Some are longer than a blue whale. Others are barely larger than a grain of sand. One species unleashes one of the most deadly venoms on Earth. Another holds a secret that’s behind some of the greatest breakthroughs in biology. In every way, jellyfish are fascinating creatures and today we’re celebrating them with 11 wild facts!
1. Jellyfish have inhabited the ocean for at least half a billion years, and they’re still flourishing even as the sea changes around them.
2. Jellyfish are soft-bodied sea creatures that aren’t really fish. They’re part of a diverse team of gelatinous zooplankton, zooplankton being animals that drift in the ocean.
3. A noted feature of jellyfish is a translucent bell made of a soft delicate material called mesoglea. Sandwiched between two layers of skin, the mesoglea is more than 95% water held together by protein fibers. The jellyfish can contract and relax their bells to propel themselves. They don’t have a brain or a spinal cord, but a neural net around the bell’s inner margin forms a rudimentary nervous system that can sense the ocean’s currents and the touch of other animals.
4. Jellyfish don’t have typical digestive systems, either. These gelatinous carnivores consume plankton and other small sea creatures through a hole in the underside of their bells.
5. The nutrients that jellyfish consume are absorbed by an inner layer of cells with waste excreted back through their mouths.
6. One species of jellyfish glows green when it’s agitated, mostly thanks to a biofluorescent compound called green fluorescent protein, or GFP. Scientists isolated the gene for GFP and figured out how to insert it into the DNA of other cells. There, it acts like a biochemical beacon, marking genetic modifications, or revealing the path of critical molecules. Scientists have used the glow of GFP to watch cancer cells proliferate, track the development of Alzheimer’s, and illuminate countless other biological processes. Developing the tools and techniques from GFP has netted three scientists a Nobel Prize in 2008, and another three in 2014.
7. The jellyfish’s sting, which helps it capture prey and defend itself, is its most infamous calling card. In the jelly’s epidermis, cells called nematocysts lie coiled like poisonous harpoons. When they’re triggered by contact, they shoot with an explosive force. It exerts over 550 times the pressure of Mike Tyson’s strongest punch to inject venom into the victim.
8. The venom of one box jellyfish can kill a human in under five minutes, making it one of the most potent venoms of any animal in the world.
9. Jellyfish who may be the most successful organisms on Earth. There are more than 1,000 species of jellyfish, and many others that are often mistaken for them.
10. Ancient fossils prove that jellyfish have inhabited the seas for at least 500 million years, and maybe go back over 700 million. That’s longer than any other multi-organ animal. And as other marine animals are struggling to survive in warmer and more acidic oceans, the jellyfish are thriving, and perhaps getting even more numerous.
11. Some jellyfish can lay as many as 45,000 eggs in a single night. And there’s some jellyfish whose survival strategy almost sounds like science fiction. When the immortal jellyfish is sick, aging, or under stress, its struggling cells can change their identity. The tiny bell and tentacles deteriorate and turn into an immature polyp that spawns brand new clones of the parent.
nintendo making the switch cartridges taste awful on purpose so kids wont eat them and adults proceeding to lick them to see what they taste like is a perfect example of how we as a species have willingly shed whatever eons old protective measures out cells developed to defend us against certain doom and are hurtling towards a chaotic and nasty plasticy endy wendy
When somebody says "the man determines the sex of the baby. you can't be trans because it doesn't exist. it's simple science you can't go against biology." this is what I tell them.
“You’re right, and you’re wrong. It’s actually not simple at all. On
average, fertilization occurs about two weeks after your last menstrual
period. When the sperm penetrates the egg, changes occur in the protein
coating around it to prevent other sperm from entering. At the moment of
fertilization, your baby’s genetic make-up is complete, including its
If a Y sperm fertilizes the egg, your baby will be a boy; if an X
sperm fertilizes the egg, your baby will be a girl. In that sense you
are technically right, but gender is determined by so much more than
that. We all know that a man’s brain is different to that of his female
counterpart, right?” By which point the person who I’m talking to
agrees. then I go on to say.
“In month 3 of Pregnancy
the baby has grown from embryo to fetus. by now the baby’s arms,
hands, fingers, feet, and toes are fully formed. the baby can open and
close its fists and mouth. Fingernails and toenails are beginning to
develop and the external ears are formed. The beginnings of teeth are
forming, and the baby’s reproductive organs are also developing, but the
baby’s gender is difficult to distinguish on ultrasound, because the
genitalia start out the same. Differentiation of the male and female
reproductive systems does not occur until this crucial fetal period of
It is believed by scientists that during the intrauterine period the
fetal brain develops in the male direction through a direct action of
testosterone on the developing nerve cells, or in the female direction
through the absence of this hormone surge. According to this concept,
our gender identity (the conviction of belonging to the male or female
gender) and sexual orientation should be programmed into our brain
structures when we are still in the womb. However, since sexual
differentiation of the genitals takes place in the beginning of the
third trimester, (The third month of pregnancy) and sexual
differentiation of the brain starts in the second half of pregnancy,
these two processes can be influenced independently, which may result in
trans-sexuality. This also means that in the event of ambiguous sex at
birth, the degree of masculinization of the genitals may not reflect the
degree of masculinization of the brain. There is no proof that social
environment after birth has an effect on gender identity or sexual
orientation. Data on genetic and hormone independent influence on gender
identity are presently divergent and do not provide convincing
information about the underlying etiology. To what extent fetal
programming may determine sexual orientation is also a matter of
discussion. A number of studies show patterns of sex atypical cerebral
dimorphism in homosexual subjects. Although the crucial question, namely
how such complex functions as sexual orientation and identity are
processed in the brain remains unanswered, emerging data point at a key
role of specific neuronal circuits involving the hypothalamus. So yes
you are right, it is biology I’m not fighting anything other than
Do you have any non religious arguments against abortion?
