It’s totally cool how the official White House twitter is pushing white nationalist talking points.
Y’all, the Resident Dump administration didn’t stop there – the white house also posted an article dedicated to this specific white nationalist talking point on their fucking website.
The collection is with bank transfers (IBAN) -account number: FI12 2185 1800 0014 64 -Swift/BIC: NDEAFIHH -include message “turvakeräys 2017″ in a message field (if you have one)
Death turned up in the Discworld books in order to make a joke work. That was in The Colour of Magic. Suddenly he was and, twenty-one years later, still is one of the most popular characters in the series. People ask me to forge his signature in books. Sometimes I get nice letters from people who know they’re due to meet him soon, and hope I’ve got him right. Those are the kind of letters that cause me to stare at the wall for some time.
Terry Pratchett, regarding the popularity of Death in the Discworld series. (The Art of Discworld with Paul Kidby)
In this photo, the bird’s wing acts as a diffraction grating—a surface structure with a repeating pattern of ridges or slits. The structure causes the incoming light rays to spread out, bend and split into spectral colors, producing this shimmering rainbow effect. By
So today, my cdnpoli twitter blog (@allthecdnpoli), actually got a private message from the CRTC’s twitter account. The CRTC is Canada’s telecommunications regulator, similar to the US’s FCC (though structured differently).
They noticed that a relatively large amount of responses to the CRTC came from traffic generated by this blog.
If you previously reblogged that post with instructions on how to submit comments to the CRTC, can you delete it, as it has wrong information?
The intention behind that post was good, but it was directed to the wrong proposal at the CRTC. The proposal that the vast majority of people sent their net neutrality remarks to was actually about ‘the license renewals of English language television private ownership groups’. People got this mixed up because the proposal was by Bell and Rogers (and Corus).
The CRTC have told me that they have forwarded all these responses from tumblr to the correct proposal, and so if you want to let the CRTC know what your thoughts are about Bell’s proposal you can comment at the link below:
Concerning Net neutrality, the CRTC has supported and reinforced net neutrality in Canada. In fact, the CRTC’s net neutrality framework was developed through a series of decisions confirming that service providers should treat data traffic equally (regardless of the content) to foster consumer choice, innovation and the free exchanges of ideas.
This gives me some hope that if Bell does propose what they are apparently proposing that they’ll be shot down, but lets all keep focus on this until its clear that its not a danger to net neutrality.
I’d appreciate if you could share this post, to clear up some of the misinformation going around tumblr.
Thank you.
[Image description: a screenshot from the website, showing five columns.
Column 1 shows the numbers 2017-359, 2017-359-1, 2017-359-2, and 2017-359-3.
Column 2 shows “Call for comments on the Governor in Council’s request for a report on future programming distribution models”; “2017-359-1 – New deadline for submission of comments: 1 December 2017”; 2017-359-2 – Second phase of comments"; “2017-359-3 – Extension to the deadline to file comments”.
Column 3 shows “12 October 2017”.
Column 4 shows “New deadline – Second phase of comments”, “13 February 2018”, and a blue “Submit” button.
Column 5 shows a series of links titled “Commission Letter 20 November 2017”, “Commission Letter 7 December 2017”, “Interventions”, “Interventions Phase 2”, “Procedural Letter 26 October 2017”, “Procedural Letter 30 October 2017”, “Procedural requests”, “Reference document”.]
i’m always torn about nature docs bc like … theyre fun! I learn things! i like them! but also, i am very aware that like… theyre really 85% to entertain and 15% to educate, if that. and i dont mind SO much when its… you know. the narrator making it seem like the lioness and her cubs, the antelope, etc, are characters in a story. when they make the doc have a narrative arc. because youre presenting this to PEOPLE, and people find that more interesting/easier to absorb, because of how our brains work! which is cool. what i feel uncomfortable about is when evolution is characterized as a force
like yes you can say that it’s a stylistic choice; evolution is just one more character in this TRAGICOMEDY THAT IS LIVING CREATURES or whatever. but when you are saying things like, you know, “but evolution has given these creatures a new weapon: teeth” and you keep consistently characterizing it this way, like evolution is a force which grants life forms Adaptations, like it’s got something specific in mind, some accomplishment – heck, even when you say “but this creature is clever – it’s evolved [adaptation] to deal with [phenomenon]!!” i think that… feeds something that is not great about our society
i think probably the majority of people who casually believe evolution exists conceptualize it as a force. most people unthinkingly think of it as something thats ‘weeding out’ ‘defective’ individuals/species/etc. i think thats a big problem. like. a HUGE problem. i think if people cannot be made to understand just how fucking arbitrary and random and literally unpredictable this shit is… i just think it hurts us. as… people? i think even if people are not using the language of social darwinism, if they are positioning certain species or traits or individuals as “more evolved” etc. that buys into so much… awful shit… i dont even want to say ‘ableism’ or ‘eugenics’ because yes those things obviously but i feel like it’s bigger than that i feel like its about how we conceptualize ourselves and the world at the most basic level
accepting that there is no perfect model of what a living organism SHOULD be like, no goal, no endpoint, no traits that make a species better than another species… means accepting that there is no such thing as defectiveness. being defective is being imperfect, flawed, malfunctioning – not being what the thing is SUPPOSED to be like. if we look at evolution as what it is it’s easy to see that there IS no “supposed to”. when most people think about evolution, i think, we are thinking really about some kind of glorified Science version of intelligent design. & i think thats really harmful. like way more harmful than people who are aware that theyre talking about intelligent design! when you think you are being The Most Logic and Science and This Is How It Works In Nature Therefore It Is Best… im not sure im describing this right because i am having a hard time communicating how viscerally terrifying i think this attitude is
so much is arbitrary. nature isnt a force. evolution isnt a force. adaptations arent weapons in an arsenal. this is not an active thing. it’s a passive thing. and more importantly there is no moral value in an organism having certain adaptations or not. a species going extinct bc their predators have evolved some trait that makes them impossible to escape isn’t one species “winning”, the species which has gone extinct has not “lost”, evolution and nature are not your fucking fantasy football league
everything, everything, EVERYTHING is arbitrary & i know that can be a scary concept to face but i actually take a lot of comfort in it. i am just an organism. whether or not i manage to pass on my genes is not a triumph or a failure, it’s just an event. events happen all the time to every living thing that exists. there is not a value attached to them. they just are.
In 1935, President Franklin D. Roosevelt signed into law the great Social Security program. It was designed to give workers an income after retirement.
Today, it’s not so great. The tiny Social Security increase that will be bestowed on retirees and the elderly in January is a cruel fraud perpetrated by the government. That’s because increases in Medicare Part B and Part D insurance premiums will negate all of the Social Security 2% cost of living increase for many recipients. Instead of staying even, we’ll fall behind.
I just got my annual benefits letter from Social Security. It says I will get $24 a month more next year. However, after the Medicare premium increases, my new Social Security check will be $3.40 a month less than the one I currently get. (The government deducts Medicare premiums from Social Security checks.)
The just-announced 2.0% cost-of-living increase (COLA) for Social Security beneficiaries is woefully inadequate. The 2018 COLA translates into a paltry $27 a month for the average recipient, barely enough for a prescription co-pay, a tank of gas, or a bag of groceries.
Urocyon's Jaunts 2.0 
You must be logged in to post a comment.