10 Things I Hate About Parks And Recreation
  1. I hate you so much it makes me sick.
  2. I hate the way you’re always right;
  3. I hate it when you lie.
  4. I hate it when you make me laugh;
  5. Even worse when you make me cry.
  6. I hate it when you’re not around
  7. And the fact that you didn’t call.
  8. But mostly I hate the way I don’t hate you —
  9. Not even close, not even a little bit, not even at all.
  10. I wasn’t crazy about how Ann left

yellowredpear asked:

hello, i was just wondering, how do people know that haru made the decision to go to Tokyo? Is it implied or... I just think i might have missed it in the anime!!

Hi! Thanks for writing in! This is… an interesting question because I’ve never even considered that it could be ambiguous, but when I looked back on it, yeah - it’s not explicitly stated within the show though it’s fairly intuitive to infer :)

So, from the show itself: we can tell from the ending of S2E13, when we see their lives post-high school. Here’s the start of the sequence:

This is clearly Tokyo, identifiable from Tokyo Tower and the general landscape, and also from the following scene where we see Makoto in lecture, which confirms that we are in Tokyo because we know for a fact that Makoto went to a university in Tokyo.

The next shot is of Haru in the water:

Followed immediately by Haru meeting Makoto for dinner:

From the order of these shots, and the fact that Makoto is wearing the same outfit we saw him wear in lecture, and Haru is wearing his sports jacket, we can safely deduce that this dinner is taking place in Tokyo in an immediate and chronological sequence from the prior two shots (i.e. there hasn’t been some crazy time-skip or location-skip or anything). Therefore, it also makes sense to conclude that Haru is based in Tokyo, where he attends university and training.

If you look outside of the show, there have also been numerous interviews in magazines where the show director and writer have confirmed that Haru is in Tokyo. Here’s one (I can’t find any others right now but I’ve definitely seen them).

Hope that clarifies!

Obamacare Repeal Not That Easy Republicans!

Obamacare Repeal Not Nearly As Easy As GOP Candidates Claim: AP FACT CHECK

WASHINGTON — To hear some Republican presidential candidates tell it, the president’s pen is a magic wand that can make “Obamacare” vanish in one day and sweep in cheaper health care, economic growth and lots of jobs in businesses freed from the health care law’s heavy hand.

But there is no such fairy dust in Washington.

Across the board, the contenders pledge to repeal the health law they denigrate as “Obamacare.” In doing so, some are more realistic than others about what they can achieve and how fast.

The Republican case against the law comes with a dose of myth-making that may raise false hopes among voters who wish it could, in fact, simply go “poof.” If the overhaul is to fall, it won’t happen overnight with a new GOP administration. Any dismantling promises to be just as much of a slog as was its creation.

Mitt Romney has been the most persistent in claiming that as president, he would free states from the law’s requirements with an executive order on his first day in charge, even though he would have no authority to do so. Rick Perry has held out the prospect of lower health insurance premiums once the law is gone, citing research that actually tells a mostly different story.

Herman Cain would like to turn repeal into a birthday present of sorts. He says if Congress moves fast enough he’d sign the repeal March 23, 2013 – his son’s birthday and the third anniversary of the law’s signing.

All place the law’s repeal as a chief component of their plans to grow the economy and jobs, rightly noting the overhaul’s myriad regulations but overselling the ability of one act of legislative subtraction to lift all boats.

A look at some of the claims in the Republican campaign and how they compare with the facts:

ROMNEY: “One thing I’d do on Day One if I’m elected president is direct my secretary of health and human services to put an executive order granting a waiver from Obamacare to all 50 states. It is bad law. It will not work. And I’ll get that done on Day One.” – Claim in Sept. 7 debate, which he echoed in most other debates.

PERRY: “And I’ll promise you, on Day One, as the president of the United States, that executive order will be signed and Obamacare will be wiped out as much as it can be.” – Sept. 7 debate.

CAIN: “I’m going to un-pass it on my son’s birthday.” – Nov. 2 forum with the GOP’s Congressional Health Care Caucus.

MICHELE BACHMANN: “With all due respect … issuing an executive order will not overturn this massive law.” – Sept. 7 debate.

THE FACTS: Bachmann is right, and it’s not the first time she corrected her rivals on the matter.

A president cannot overturn a law with an executive order. Moreover, the health law lays out an onerous process for letting individual states off the hook from its requirements; that process cannot begin until 2017.

For a state to be granted a waiver, it must show that it will provide coverage that is at least as comprehensive and affordable as under the federal law. Also, a state has to insure a comparable number of its residents, and its plan must not add to the federal deficit by shifting costs to Washington. Finally, a state has to enact its own health law setting up the system envisioned in its waiver request.

Romney’s assertion also implies that all states would want to get out of the health care law. That’s a doubtful proposition for Democratic-leaning states.