Current biology research shows us that, once fertilization takes place in humans, the resulting zygote is an individual organism and a member of the human species. This organism is self-directed, which means it develops from within using its own unique DNA (as opposed to, for instance, how a car is put together one piece at a time).
In fact, for the first week (prior to implantation), the human embryo is not directly connected to the mother, but continues to grow and develop from a single-celled organism to a blastocyst with hundreds of cells that at this point begin to differentiate (different cells are going to develop into different body systems).
The development is gradual and continuous, which means there is no definite point after fertilization where we can say that the human embryo/fetus has become something different that it wasn’t before. All of our descriptions of stages of development and the terms we use are arbitrary and only for our own benefit in understanding what happens.
Birth itself is simply a change in location for the fetus. We change our terminology, but the fetus/newborn doesn’t change in any significant way.
If this is the case, we can easily say that the fetus is a member of the human species.
However, this means nothing if we don’t know how to treat members of the human species. Science cannot answer that question - it can only tell us what the fetus is and what it does. At this point, we have to turn to philosophy and ethics.
Most people can agree that all human adults and human children have human rights and deserve equal treatment.
Most people also agree that while animals should not be abused or neglected, they don’t deserve equal treatment with humans. If they did, the punishment for a hit-and-run would be the same whether the victim was a squirrel or a human toddler.
We have to have a consistent explanation for equal treatment that tells us, without ambiguity, who does and doesn’t have rights.
Our explanation must include human adults and human infants, but exclude animals.
If we base our explanation on ability, such as self-awareness, sentience, verbal ability, etc. we run the risk of either excluding some human adults or infants or including squirrels.
However, if we base our explanation on the common humanity shared by human adults and human infants, we satisfy all three requirements with an explanation that should make sense to us.
This explanation, that all humans deserve equal treatment regardless of race, gender, age, sexual orientation, or ability, means that a human fetus (or even a zygote) deserves equal treatment because it is human.
This means that if it is wrong to intentionally kill a 2-year-old, it is wrong to intentionally kill a fetus, regardless of the fetus’s stage of development. Therefore, if we agree that it should be illegal to kill 2-year-olds, it should also be illegal to kill fetuses.
A law based on this fact would simply be the existing murder statute applied to all human beings equally, as the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution already requires.
This would mean that it would be illegal for abortionists to kill preborn children. The mother of the preborn child would be considered a second victim of a medical professional who chose to violate the law and medical ethics.
tl;dr: Fetuses are biologically human. All human beings have equal rights. Fetuses have the same rights as everybody else.
This has been a work in progress for quite some time. It started as a response to the fact that OUAT seemingly cannot have a normal pregnancy on this show without it being traumatic or otherwise very sad. This is the result. This series will be following the arc of Emma’s totally normal, only lightly angsty pregnancy that will end 100% happy. That is my guarantee. No prophecies. No speeding up. A super normal pregnancy.
As for the timing of posting this…well, we could all use some fluff, and I’m not letting reality get me down. So, presenting, “The Happiest Pregnancy Ever”
Why should I be unhappy? Every parcel of my being is in full bloom. -Rumi
Emma tapped her fingers on the table, her nails clack-clack-clacking on the wood with each downward press. She listened to the steady tick-tock of the clock, understanding with sudden clarity why Barrie had one haunt his interpretation of her husband.
Tick. Tock. Tick. Tock.
Her husband wasn’t home. He was at store working his way down the list of things she’d hastily scribbled before he walked out the door. The list was long, and she didn’t really need half the things she sent him to buy, but she needed him gone, not anywhere near her while she processed the impending changes to their life. He would be home soon, which meant that she had to decide just what course of action to take.
Tick. Tock. Tick. Tock.
The house was quiet. Whenever Henry stayed with Regina, there was a certain stillness to their home. Even when he was there, he opted to listen to music via headphones. He was teenager, meaning he didn’t want to draw attention to himself. She liked the quiet, sometimes. Other times, not so much. It reminded Emma of her time as the Dark One – the house barren, dead.
It won’t be like that much longer.
Emma fingered the stick in front of her. It read “pregnant” in small letters. She sprung for the test that said pregnant or not pregnant. She didn’t want to take any chances with lines or ink. It was clear as day that way. No mistakes.
Traveling expands our understanding of the world. It feeds the hungry soul — and according to science, also our brains.
Navigating something new and complex stimulates new brain cell development, a process called neuroplasticity,
making our minds healthier and more resilient.
