i have these glasses now!
(Source: twenty-flight-rock, via fionacarmel)
St Andrews University Town and Golf Course in Scotland
Ms. Jamie Keiles: i have 14-ish days to fill in Europe…. where are some good places to... -
if u don’t still hate me for puking all over your basement and ruining your party (which would be understandable) you’re welcome to stay with Urte and I in Edinburgh. It looks like Urte will be staying with me for a bit in the beginning of the year (Sept. 14th+), and I have two couches in my new flat that are perfect for crashing on.
i have 14-ish days to fill in Europe…. where are some good places to visit? Coming from Iceland and ending in Paris, so geographically I’m fairly flexible.
if you can offer me a place to stay it will increase the odds 1000% that i will come to your nation, btw.
fairly sure i’m going to be in…
(Source: pewpewinc, via fuckyeah1990s)
Tonight, Urte and I met a guy studying to be a doctor, who was the friend of a friend.
The guy, the friend, Urte, and I were all going to the same place, so we agreed to share a cab.
At the conclusion of the ride, when I attempted to pay the appropriate share, the guy volunteered to pay it for the group, and, despite my protests, insisted.
We then split from the guy studying to be a doctor. The friend told us that he always volunteers to pay for things - he is the son of the owner of an airline (one you’ve heard of).
Just thought that was sort of cool. Some friends have told me of their run-ins with the uber-rich and famous at college, and, until now, I hadn’t had one.
roseredfingers asked: Greenberg!
roseredfingers?
STFU, Conservatives: It passed. -
Here is a good list of the consequences of discrimination BOTH to those who identify as LGBT+ and those who don’t. I’ve bolded the parts about those who don’t, because I think if you’re reading my page, you probably already support marriage equality and oppose discrimination based on sexual orientation.
After all the campaigning, all the analysis, all the Facebook groups, and tweets, and tumbles, Amendment One passed. This isn’t about banning gay marriage in North Carolina, because gay marriage, as it has been said many times before, is already banned here. To be honest, I’m not quite sure what this amendment was about. It’s language is dramatically stark: the only domestic union that will be recognized in the state of North Carolina is marriage between one man and one woman. That means children of unmarried parents who rely on one parent for health insurance will no longer be covered. It means unmarried victims of domestic assault will no longer be able to press domestic assault charges on their partner, since that would involve the government recognizing their union.
The overall feeling right now is not anger. It is not sadness. It’s shame. Liberal voters in this state have worked hard to make us an anomaly in the south. We’re a key battleground state because we’re the only state below the Mason Dixon line (besides Florida) that isn’t a foregone conclusion for the GOP. We’re hosting the DNC. Charlotte and Raleigh are the two fastest growing cities in the country. Yet, for all our progress, in one day it seems as if we’re just tossed back into a pile with all the other ass backwards states in the South.
We are ashamed of this. We are ashamed of what it does to our reputation as a state. We are ashamed of what it does to children, women, and of course, the message it sends about how we treat the LGBTQ community in North Carolina.
Sad day, man. We’re all a bit bummed.
AP has called the vote on North Carolina’s Amendment 1 proposal, which would amend the state’s constitution to ban same-sex marriage, in favor of the proposal .
Currently, there are 33 of 100 counties reporting, and the vote totals stand at 61% in favor 38% against.
The North Carolina legislature is controlled by Republicans after the 2010 elections for the first time in 140 years. This amendment passes, after an active campaign against it, including the intervention of Bill Clinton in the form of robo-calling.
Turnout was higher than in the 2008 primary between Obama and Hillary Clinton, which I find odd, given who voted. 879,729 voted in the Republican Presidential Primary, and 868,969 voted in the Democratic. Neither (at this point) are particularly contested, with Romney having wrapped up the nomination, so I think we can rule out a victory for the Pro Amendment 1 campaign based on extraordinary Republican turnout in the Primary.
In fact, because the turnout was so similar for the two primaries, wouldn’t that suggest that an extraordinary number of Democrats voted for Amendment 1 as well? That says a lot about the nature of Southern Democrats, but, more importantly, does it say that they won’t support a President who has a record of extending civil liberties to LGBT+ citizens?
Additionally, I think this is good justification for my argument about the political brilliance of Joe Biden’s endorsement of marriage equality. Southern Democrats in swing states Florida and North Carolina will (hopefully) still vote for Obama, despite his supportive policies towards the LGBT+ community, because of his perceived moderate stance on marriage equality, a position now given stark contrast by his Vice President.
Me, looking at a photo of a facebook page for the University of Glasgow’s town cat while Urte is nodding off: “This cat has beautiful paws. Do you like cat paws?”
Urte, who has been sleeping only for a few minutes, and is thus not sleeping deeply: “Yes”
Me: “What do you like about cat paws?”
Urte: “Soft.”
(about two minutes of silence pass)
Urte: “Silky”
Me: “Hm?”
Urte: “Cat paws.”
“America needs an honest discourse with itself. It’s like the greatest country in the world by default. But, we could be the greatest country that ever existed if we were just honest about who we are, what we are, where we wanna go. Things like racism are institutionalized, it’s systematic. You might not know any bigots, you feel like, ‘well, I don’t hate black people so I’m not a racist’ but you benefit from racism, just by the merit of the color of your skin. There’s opportunities that you have, you’re privileged in ways that you may not even realized because you haven’t been deprived in certain ways. We need to talk about these things in order for them to change.” —
Dave Chappelle on Inside the Actors Studio (via lucy-vanpelt)
Dave…come back. Please.
