I'll place the moon within your heart...

razyos:

sighconic:

this conversation changed me

i found this so cute. oh my

(via off-the-wall-geek)

eisuverse:

hello-missmayhem:

cptprocrastination:

doomhamster:

belcanta:

nikkidubs:

attentiondeficitaptitude:

belcanta:

Guaranteed basic income to every citizen, whether or not they are employed to ensure their survival and that they live in a dignified, humane way, preventing poverty, illness, homelessness, reducing crime, encouraging higher education and learning vocations as well as helping society become more prosperous as a whole. 

Wow. Forget raising the minimum wage. This is much much better idea.
The minimum wage could actually drop if we had basic income.
But Americans would never go for it. Miserably slogging through 12 hour days and having businesses open 24/7 is too engrained in our culture.

"BUT WHERE WILL THE GOVERNMENT GET THE MONEY?" screamed Joe Schmoe, slamming a meaty fist onto the table and getting mouth-froth all over the front of his greying tank top. "You libt*rds all think money grows on TREES!! HAHA!""But where will people get the incentive to work?!" Mindy Bindy cried, flapping her hands in front of her face. She’d had a fear of the unemployed lollygagging about ever since she was a child and her mother told her to be afraid of the unemployed lollygagging about. "You think people should get paid for nothing? I work hard for my money!”
"But who will serve me?" grumbled Marty McMoneybags. "Who will make me feel important? Who will do my laundry and cook my food and stand in front of me wearing a plastic smile while I take out all my stress—because I do have a lot of stress, you know, being this rich is stressful—on them?” He paused and straightened out the piles of hundred dollar bills on the desk in front of him, then raised his two watery, outraged eyes up to the Heavens. “Lord, if there are no poor people, how will I know that I’m rich??”

I laughed. This is perfect! Well said!

The thing is, while I’m sure you could scrape up a few people who’d be willing to just float by on a guaranteed minimum income? For most people the choice to work would be a no-brainer. “Hmmm. I can get by on 33k a year, or I can take that part time job and make 48k… enough to move to a better apartment, maybe take the family on vacation. Sold.” Hell, most people would want to work simply because it gives one a sense of dignity and something to do with one’s time. (Speaking as someone who’s been unemployed, on extended sick leave, etc. in her time, the boredom and sense of isolation that comes with not having a job is almost as bad as the humiliation of having to depend on other people for one’s survival.)
And with this system, part-time jobs and “non-skilled” jobs would be much more readily available because nobody would need to work two or three jobs just to stay afloat!
Which would ALSO mean that employers and customers couldn’t shamelessly exploit employees the way they can today, because if losing a job weren’t necessarily a financial disaster, more people would be willing to walk out on jobs where they weren’t being treated with dignity.
And if this also applies to students (and it should) then student loans would become much less of a problem, and fewer people would flunk out of school because of having to juggle studies and work.
Far fewer people would be forced to stay with abusive partners, parents or roommates because they couldn’t afford to move out.
And the thing is, all those people who suddenly had money? They’d be spending it. They’d be getting all the stuff they can’t afford now - new clothes, books, toys, locally-produced food, car repairs - and with each purchase money would flow BACK to the government, because VAT, also income tax.
The unemployed and/or disabled wouldn’t need special support any more - which would also mean the government could fire however many admins who are currently engaged in humiliating - *cough* making sure those people aren’t getting money they don’t deserve. Same for medical benefits and pensions. And I’m no legal scholar, but I somehow imagine less financial desperation would lead to less petty crime, and hence less need for police and security everywhere?
TL;DR Doomie thinks this is a good idea, laughs at those who protest.

reblogging for more top commentary

They tried something like this out in Canada as a sort of social experiment, called Mincome. What they found was that, on the whole, people continued to work about as much as they did before. Only new mothers and teenagers worked substantially less hours. 
But wait, there’s more. Because parents were spending just a little more time at home and involved with their families, test scores increased. Because teens didn’t have to work to support their families, drop-out rates decreased. Crime rates, hospital visits, psychiatric hospitalizations and domestic abuse rates all dropped, as well. More adults pursued higher education. Those who continued to work reported more job flexibility and more opportunity to choose employment they preferred.
Basically, now you can go prove to your asshole family members that society won’t collapse without poor people for you to feel better than.

Man, I wish Malaysia would apply this as well.

eisuverse:

hello-missmayhem:

cptprocrastination:

doomhamster:

belcanta:

nikkidubs:

attentiondeficitaptitude:

belcanta:

Guaranteed basic income to every citizen, whether or not they are employed to ensure their survival and that they live in a dignified, humane way, preventing poverty, illness, homelessness, reducing crime, encouraging higher education and learning vocations as well as helping society become more prosperous as a whole. 

Wow. Forget raising the minimum wage. This is much much better idea.

The minimum wage could actually drop if we had basic income.