But researchers have
suggested that genetics may also explain why some of us seem hardwired
They theorize that DRD4-7R,
a variant of the gene that controls levels of dopamine in the brain,
may have motivated our early ancestors to migrate and thus evolve due to
the correlation between elevated dopamine and a propensity for taking
For those of us lucky enough to have this “wanderlust gene,” the
greater amount of dopamine washing through our brains may be the reason
we would book a spontaneous trip to New Zealand on Expedia or feel compelled to cliff dive into the Adriatic Sea. Read more
Scientists discover new mechanism of how brain networks form
Scientists have discovered that networks of inhibitory brain cells or
neurons develop through a mechanism opposite to the one followed by
excitatory networks. Excitatory neurons sculpt and refine maps of the
external world throughout development and experience, while inhibitory
neurons form maps that become broader with maturation. This discovery
adds a new piece to the puzzle of how the brain organizes and processes
information. Knowing how the normal brain works is an important step
toward understanding the nature of neurological conditions and opens the
possibility of finding treatments in the future. The results appear in
“The brain represents the external world as specific maps of
activity created by networks of neurons,” said senior author Dr.
Benjamin Arenkiel, associate professor of molecular and human genetics
and of neuroscience at Baylor College of Medicine, who studies neural
maps in the olfactory system of the laboratory mouse. “Most of these
maps have been studied in the excitatory circuits of the brain because
excitatory neurons in the cortex outnumber inhibitory neurons.”
The studies of excitatory maps have revealed that they begin as a
diffuse and overlapping network of cells. “With time,” said Arenkiel,
“experience sculpts this diffuse pattern of activity into better defined
areas, such that individual mouse whiskers, for instance, are
represented by discrete segments of the brain cortex. This progression
from a diffuse to a refined pattern occurs in many areas of the brain.”
In addition to excitatory networks, the brain has inhibitory
networks that also respond to external stimuli and regulate the activity
of neural networks. How the inhibitory networks develop, however, has
remained a mystery.
In this study, Arenkiel and colleagues studied the development of
maps of inhibitory neurons in the olfactory system of the mouse.
Studying inhibitory brain networks of the mouse sense of smell
“Unlike sight, hearing or other senses, the sense of smell in the
mouse detects discrete scents from a large array of molecules,” said
Arenkiel, who is also a McNair Scholar at Baylor.
Mice can detect a vast number of scents thanks in part to a
complex network of inhibitory neurons. Inhibitory neurons are the most
abundant type of cells in the mouse brain area dedicated to process
scent. To support this network, newly born inhibitory neurons are
continually added and integrated into the circuits.
Arenkiel and colleagues followed the paths of these newly added
neurons in time to determine how inhibitory circuits develop. First,
they genetically labeled the cells so they would glow when the neurons
were active. Then, they offered individual scents to the mice and
visually recorded through a microscope the areas or networks of the
brain that glowed for each scent the live, anesthetized animal smelled.
The scientists repeated the experiment several times to determine how
the networks changed as the animal learned to identify each scent.
The scientists expected that inhibitory networks would mature in a
way similar to that of excitatory networks. That is, the more the
animal experienced a scent, the better defined the networks of activity
would become. Surprisingly, the scientists discovered that the
inhibitory brain circuits of the mouse sense of smell develop in a
manner opposite to the excitatory circuits. Instead of becoming narrowly
defined areas, the inhibitory circuits become broader. Thanks to this
new finding scientists now better understand how the brain organizes and
Arenkiel and colleagues think that the inhibitory networks work
hand-in-hand with the excitatory networks. They propose that the
interaction between excitatory and inhibitory networks could be compared
to a network of roads (excitatory networks) whose traffic is regulated
by a network of traffic lights (inhibitory networks). The scientists
suggest that the formation of useful neural maps depends on inhibitory
networks driving the refinement of excitatory networks, and that this
new information will be essential towards developing new approaches for
repairing brain tissue.
Though she died of cervical cancer in 1951, her cells were discovered to have unique properties. These immortal “HeLa” cells were instrumental in developing the polio vaccine as well as other key scientific landmarks including cloning, gene mapping, and in vitro fertilization. Yet, her story has raised controversial questions about the ethics surrounding privacy & patient consent. Who was this unrecognized woman?
The typical argument against the soul is that we believe it evolved like all our other capabilities. As an environmental scientist I have no problem with an “eating robot” like a first cell developing by random processes.
The problem is that a mind is fundamentally different from every property, substance or energy of the universe we know. Using physical evolution as a proof for the evolution of a mind is proof by analogy and not science.
What does proof by analogy mean? For example: If you use measurements of the temperature of chemical fire on earth to estimate the temperature of the sun (nuclear fusion) you will make an error of several million centigrades. And it does not help that the sun looks a lot like fire.
A further argument is that mind developed because it is needed for better survival. That is a non sequitur and I am hence skeptical. Moving at the speed of light would give survival advantages too, but I don’t expect it to evolve any time soon. This argument only tells you why it could evolve, if it did evolve - not that it evolved.
The third argument is that it is proven that brain and soul are identical because if certain parts of the brain are hurt the soul changes in relative predictable way.