Cain recognizes that for the law to be repealed, Congress must act. But presidents don’t set the congressional calendar, and even if Republicans can secure a 60-vote majority that gives them control of the Senate, the train of legislation seldom runs on schedule.


ROMNEY: “On Day One, granting a waiver to all 50 states doesn’t stop in its tracks entirely Obamacare. That’s why I also say we have to repeal Obamacare, and I will do that on Day Two with a reconciliation bill, because, as you know, it was passed by reconciliation, 51 votes. We can get rid of it with 51 votes.” – Oct. 11 debate.

THE FACTS: This is a strategy to undermine the law by starving it of money. Its only real chance is if Republicans win congressional majorities as well as the presidency or at the very least a rash of improbable Democratic defections in Congress.

Although not a single-day project, it represents one threat to Obama’s law, if one with political risk and tough odds. Some core parts of the law are not dependent on annual budgeting.

Going beyond the budget process to repeal the law in full is an even steeper climb. It would require a larger Republican congressional majority to move forward and to clinch 60 votes in the Senate – all this as the law increasingly takes root in the nation’s medical and insurance system.

The law extends coverage to uninsured citizens and legal immigrants by providing tax credits to help middle-class households buy a policy and by expanding Medicaid for low-income people. It would require almost all people to carry health insurance, either through an employer, a government program or by individual purchase. It would set up health insurance markets in every state to make it easier for individuals and small business to buy coverage. It’s financed through tax increases and Medicare cuts.


PERRY: “According to CBO’s own calculations, repealing Obamacare will reduce the cost of health insurance premiums and reduce federal spending on health care.” – His economic plan.

THE FACTS: No one can be sure what would happen with premiums absent the health care law, but Perry’s use of a Congressional Budget Office analysis was selective, at best.

The nonpartisan congressional accountants forecast that repeal of the law would raise premiums for people who get coverage from large-employer plans, not lower them, and that premiums could go either way for small-employer plans. About half the population is covered by such work-based insurance.

The CBO says repeal of the law probably would result in lower premiums in the individual insurance market, which covers about 4 percent of the population.

But there are important caveats. Many policyholders would probably end up paying more because they would not get the insurance subsidies provided under the law, the analysis says.

Individual insurance policies on average would provide fewer benefits, and cover less of an enrollee’s health care expenses, than will be provided by the insurance exchanges coming into effect under the law.

The analysis also projected that repealing the law would increase the federal deficit.


paul-mccartneys-eyelashes asked:

Episode 14 was so cute! I'm looking forward to reading what you have to say about it. :) Do you know when during the school year the episode takes place? (And specifically, between what events in the Free! timeline?)

An excellent question, I was wondering about this myself all through watching the episode!

I don’t think the timing is ever explicitly stated, but the most obvious hint we get is the weather, which appears to be quite warm.

Exhibit A: Bare legs, arms, torsos, you name it

Exhibit B: Verdant greenery

The other hint we get is the way they call each other. In this episode, Momo calls Nitori “Ai-senpai”, and he calls Sousuke “Sousuke-senpai”.

However, throughout ES, he called them “Nitori-senpai” and “Yamazaki-senpai”.

This is a definite indication that the events of this episode take place post-S2E13 - after Nationals - because Momo is now on first-name terms with them. However, the fact that the weather’s warm enough for them to be sitting around at night with their shirts off, without freezing to death, means that it can’t be all that much later in the year. Bunkasai are traditionally held in autumn, but I just can’t imagine October or November being warm enough for this campfire scene.

So my educated guess would be September, soon after the summer break ends. The only alternative seems to be spring, around mid-March perhaps, but this seems less likely because it’s too close to high school graduation for the third years, and I can’t really see a high school having two major events like that back to back.

If anyone has any other thoughts on the timeline, do feel free to shout!

Surprise! Politifact's 'Lie of the Year' turns out to be, well, not a lie

Don’t be deceived by its name. Politifact, a supposedly unbiased fact-checking organization, is just like every other major news outlet: leftist. See, it’s a part of the Tampa Bay Times (formerly the St. Petersburg Times) which, by anyone’s definition, is one of the most liberal newspapers in the country. A few weeks ago, Politifact dubbed a Mitt Romney campaign commercial to be the “lie of the year”. But as it turns out, it was true. Oops.

From The Weekly Standard:

Last month, PolitiFact selected its “Lie of the Year.” Given PolitiFact’s dubious record of singling out Republicans for lying far more often than Democrats, you probably could have guessed the winner of this particular sweepstakes was a Mitt Romney campaign ad:

    It was a lie told in the critical state of Ohio in the final days of a close campaign — that Jeep was moving its U.S. production to China. It originated with a conservative blogger, who twisted an accurate news story into a falsehood. Then it picked up steam when the Drudge Report ran with it. Even though Jeep’s parent company gave a quick and clear denial, Mitt Romney repeated it and his campaign turned it into a TV ad.

