
“JUST THERE?” Uh, did you not see any of her development at all, or were you just waiting for the men to come in and steal the show? This is the same character who is the only one to get decent information when everyone else is too busy arguing over stupid personal bullshit. This is the same character who has a conversation with Loki and doesn’t lose her cool. This is the same character jumping onto alien warcraft and beating these assholes at their own game. This is the same character saving the motherfucking day by racing off to beat Loki while all the boys are too busy playing house with the alien army.
Don’t tell me she was just there. That she was just eye candy. She was one of the most important motherfucking characters in the entire film, and it saddens me when reviews degrade Johansson’s performance simply because she isn’t one of the guys. And why do all of these reviews seem to come from long time comics fans, 90% of the time all male? You do realize that the Marvel Cinematic Universe is a canon into itself and doesn’t actually follow the comics the way you’re claiming it should? That characters were changed and updated to fit with current audiences and currently relevant plots? Laying this all on Black Widow’s origins not adding up right is just plain silly at this point in the MCU game. (A game you don’t seem to be playing well, G.R.R.M.)
Flawless bitch carried that goddamn film. Period.
“Flawless bitch carried that goddamn film. Period.” YEP.
Is this a fucking joke? I’m tired of this bullshit that because an actress is fucking drop-dead gorgeous it must mean her character is simply there to to be eye candy. Fuck you. Don’t be such a misogynistic fuck. SHE CLOSED THE FUCKING PORTAL. SHE LITERALLY BEAT THE LOKI OUT OF CLINT.
I am suddenly proud of the fact that my 26-year-old red-blooded heterosexual brother, while finding Black Widow hot, would be the first one in line to call that “just eye candy” bullshit what it is.
I’m still trying to figure out what movie he watched. Because it wasn’t the one that was actually on the screen. Then again he seems to believe strong female characters need to be abused & starved to exist so…
apparently he was too busy watching the movie one handed to actually pay attention
Dear Toonami fans, as many of you have probably heard Toonami is back. However, many of you probably haven’t seen the schedule yet, and those of you who have are probably highly disappointed by the lack of Toonami shows. I suspect that many of you don’t plan on watching Toonami because of this, however DO NOT LET THIS STOP YOU FROM WATCHING. CN didn’t give much money to the people who brought Toonami back and thus they lacked the money to repurchase the rights to their classic shows like DBZ, Gundam, and Sailor Moon. However, if we watch Toonami every Saturday and prove that it can bring in good ratings, CN will probably give Toonami more money, then they can buy a few of the shows we remember. If we don’t watch then Toonami might be cancelled again.
Don’t be discouraged, this is only the first step to something that could be much bigger. Stay gold.
So no DBZ? Well I hope for the future…