This is tricky. There are two ways in science to proof something. One is empiric proof only and the second is empiric proof and having a working testable model that explains how said proof comes about.
The first proof is regarded low as pure empiric evidence has often proven to lead to wrong conclusions. For example two things can happen at the same time and bear no connections or be connected in a way that the scientist didn’t foresee.
The idea that the brain is the soul is exactly that - a purely empiric consideration. A model of how the activity of the brain really becomes thought does not exist.
If you do not describe that process, I can not disprove it, and if it can’t be disproved than it probably ceased to be real science.
In a later post I will explain how immortal souls could exist EVEN if god(s) do not exist.
To develop vaccines against microbial infections and immunotherapy against cancer, researchers are looking for ways to enhance white blood cells called CD8+ T lymphocytes. Specifically, they want to bump up how well they work and how long they live.
Naïve T lymphocytes patrol the front lines of the human body’s defense against infection, circulating in blood and tissues, searching for invasive microbes and other foreign antigens. They’re called “naïve” because they have not yet encountered an invader. When they do, these T lymphocytes activate and divide, giving rise to at least two types of specialized cells: 1) effector lymphocytes or “serial killers” responsible for immediate killing of infected host cells; and 2) memory lymphocytes that provide long-term protection from similar infections. Researchers have been trying for a very long time to understand how activated naïve T cells give rise to effector and memory cells during an infection.
Taking advantage of technological advances in single-cell gene expression profiling and computational modeling that trace the destiny of individual cells, University of California San Diego School of Medicine researchers, led by John T. Chang, MD, associate professor in the Department of Medicine, and Gene W. Yeo, PhD, professor in the Department of Cellular and Molecular Medicine and Institute for Genomic Medicine, constructed a roadmap with detailed instructions that tell CD8+ T lymphocytes how to become serial killers or long-lived memory cells.
The findings are published in the February 20 online issue of Nature Immunology.
According to Chang, the primary purpose of vaccines is to produce strong and durable immune protection, which depends heavily on memory lymphocytes.
“Our work suggests that early instructions that T lymphocytes receive during a microbial infection seem to be critical to whether or not they give rise to long-lived memory cells,” Chang said. “Strategies that exploit this process could potentially enhance durable immunity and help us to design more effective, longer-lasting vaccines against microbial pathogens and develop better approaches to boost the anti-cancer activity of white blood cells.
Pictured: a graphical representation of T cells attacking a cancer cell.
What if Ms. Kang is telling the truth? It’s just what I saw on a documentary show. When you hurt the frontal lobe, the nerve cells could develop supernatural powers. Who knows? There could be a Uri Geller in Korea too.
A/N: What’s up! What’s good! Part 3 comin’ atcha! (I’m channeling my inner Liza Koshy if you can’t tell) Anyways, guys! I’m so excited for this part, and I’m letting you guys have ONE MORE PART! It’s gonna be so mushy, you’re probably all gonna hate me… Anyways, thanks for all the notes, and thanks for all the requests! I’m slightly behind, but it’s the weekend, so I’ll try and have a couple rolled out soon! Hope you like Part 3!
“Y/N!” Nat called up the stairs. You took a deep breath, and walked out of your room.
“What’s up, Nat?” You asked. It was Saturday afternoon, and you were wallowing around until it was time to go over to Aunt May’s apartment and watch a that movie.
“What do you want for lunch?” Nat asked, heating up various left-overs on the stove.
“I, uh, I’m not hungry. Had a big breakfast.” You lied. Natasha looked at you with a withering look as you sat on the counter, kicking your feet back and forth.
“You didn’t eat breakfast, Y/N.” She reminded you. “You’re starving yourself over this Peter thing.” Nat’s eyes burned into yours.
“I’m not starving myself!” You retorted. “Plus, I ate a lot yesterday.”
“A milkshake does not count as a lot!” Nat said, stirring the contents in the pan vigorously. You were about to argue back, but Steve walked into the room, and pulled a bag of potato chips from the pantry. You and Nat continued to stare daggers at each other, and Steve finally caught the drift, realization seeping into his expression.
“What’s going on?” He asked, his head tilting with that patronizing look that always made you feel guilty. You looked at Nat, begging her not to say anything.
“Y/N is refusing to eat because she feels bad about the fight with Peter.” She said, looking at you pointedly. Steve looked at you sadly.
“That is not what is going on! Just because I’m not hungry you guys act like I haven’t eaten in days!” You said, incredulous at their behavior.
“Y/N, I know Peter hurt you, but you can’t let him affect you like this.” Steve said, looking at you sharply to make you squirm. Your eyebrows raised angrily. They were completely misinterpreting everything.You opened you mouth to correct Steve when Tony came running into the kitchen.
“I smell tension and hear the sweet sound of arguing. Who offended who?” Tony asked, his expression completely serious, his eyes sparkling. Normally, you would have laughed, but this was exactly the wrong conversation to get all of the Avengers involved in.
“Nothing is going o–” You tried to explain, but Nat cut you off.
“Y/N is refusing to eat because she’s fighting with her boyfriend, Peter.” Your eyes widened, and your heart started pumping very fast. Tony rolled his eyes, and made a face at her. He was torn between the kids, and he had been working for weeks to try and figure a solution out that would force them to talk. He had worked something out with May eventually, and he was sick of the topic.