(via trill-scott)
(Source: beaucoupshade, via inothernews)
First, this is great news. Love ya, Joe.
Second, it’s brilliant politics.
Most of the commentators I’ve read seem to think that this was an accident, one of Biden’s famous gaffes (links to a characteristically judgemental New Yorker article which argues just that). I highly doubt it, and I think it would be ill advised to assume incompetence on the part of the Vice President or the President’s political/communications team.
I bet that the President was getting some serious pressure from Equal Marriage/LGBT+ Advocacy groups who wanted him to announce his support for equal marriage in this campaign. I bet that they went so far as to threaten to withdraw their increasingly important financial support and clout.
What is the President’s political/communications team’s response? Have Joe endorse equal marriage. Brilliant.
It keeps the President from having to take the bullet with middle Americans who are still, sadly, bigoted enough that it may swing enough votes in crucial socially conservative Rust Belt states (Pennsylvania with our large population of Catholics being one), and it’s also a huge win for the left wing of the party and LGBT+ advocates who may be wavering in their support of a President who doesn’t support equal marriage.
To have the nation’s first Catholic Vice President, Joe Biden, endorse equal marriage gives it the credibility of the number two Democratic elected official (a big f***ing deal). Blue-collar religious voters, the Reagan Democrats who Obama has always had a tough time courting, trust Joe. His endorsement of equal marriage demonstrates that even a man of deep conviction in a faith whose leadership rejects marriage equality can and should take a stand for equality.
Additionally, having Joe do it takes some of the pressure off of the announcement, using his gaffe-prone-ness as an advantage. To those who dislike Joe, but who may be amenable to voting for the President, Biden’s loose talk is a reason to write it off. It also plays brilliantly to the media’s habits in reporting on the Vice President - they fall into their typical narrative of reporting on the Vice President’s “gaffes” without much regard to what the President has to say.
Finally, to those who think that this story puts the ball in the the President’s court, his spokespeople can wipe up any potential negative fallout.
For example, here’s David Axelrd’s much reported tweet. “What VP said-that all married couples should have exactly the same legal rights-is precisely POTUS’s position.”
When the media went bananas and asked if the President feels the same way, the President doesn’t have to answer directly! He can say that he supports the politically popular notion of equal rights for married couples (noticeably silent on the issue of who should determine who can and can’t marry - Obama thinks the States should), while also not directly taking a position on the comment and hurting his standing with those blue-collar religious Democrats.
The strategy is thus that the President radically minimizes his possible negative fallout with socially conservative swing voters, gives the left wing of the party and a crucial group of supporters a win, and promotes marriage equality by making it okay for the number two person in the party to support the idea.
With this precedent, how long do you think it will be until the number one leader in the Democratic party supports marriage equality? My guess is four years.
With Hollande’s win, the Financial Times is already reporting pretty standard anti-socialist narrative of capital flight in response to a leftist’s victory - in this case, from newly Socialist France to the “finance friendly” UK under the Conservative stewardship of the radically pro-City David Cameron. It’s interesting to note, though perhaps for another time and blog post, that this may mean that Sarkozy’s loss is Cameron’s gain.
These sort of stories are representative of a long standing tactic of financial power - to threaten capital flight if a leftist should get into government and promote progressive or re-distributive tax policies. However, I fear that keeping capital markets and the wealthy happy (maintaining tax incentives to remain in a certain country/region) is more and more becoming the only way for any politician or government to be both politically feasible to the middle class (perhaps more accurately described here by using the Marxian term petty bourgeoisie) as well as promote growth. It’s particularly difficult for any left of center policymakers.
This is an awfully stereotypical American thing to say (I fear it risks an unfair and incorrect comparison of EU member countries and US States), but, there was a great article on this in the Economist recently about potential capital flight from Illinois in response to the discussion of raising the corporate tax rate by the Democratically controlled state legislature. Corporations have been essentially blackmailing the legislature and Democratic Governor with the possibility of moving to neighboring states, especially Indiana, which has a more “business friendly” tax regime under Governor Mitch Daniels and a Republican state legislature, costing Illinois investment and jobs.
The same thing is happening with capital markets in the EU. Finance has been essentially blackmailing governments into regressive tax policies and fiscal austerity at risk of en masse capital flight and ever increasing borrowing costs. The next generation of leftist politicians will be tasked with emulating the success of Blair/Clinton Third-Wayers in being acceptable to the capital and financial class, while simultaneously championing policies which will fight the severe income inequality which (although being exacerbated by the “business friendly” anti-regulatory policies of the Blair/Clinton Third Wayers) is finally starting to mobilize voters in a leftward direction, as seen by the growth of the Occupy Movement, Hollande’s victory, and the recent impressive performance by Labour in the British local elections.
The most interesting thing Francois Hollande is in a position to do is to figure out how to strike this balance and lead European socialists/social democratic parties towards whatever that policy direction is, as well as provide a model to aspire to for left of center parties elsewhere (here’s looking at you USA).
this has happened to me twice. the gif is accurate.