But Americans would never go for it. Miserably slogging through 12 hour days and having businesses open 24/7 is too engrained in our culture.

"BUT WHERE WILL THE GOVERNMENT GET THE MONEY?" screamed Joe Schmoe, slamming a meaty fist onto the table and getting mouth-froth all over the front of his greying tank top. "You libt*rds all think money grows on TREES!! HAHA!"

"But where will people get the incentive to work?!" Mindy Bindy cried, flapping her hands in front of her face. She’d had a fear of the unemployed lollygagging about ever since she was a child and her mother told her to be afraid of the unemployed lollygagging about. "You think people should get paid for nothing? I work hard for my money!”

"But who will serve me?" grumbled Marty McMoneybags. "Who will make me feel important? Who will do my laundry and cook my food and stand in front of me wearing a plastic smile while I take out all my stress—because I do have a lot of stress, you know, being this rich is stressful—on them?” He paused and straightened out the piles of hundred dollar bills on the desk in front of him, then raised his two watery, outraged eyes up to the Heavens. “Lord, if there are no poor people, how will I know that I’m rich??”

I laughed. This is perfect! Well said!

The thing is, while I’m sure you could scrape up a few people who’d be willing to just float by on a guaranteed minimum income? For most people the choice to work would be a no-brainer. “Hmmm. I can get by on 33k a year, or I can take that part time job and make 48k… enough to move to a better apartment, maybe take the family on vacation. Sold.” Hell, most people would want to work simply because it gives one a sense of dignity and something to do with one’s time. (Speaking as someone who’s been unemployed, on extended sick leave, etc. in her time, the boredom and sense of isolation that comes with not having a job is almost as bad as the humiliation of having to depend on other people for one’s survival.)

And with this system, part-time jobs and “non-skilled” jobs would be much more readily available because nobody would need to work two or three jobs just to stay afloat!

Which would ALSO mean that employers and customers couldn’t shamelessly exploit employees the way they can today, because if losing a job weren’t necessarily a financial disaster, more people would be willing to walk out on jobs where they weren’t being treated with dignity.

And if this also applies to students (and it should) then student loans would become much less of a problem, and fewer people would flunk out of school because of having to juggle studies and work.

Far fewer people would be forced to stay with abusive partners, parents or roommates because they couldn’t afford to move out.

And the thing is, all those people who suddenly had money? They’d be spending it. They’d be getting all the stuff they can’t afford now - new clothes, books, toys, locally-produced food, car repairs - and with each purchase money would flow BACK to the government, because VAT, also income tax.

The unemployed and/or disabled wouldn’t need special support any more - which would also mean the government could fire however many admins who are currently engaged in humiliating - *cough* making sure those people aren’t getting money they don’t deserve. Same for medical benefits and pensions. And I’m no legal scholar, but I somehow imagine less financial desperation would lead to less petty crime, and hence less need for police and security everywhere?

TL;DR Doomie thinks this is a good idea, laughs at those who protest.

reblogging for more top commentary

They tried something like this out in Canada as a sort of social experiment, called Mincome. What they found was that, on the whole, people continued to work about as much as they did before. Only new mothers and teenagers worked substantially less hours. 

But wait, there’s more. Because parents were spending just a little more time at home and involved with their families, test scores increased. Because teens didn’t have to work to support their families, drop-out rates decreased. Crime rates, hospital visits, psychiatric hospitalizations and domestic abuse rates all dropped, as well. More adults pursued higher education. Those who continued to work reported more job flexibility and more opportunity to choose employment they preferred.

Basically, now you can go prove to your asshole family members that society won’t collapse without poor people for you to feel better than.

Man, I wish Malaysia would apply this as well.

(via off-the-wall-geek)

alloftheveganfood:

Vegan Hearty Soup Round Up

Hearty Vegan Minestrone Soup (GF/NF/SF)

Using Leftovers to Make a Hearty Vegan Soup

Hearty White Bean & Spinach Soup with Rosemary & Garlic

Hearty Miso Soup (GF)

Hearty Chickenless Noodle Soup

Hearty Lentil, Carrot & Potato Soup

Vegan Taco Soup

theneolistickid:

Bats illuminated by lightning

theneolistickid:

Bats illuminated by lightning

(via hatersmakemeefamous)

chotronette:

Dress by www.chotronette.com

chotronette:

Dress by www.chotronette.com

(via apfel-birne)

thefrogman:

Doodle Time by Sarah Anderson [tumblr | twitter | facebook]

thefrogman:

Doodle Time by Sarah Anderson [tumblr | twitter | facebook]

(Source: sarahseeandersen)

voragot:

Frederic Edwin Church - Aurora Borealis 

voragot:

Frederic Edwin Church - Aurora Borealis 

(Source: slojnotak, via jaded-mandarin)

(Source: godzuki, via asgardian-feminist)

(Source: yodiscrepo, via afternoonsnoozebutton)

angelclark:

5-Year-Old With Autism Paints Stunning Masterpieces 

utism is a poorly-understood neurological disorder that can impair an individual’s ability to engage in various social interactions. But little 5-year-old Iris Grace in the UK is an excellent example of the unexpected gifts that autism can also grant – her exceptional focus and attention to detail have helped her create incredibly beautiful paintings that many of her fans (and buyers) have likened to Monet’s works.