“What’s going on?” Bucky and Sam walked in, still sweaty from training. Bruce walked in after them with an interested expression on his face. Nat and Steve explained what was going on a 4th time, and then Thor walked in.
“Who disrespected Lady Y/N?” He asked in his deep voice. You buried your face in your hands, clenching your teeth. Tony poked you in the side, and your head shot up, a pained expression very clear on your face.
“Ow! Bruise?” You said, and everyone stopped talking and looked at you.
“Shouldn’t that have healed already?” Said Tony, concerned. You moved your mouth, but no sound came out. Natasha walked over, and lifted up your shirt slightly, just enough to see the massive bruise that had refused to heal after Peter had hurt you. Everyone looked at you with a worried, questioning look.
“Will you cut that out?!” You swatted Nat’s hand away, and looked at the floor. Steve spoke first after an uncomfortably long silence.
“Y/N… What happened? You got that bruise ages ago, and it wasn’t nearly that bad.” You bit your raw lip, trying to come up with an excuse, a lie, something, anything.
“Peter hurt her.” Wanda said from the back. She had slipped in quietly while everyone had been chattering. You closed your eyes, and when the flashbacks started, you opened your eyes again. Everyone could see the tears glazing them over.
“What happened? Bruce said. He had always been super protective of you, being the youngest, and he had also helped you with a lot of your anxiety and stress.
“Um, well, you see…” You stammered, your heart hurting like it did when you thought about Peter since the fight. Wanda walked up to you, and pressed her fingers very lightly to your bruise. You winced.
“They were fighting, and she said something that offended Peter, so he started walking away, and she grabbed his arm to try and stop him. He threw his arm back, and Y/N got pushed into table, hitting her side, and his hand smacked her cheek.” Wanda recited in a monotone, her eyebrows pressed together and her eyes closed as she saw the incident through your mind. You looked around, trying to avoid all eye contact.
“That doesn’t explain why it hasn’t healed yet.” Bucky said quietly. Bruce looked at you.
“Sometimes pressure added to an already existent flesh wound, especially if that wound hasn’t had time to heal, can lead to a prolonged recovery period.” He walked up to you, and mildly starting poking the black and blue flesh. “Did you hit the corner of the table?” He asked you, looking up. You nodded solemnly. “It looks like she either fractured a rib, or the table broke the bottom couple layers of skin, which would lead to a blood build-up, since the skin cells would need to develop the special qualities that are found in the bottom-most layers of skin. Possibly both.” Bruce concluded.
“Why didn’t you tell any of us?” Steve asked. He was giving you the look again. You shrugged in response.
“She was trying to protect Peter, even after all the stuff he’s done to her.” Natasha answered softly.
“He just doesn’t understand the reach of his powers. He doesn’t understand how powerful his reflexes are.” Your voice wavered, and you focused on trying to control your tears.
“But you still let him walk all over you.” Sam said bluntly. You knew everyone was silently agreeing with him. You shook your head, hopped of the counter, and walked back to your room without looking back. When you were safely out of earshot, you muttered one heart-breaking sentence.
You were at May’s, eating a bowl of ice cream and watching that movie. She was on the other side of the couch, remembering how she would always watch princess movies with you when you were little. The ending credits started rolling through the screen, and you smiled. It was a good movie, and you had really liked it. You wondered if you would ever be able to persuade Peter to watch it with you, and your heart dropped. He wouldn’t. He hated you, Liz had said so, and he had obviously told her stuff you didn’t know. He had chosen her, and you been left in dark, your heart shattering because he hadn’t wanted it.
“Are you thinking about him?” May asked. She had watched the quick transition of your smile to a broken expression. You looked at her, and a tear slid down your cheek without permission. You swiped it away, and faked a smile.
“No. That was a good movie, though. It really reminds me of one of my other favorites.” You told her about one of your favorite movies.
“Oh, I don’t think I’ve seen that one!” May said. She was lying, but she had to keep to the plan that she and Tony had been working on for days.
“Really? It’s amazing! I’m sure you would love it, and it’s on Netflix.” You said.
“Let’s watch it then!” May said excitedly, fiddling with the remote. You looked at your phone, wondering if you should go home. You knew Peter wouldn’t be back anytime soon, but you didn’t want to risk the chance.
“It’s only 7, and I’m sure Tony won’t mind if I text him. Peter won’t be back until the morning.” She reminded you. You nodded, despite the voice in the back of your head warning you of something wrong. The movie started, and you watched it, eating your ice cream slowly. When a scene you didn’t like started, you got up to put your bowl in the sink. When you had washed out your bowl, you sunk to the floor, pulling your knees up to your chest as your side throbbed. Bruce had taken a couple X-Rays before you left for May’s, and just to your luck, you had both the conditions that Bruce had been talking about. The pain killers were just starting to wear off, and you had forgotten the next dosage at the Tower. You knew that Peter had some in his room for when you guys would come back from watches with injuries, but you didn’t want to go get them just yet. You rested your head on you knees when you heard the door open, and a very familiar voice start talking.