    And they stood by the claim, even as the media and the public expressed collective outrage against something so obviously false.

"Public expressed collective outrage"? That’s essentially wishcasting on the part of PolitiFact, nor are they accurately representing what Mitt Romney said in the ad. In fact, here’s PolitiFact’s original "fact check" on the matter:

    [Mitt Romney] Says Barack Obama “sold Chrysler to Italians who are going to build Jeeps in China” at the cost of American jobs.

Ok. Now here’s what the Reuters reported earlier this week:

    Fiat (FIA.MI) and its U.S. unit Chrysler expect to roll out at least 100,000 Jeeps in China when production starts in 2014 as they seek to catch up with rivals in the world’s biggest car market. …

    “We expect production of around 100,000 Jeeps per year which is expandable to 200,000,” [Chrysler CEO Sergio] Marchionne, who is also CEO of Chrysler, said on the sidelines of a conference, adding production could start in 18 months.

So, yes, it’s confirmed that Jeep will be producing cars in China. According to the Toledo Blade last November:

    Currently, Jeeps sell in more than 120 countries around the world, including China. They’re nearly all built in factories in the United States.

By expanding Jeep production to China, instead of increasing Jeep production in the U.S., it’s safe to say Jeep (or more properly, Fiat, which now owns Chrysler) is choosing to create more jobs overseas instead of in America where taxpayers bailed the company out.

Read the Rest

Do not listen to these so-called fact-checkers. They’re not actually checking facts. All they do is cherry pick things to push a liberal narrative. That’s it. Sure, in order to retain credibility among those who don’t play close attention, they’ll occasionally do their jobs. But always know who they are. They are partisan leftists with an agenda. There is no other way around it.

UPDATE: Politifact concedes, calls Romney ad the ‘literal truth.’ I wonder if they’ll issue a well-publicized a retraction. I’m not going to hold my breath.

CNN’s Howard Kurtz: “On that GM plant, where the decision was made to close even before Barack Obama became president — the fact-checkers really went at Ryan’s speech — is that good journalism? It is in my book.”

Washington Post’s Jennifer Rubin: "No. I think the entire industry of fact-checkers needs to be rethought." 

It’s very simple: Americans want to be informed on candidates’ stances on issues. Voters also want to know when candidates are lying to them about these issues. It’s the media’s job to deliver both of these things to the public.

Health insurance premiums for employer-sponsored family plans jumped a startling 9 percent from 2010 to 2011, and Republicans have blamed the federal health care law. But they exaggerate. The law — the bulk of which has yet to be implemented — has caused only about a 1 percent to 3 percent increase in premiums, according to several independent experts. The rest of the 9 percent rise is due to rising health care costs, as usual.

Furthermore, the increase caused by the law is a result of the increased benefits it requires, a factor Republicans generally ignore. So far, insurance companies have been required to do the following:

  • Cover preventive care without copays or deductibles.
  • Allow adult children to stay on parents’ policies until age 26.
  • Increase annual coverage limits.
  • Cover children without regard for preexisting conditions.

On the other hand, the fact that the law caused any increase at all cast more doubt on Obama’s promise that the law “could save families $2,500 in the coming years.” We’ve been calling that claim into question for several years now. The plain fact is that — so far — the law has caused an increase in premiums, though not so large an increase as some Republicans claim.




Save The Badger Badger Badger (by mrweebl)

Apparently there currently mandated plans in the British government to perform mass culls on Badgers. The big reason why is that they are known to spread Bovine Tuberculosis (bTB). While I’m all for the unbridled elimination of things that negatively effect our livelihood (i.e. disease), ultimately the spread of bTB was ultimately found not to be particularly significant in the spread of the disease [source], and can potentially have negative ecological consequences. If you are a British citizen, check out team badger to sign a petition and learn more about the situation.

How can you say no to this face?


…or this one?


Renowned astrophysicist, afro enthusiast, and Queen guitarist legend Dr. James May (Ph.D) is officially backing the project. So let’s all go save some badgers, guys.

mienaihane asked:

I have another random Free-related question that you might know. When Iwatobi goes to nationals in S2, are they held in Tokyo? The bridge and the Ferris wheel make me think they're standing across from Odaiba in the scene where Rei and Nagisa break down, but I want to be sure. Thanks!

Yes, it’s in Tokyo!

It’s not stated in the show, but as it happens I came across it in a magazine scan and I remember pointing it out to someone, so this is a very fortuitous question - usually I don’t even read magazines or remember what I read in them, but this bit I do :)

Source: Prince Animage October 2014, second image

Right near the beginning of the blue block of text, it says:

(they go to) the Nationals which are being held in Tokyo.