Little Iris is slowly learning to speak, whereas most children have already begun to speak at least a few words by age 2. Along with speech therapy, her parents gradually introduced her to painting, which is when they discovered her amazing talent.

“We have been encouraging Iris to paint to help with speech therapy, joint attention and turn taking,” her mother, Arabella Carter-Johnson, explains on her website. “Then we realised that she is actually really talented and has an incredible concentration span of around 2 hours each time she paints. Her autism has created a style of painting which I have never seen in a child of her age, she has an understanding of colours and how they interact with each other.”

(via laterovaries)

startraveller776:

huffingtonpost:

When did doing something ‘like a girl’ become an insult?

Watch the full Always commercial that seeks to answer this question.

The part that gets me is at the end of the commercial, when they ask one of the first ladies if she had a chance to do her demonstration of “running like a girl” over again, what would she do differently and she says, “I would run like myself.” I legit cried.

(via rareandradiantmaiden)

siddharthasmama:

solarmetronome:

shaunadarling:

solarmetronome:

Based on this (x). Conclusion: they’re still fuckers. 

Or maybe daddy works all week to provide us money for food and clothes

Because daddy’s labour is arbitrarily placed at a higher value and the work he does all week is no more important or legitimate than domestic labour. The capital value of the same relative labour is dependent on the gender of the person its performed by, and the capital values of different, specific kinds of labour, are dependent on the gender of the person who usually performs them in a society. The work easily available to women is priced cheap or free, and the work women have to struggle harder to get is still worth less capital than that same work when performed by men. 
In short, daddy gets to choose what he gets to work on, and the job he gets to choose can easily generate more than enough money to feed and shelter more than one person.  In this scenario, women still have to do work, but are often forced to depend on others to support them, let alone able to consider supporting others with their labour. 
In some cases, men might actually prefer their wives to do even less in terms of domestic labour, because it will be a symbol of conspicuous leisure, which is the mark of status. Women doing no work at all only happens if daddy has so much money and power that he wants to show it to people by how he can support a family with even less work on their part. 
A society directing women to be dependent on men, who like their women that way, is definitively a patriarchy, and the division of labour between men and women continues to reinforce gender inequality even today. 
Hopefully you can see more of the repercussions of EXACTLY WHAT WAS IMPLIED IN THE ORIGINAL POST now. 

oh, please, please, please read this commentary because this person was kind enough to give y’all a free lesson on gender roles WRT  domestic work/work in a capitalist society since we, in America, live in a masculine society in terms of work and values.

siddharthasmama:

solarmetronome:

shaunadarling:

solarmetronome:

Based on this (x). Conclusion: they’re still fuckers. 

Or maybe daddy works all week to provide us money for food and clothes

Because daddy’s labour is arbitrarily placed at a higher value and the work he does all week is no more important or legitimate than domestic labour. The capital value of the same relative labour is dependent on the gender of the person its performed by, and the capital values of different, specific kinds of labour, are dependent on the gender of the person who usually performs them in a society. The work easily available to women is priced cheap or free, and the work women have to struggle harder to get is still worth less capital than that same work when performed by men. 

In short, daddy gets to choose what he gets to work on, and the job he gets to choose can easily generate more than enough money to feed and shelter more than one person.  In this scenario, women still have to do work, but are often forced to depend on others to support them, let alone able to consider supporting others with their labour. 

In some cases, men might actually prefer their wives to do even less in terms of domestic labour, because it will be a symbol of conspicuous leisure, which is the mark of status. Women doing no work at all only happens if daddy has so much money and power that he wants to show it to people by how he can support a family with even less work on their part.

A society directing women to be dependent on men, who like their women that way, is definitively a patriarchy, and the division of labour between men and women continues to reinforce gender inequality even today. 

Hopefully you can see more of the repercussions of EXACTLY WHAT WAS IMPLIED IN THE ORIGINAL POST now. 

oh, please, please, please read this commentary because this person was kind enough to give y’all a free lesson on gender roles WRT  domestic work/work in a capitalist society since we, in America, live in a masculine society in terms of work and values.

(via rareandradiantmaiden)

(Source: sunsuhage, via off-the-wall-geek)

(Source: kimitachi, via unsuccessfulmetalbenders)

thedemon-hauntedworld:

SH2-64 Credit: Adam Block/Mount Lemmon SkyCenter/University of Arizona

thedemon-hauntedworld:

SH2-64
Credit: Adam Block/Mount Lemmon SkyCenter/University of Arizona

(via off-the-wall-geek)