“Hey, I’m back.” Peter’s voice echoed in from the front room.
“I thought you were at Ned’s.” May’s voice answered.
“His mom needed him to do some stuff, so we’ll just work on the English project later.” Your shoulders started shaking, but you knew you should go back in. It would be less awkward than if he walked in and saw you crying on the floor without any explanation. You walked out, your hands crossed over your torso, trying you keep your heart together. Peter turned at the noise of your bare feet scuffing the floor. You bit your lip at the confused face you were giving him, but then his face brightened.
“What-what are you doing here, Y/N?” He asked, and you bit your lip. You didn’t think you would be able to talk.
“Y/N and I are having a movie night since she hadn’t been over in a while.” May answered for you, and you nodded, slipping past him to the couch.
“Oh, that-that’s cool.” Peter answered, and you wanted to start crying again. Here he was, acting like nothing had ever happened, not your escape, not the fight, not even the Liz thing. Like he didn’t even know you. Peter sat down on the arm chair, and started watching the movie with you. He had seen it before, you had made him because it was one of you favorites. Your only focus was on not looking at Peter. You didn’t know how many more brutal hits you could take. You could feel him staring at you, and it was all becoming a little too difficult. You were about to make an excuse about having to go home when May’s phone buzzed with a text.
“Shoot, they need me down-town to cover a grave yard shift for someone.” She said, jumping off the couch and grabbing her keys. You got up to go, but May blocked the door from you.
“Tony said that they got a mission call, and he wants you to stay here because you’re hurt,” Peter’s eyebrows knitted together in concern and guilt. “and he told Peter to not worry about coming in. Whatever that means.” She showed you her phone to prove, and your shoulders sank in defeat. May said goodbye to both of you, and you fell back on the couch. After about 10 minutes of neither of you saying anything, you got up, and walked out the door. Peter shot up after you.
“Y/N! Y/N!” You heard as you walked out of the apartment complex and into the rain. You were almost instantly drenched, but you continued to walk until you felt someone grab your arm. You whipped around in alarm, but all you saw was Peter’s face, with his drenched hair dangling in front of his eyes. You got the urge to move them back into place, and you shook your head, trying to ignore the electricity you felt at his touch.
“What?” You said, your voice cracking slightly.
“Where are you going? Mr. Stark told you to stay here!” Peter said, shaking his head to clear the water out of his eyes. You bit your lip so you wouldn’t smile.
“Well, I honestly don’t care what Tony says, and I really don’t want to bother you!” You shouted through the downpour. You shook Peter’s hand off your arm, and started walking again. You had only made it a couple paces when you felt someone’s arms wrap around your waist, picking you up.
“Peter, stop! Put me down, right now!” You yelled, trying to kick out of his grasp. You cursed his powers, because there was no way he could have done this before the spider bite.
“Mr. Stark told you to stay here! Plus, what will Aunt May think when she comes back and your gone?”
“I don’t care! Put me down!” You said, trying to ignore the building pain in your side. Peter walked into the alley beneath his window, and shot a web to the fire escape, pulling you up with him. You held in a cry as he held your side. When you got to his window, he let go, and you started running, trying to get far enough away so you could zap back into the Tower. You were about ready to zap, but one of Peter’s webs caught your back, preventing you from running any further.
I stared at Y/N running, and I grinned. She’s my best friend, and I missed her more than I could explain, but seeing her again just made me happy. And she didn’t look anxious or anything, like May said. I just wanted a chance to say sorry, but I chickened out.
Peter pulled the web back until he could pick you up again. You didn’t bother trying to fight, you were exhausted and freezing from the cold rain. He was smiling down at you, and a tear rolled down your cheek without his notice, This is how you wanted it to be, but you couldn’t shake the thought of Liz telling you that Peter hated you. He jumped through his open window, still holding you in his arms. You secretly marveled at his strength. He put you down, and you walked back into the front room without saying a word. Peter followed you, and watched you slump into the couch, defeated. He sat back in the armchair, watching you as you curled up and watched the movie again. Not saying a word.
A letter from Theodore Kaczynski to the authors of the book American Terrorist: Timothy McVeigh & the Oklahoma City Bombing.
I should begin by noting that the validity of my comments about McVeigh
is limited by the fact that I didn’t know him terribly well. We were
often put in the outdoor rec yard together in separate wire-mesh cages,
but I always spent most of the rec period running in a small oval,
because of the restricted area of the cages and consequently I had only
about 15 or 20 minutes of each rec period for talking with other
inmates. Also, I was at first reluctant to become friendly with McVeigh
because I thought (correctly) that any friendly relations between
McVeigh and me would be reported to the media and I also thought
(incorrectly, it seems) that such reports would lose me many supporters.
But my reluctance very soon passed away: When you’re confined with
other people under the conditions that exist on this range of cells, you
develop a sense of solidarity with them regardless of any differences
On a personal level I like McVeigh and I imagine that most people would
like him. He was easily the most outgoing of all the inmates on our
range of cells and had excellent social skills. He was considerate of
others and knew how to deal with people effectively. He communicated
somehow even with the inmates on the range of cells above ours, and,
because he talked with more people, he always knew more about what was
going on than anyone else on our range.
Another reason why he knew more about what was going on was that he was
very observant. Up to a point, I can identify with this trait of
McVeigh’s. When you’ve lived in the woods for a while you get so that
your senses are far more alert than those of a city person; you will
hardly miss a footprint, or even a fragment of one, and the slightest
sound, if it deviates from the pattern of sounds that you’re expecting
to hear at a given time and place, will catch your attention. But when I
was away from the woods, or even when I was in my cabin or absorbed in
some task, my senses tended to turn inward, so to speak, and the
observant alertness was shut off. Here at the ADX, my senses and my mind
are turned inward most of the time, so it struck me as remarkable that
even in prison McVeigh remained alert and consistently took an interest
in his surroundings.
It is my impression that McVeigh is very intelligent. He thinks
seriously about the problems of our society, especially as they relate
to the issue of individual freedom, and to the extent that he expressed
his ideas to me they seemed rational and sensible. However, he discussed
these matters with me only to a limited extent and I have no way of
being sure that he does not have other ideas that he did not express to
me and that I would not consider rational or sensible. I know almost
nothing about McVeigh’s opinions concerning the U.S. government or the
events at Waco and Ruby Ridge. Someone sent me a transcript of his
interview with 60 Minutes, but I haven’t read it yet. Consequently, I
have no way of knowing whether I would consider his opinion on these
subjects to be rational or sensible.
McVeigh is considered to belong to the far right, and for that reason
some people apparently assume that he has racist tendencies. But I saw
no indication of this. On the contrary, he was on very friendly terms
with the African-American inmates here and I never heard him make any
remark that could have been considered even remotely racist. I do recall
his mentioning that prior to the Gulf
War, he and other soldiers were subjected to propaganda designed to make
them hate the people they were going to fight, but when he arrived in
the Persian Gulf area he discovered that the “enemies” he was supposed
to kill were human beings just like himself, and he learned to respect
McVeigh told me of his idea (which I think may have significant merit)
that certain rebellious elements on the American right and left
respectively had more in common with one another than is commonly
realized, and that the two groups ought to join forces. This led us to
discuss, though only briefly, the question of what constitutes the
“right.” I pointed out that the word “right,” in the political
sense, was originally associated with authoritarianism, and I raised the
question of why certain radically anti-authoritarian groups (such as
the Montana Freemen) were lumped together with authoritarian factions as
the “right.” McVeigh explained that the American far right could be
roughly divided into two branches, the fascist/racist branch, and the
individualistic or freedom-loving branch which generally was not racist.
He did not know why these two branches were lumped together as the
“right,” but he did suggest a criterion that could be used to
distinguish left from right: the left (in America today) generally
dislikes firearms, while the right tends to be attracted to firearms.
By this criterion McVeigh himself would have to be assigned to the
right. He once asked me what kind of rifle I’d used for hunting in
Montana, and I said I’d had a .22 and a .30-06. On a later occasion
McVeigh mentioned that one of the advantages of a .30-06 was that one
could get armor-piercing ammunition for it. I said, “So what would I
need armor-piercing ammunition for?” In reply, McVeigh indicated that I
might some day want to shoot at a tank. I didn’t bother to argue with
him, but if I’d considered it worth the trouble I could have given the
obvious answer: that the chances that I would ever have occasion to
shoot at a tank were very remote. I think McVeigh knew well that there
was little likelihood that I would ever need to shoot at a tank—or
that he would either, unless he rejoined the Army. My speculative
interpretation is that McVeigh resembles many people on the right who
are attracted to powerful weapons for their own sake and independently
of any likelihood that they will ever have a practical use for them.
Such people tend to invent excuses, often far-fetched ones, for
acquiring weapons for which they have no real need.
But McVeigh did not fit the stereotype of the extreme right-wingers.
I’ve already indicated that he spoke of respect for other people’s
cultures, and in doing so he sounded like a liberal. He certainly was
not a mean or hostile person, and I wasn’t aware of any indication that
he was super patriotic. I suspect that he is an adventurer by nature,
and America since the closing of the frontier has had little room for
McVeigh never discussed the Oklahoma City bombing with me, nor did he
ever make any admissions in my hearing. I know nothing about that case
except what the media have said, so I’m not going to offer any opinion
about whether McVeigh did what they say he did. However, assuming that
the Oklahoma City bombing was intended as a protest against the U.S.
government in general and
against the government’s actions at Waco in particular, I will say that I
think the bombing was a bad action because it was unnecessarily
A more effective protest could have been made with far less harm to
innocent people. Most of the people who died at Oklahoma City were, I
imagine, lower-level government employees—office help and the
like—who were not even remotely responsible for objectionable
government policies or for the events at Waco. If violence were to be
used to express protest, it could have been used far more humanely, and
at the same time more effectively, by being directed at the relatively
small number of people who were personally responsible for the policies
or actions to which the protesters objected. Such protest would have
attracted just as much national attention as the Oklahoma City bombing
and would have involved relatively little risk to innocent people.
Moreover, the protest would have earned far more sympathy than the
Oklahoma City bombing did, because it is safe to assume that many
anti-government people who might have accepted violence that was more
limited and carefully directed were repelled by the large loss of
innocent life at Oklahoma City.
The media teach us to be horrified at the Oklahoma City bombing, but I
won’t have time to be horrified at it as long as there are greater
horrors in the world that make it seem insignificant by comparison.
Moreover, our politicians and our military kill people in far larger
numbers than was done at Oklahoma City, and they do so for motives that
are far more cold blooded and calculating. On orders from the president,
a general will kill some thousands of people (usually including many
civilians regardless of efforts to avoid such losses) without bothering
to ask himself whether the killing is justified. He has to follow orders
because his only other alternative would be to resign his commission,
and naturally he would rather kill a few thousand people than spoil his
career. The politicians and the media justify these actions with
propaganda about “defending freedom.” However, even if America were a
free society (which it is not), most U.S. military action during at
least the last couple of decades has not been necessary for the
survival of American society but has been designed to protect relatively
narrow economic or political interests or to boost the president’s
approval rating in the public-opinion polls.
The media portray the killing at Oklahoma City as a ghastly atrocity,
but I remember how they cheered the U.S. action in the Gulf War just as
they might have cheered for their favorite football team. The whole
thing was treated as if it were a big game. I didn’t see any sob stories
about the death agonies of Iraqi soldiers or about their grieving
families. It’s easy to see the reason for the difference: America’s
little wars are designed to promote the interests of “the system,” but
violence at home is dangerous to the system, so the system’s propaganda
has to teach us the correspondingly correct attitudes toward such
events. Yet I am much less repelled by powerless dissidents who kill a
couple hundred because they think they have no other way to effectively
state their protest, than I am by politicians and generals—people in
positions of great power—who kill hundreds or thousands for the sake
of cold calculated political and economic advantages.
You asked for my thoughts on the behavior of federal law enforcement
officers. My personal experience suggests that federal law enforcement
officers are neither honest nor competent, and that they often disobey
their own rules.
I’ve found by experience that any communication with journalists is
risky for one in my position. I’m taking the risk in this case mainly
because I think that McVeigh would want me to help you in the way that I
have. As I indicated near the beginning of this letter, when you’re
locked up with other people you develop a sense of solidarity with them
in spite of any differences.
What?! Another snippet from Skaiheda? It’s a miracle!
You guys have been so amazing and supporting throughout this process, so here’s an extra bonus snippet from Skaiheda in honor of @clexaweek2017‘s Canon Divergent theme day!
For those of you who don’t know: Here’s our summary:
Lexa Woods, a guard on the Ark, never expected to fall so deeply in love with Clarke Griffin, a prisoner in solitary. When the 100 are deployed to Earth, Lexa becomes a stowaway, swearing an oath to protect her love when they reach the ground. Before they can really gather their bearings on Earth together, they are separated, and think each other dead, until their fates collide once more, and Clarke is taken to meet the mysterious Grounder Commander.
In this excerpt, Clarke and Lexa have gotten closer as Clarke continues to await her 18th birthday in prison. After receiving a few sticks of graphite as a gift from Lexa, Clarke begins to draw on the walls of her cell. She draws what she cannot explain yet. But then again, a picture is worth a thousand words.
Hello! I’m Hanna and right now I really need your help. Please reblog this pst if you can.
Some of You may now I’ve been diagnosed with anemia in early 2000′s when I was in my early teens. I have been dealing with it since then. For first years I pretty much ignored it . I used to go from time to time to get blood transfusions but that was all.
Now it all changed this year. Sometime in January when I was at work I started to bleeding from my nose. I couldn’t stop it. Then I felt dizzy and blacked out. After hospitalization, blood transfusion and test I’ve been told to go home. I got next apointment with the doctor on and next tests. After some tests later doctor told me to take a bone marrow biopsy. After results I got diagnosed with Aplastic Anemia: is a blood disorder in which the body’s bone marrow doesn’t make enough new blood cells. Bone marrow is a sponge-like tissue inside the bones. It makes stem cells that develop into red blood cells, white blood cells, and platelets .Red blood cells carry oxygen to all parts of your body. They also carry carbon dioxide (a waste product) to your lungs to be exhaled. White blood cells help your body fight infections. Platelets are blood cell fragments that stick together to seal small cuts or breaks on blood vessel walls and stop bleeding.It’s normal for blood cells to die. The lifespan of red blood cells is about 120 days. White blood cells live less than a day. Platelets live about 6 days. As a result, your bone marrow must constantly make new blood cells.If your bone marrow can’t make enough new blood cells, many health problems can occur. These problems include irregular heartbeats called arrhythmias ), an enlarged heart, heart failure, infections, and bleeding. Severe aplastic anemia can even cause death.
The best cure for me would be a bone marrow transplant. Right now I can’t afford it. So far I managed to save money is around 1500 euro and there is no way I can pay for trasplantation,treatment and home expenses since.
I am trying to save money for a hospital treatment, but since I live alone and work so it is impossible for me to save enough money that fast. I don’t like asking for help, but right now I don’t have much of a choice. The money raised would all go for medical bills and living expenses . I would really appreciate any amount would help! Thank you everyone!