credit to zero for the title

About the pro King Jon arguments...
  • People: God, get over Sansa not being Queen in the North! Does she even WANT to be queen? In the books, no!
  • People with Sense: Actually, in the books, which don't even apply to this show from this point, she doesn't want to be JOFFREY'S queen, and while her main focus is on going home, she shows no resistance to the idea of being a queen. In the show, she rejects the idea of being LITTLEFINGER'S queen (consort), beside the Iron Throne, which is in no sway equivalent to being the Queen (Regnant) of the North,in her own home, not married to a guy she doesn't trust. She rejects LITTLEFINGER, not the Queen in the North title. Furthermore, there's actual basis for Jon's kingship in the books that they didn't set up in the show. So applying that here is kind of pointless?
  • People with Sense: Also, excuse me, but... for all this talk of Sansa's supposed lack of desire to be queen (which even the network-run wiki seems to contradict)... What evidence do we have that JON wants to be king... at all? In both the books AND the show we have him insisting that it is Sansa, not him, who is the rightful heir to the North repeatedly, to the point where 1) It takes Sansa by surprise and 2) He looks to her for approval as all the lords are shouting his name. He's expressed desires to get away, protect his home, and have Sansa trust him. He's expressed frustration about how he used to have to sit at the low table, but that was already rectified before he was declared. He credits Sansa with their victory on the ramparts and shows ZERO interest in any sort of title or crown and shows far more interest in establishing SANSA while rejecting grandiose titles up until that last scene where, once again, he looks to Sansa for approval before accepting it. So why exactly are people so convinced that it's the woman whose been obsessed with her home for seasons who doesn't want the throne instead of the guy who literally wanted to GTFO in the first place and keeps insisting she take the Master Bedroom instead? I smell sexist BS.
  • People with Sense Again: ...Also REMEMBER BRAN?!
How to put a spoon meter under your blog description and make it really easy to change!

EDIT: I’m much better at coding now and I made a version 2 of the spoons meter, take a look!

(I’m talking about this Spoon Meter, it’s really cool check it out)


Go to the HTML for your blog theme, armed with this post open so you can copy-paste the text from it!

The first part of the code below with all the “<meta name=…>” beginnings goes immediately under any other “<meta name=…>” parts. Just bop ‘em in there, nice and easy.

The middle part, starting with “#one”, ending in “!important;}”, goes anywhere in the <style type=“text/css”></style> part of your blog’s theme. Easiest spot to put it is right below the <style type=“text/css”> tag, probably.

The last part, <div id=“spoons”>, goes right under the {Description} section in your blog theme. It shouldn’t matter too much if you include it in {/block: Description} or not (I didn’t in the sample below). Don’t worry about it or poke me if it does. 

Done all that? COOL! You’re done messing with messy code! There should be a little select box titled “Spoons” in your theme’s customization options now. (You may have to save and reload the customize page to see it.) 

It should look like this:

and you can use it to really quickly and easily change your spoon count any time! :)

Got questions? Or having some trouble?


Keep reading

Saiyuki: Zero Sum 14th Anniversary 

Self explanatory title, Minekura-sensei drew this illustration printed on a shikishi board as part of the annual anniversary goods sale for Zero Sum every year. This year the illustration is the guys in their usual clothes, looking badass as ever. But don’t forget: they’re keeping an eye on us! Just think about that for a bit ;)

If re-posting please credit to “flowermiko” at Tumblr or Twitter. DO NOT UPLOAD TO ZEROCHAN. Thank you and enjoy!


playlist: Jaehyo’s favourite tracks

미운오리 - IU // Twilight - Kotaro Oshio // That I was once by your side - Kim Yeon Woo // Bye Bye - Roller Coaster // Yanghwa Bridge - Zion. T // Pride and Prejudice - ZICO (feat. Suran) //  Sakurairo Maukoro -  Mika Nakashima //  4월 16일 - Park Ji Yoon // Just the way we love - Seo In Guk/Eun Ji // Meaning of you - IU // You are different - Han Ye Seul // Fate - Lee Sun Hee // Movie’s over (japanese ver.) - Block B // Maybe (piano ver.) // Maybe - Kim Hyung Joong // OMG - JJY Band // Zero for conduct - Bastarz // Feeling only you - Hong Seok Cheon (feat. Taeil) // Confession - Deli Spice // Star - Kim Ah Joong //  아마도 그건 - Crush, Loco // Summer story - DJ DOC //  다시 - G.O.D. // A little lovin’ - eSNa // Introduction (titles) - Danny Elfman // Habit - IU //  농담 반 진담 반 - Sugar Bowl 

source: (x)

Monster Zero - Red Menace Reconstruction

This fan reconstruction uses footage from Toho’s HD transfer as well as material from various DVD sources to recreate the dubbed US version of Monster Zero in HD as accurately as possible. The US version’s editing was matched as closely as possible, and the visuals unique to the US version were carefully recreated wherever possible.


Notes on this release:

  • The Toho transfer had its contrast and saturation boosted to alleviate its flat appearance.
  • This version was synchronized to the Simitar widescreen DVD to ensure accuracy, but uses the Classic Media audio (synchronized to the Simitar audio) to avoid some volume and balance inconsistencies in the Simitar audio.
  • The opening Henry G. Saperstein/UPA logos, most of the opening credits, and the Lake Myojin/Washigasawa location titles were carefully digitally recreated.
  • The expository text at the beginning, the English newspaper headlines, the English insert of Namikawa’s letter to Glenn and the end title card are presented using a combination of the Simitar DVD (to retain the entire image) and the Classic Media DVD (to reduce artifacting around the text itself).
  • The Toho transfer is typically missing a handful of frames at the beginning and end of each reel. Where the missing frames couldn’t be compensated for in a satisfactory fashion, the sound/sync reference was trimmed to match what was there.


Share, upload, distribute and bootleg freely.

Fuck Your Hard Work


Recently, I interviewed a dozen of my former classmates, now aged in their late thirties and early forties, to see how their lives differed from those of their working-class parents. Was it true that Britain was becoming classless, and people more individualised? Had this generation embraced the ‘flexibility’ apparently offered by the global labour market? Or did they yearn for a return to the certainties of a job for life?

I quickly discovered that the answer to all three of those questions is no. Superficially, my classmates appeared to have climbed the social ladder. They had to wear suits for work, not overalls, and they had fancy-sounding job titles: they were all ‘analysts’, ‘consultants’ or ‘managers’. But in reality, their lives were little different from those of their parents, most of whom had worked in the factories and shipyards of 1980s Tyneside, or (in the case of their mothers), in shops or as office cleaners. What bound them to their parents was the experience of really hard work: ‘they worked hard for us’; ‘I work very hard’ were phrases I heard repeatedly. Their supposedly middle-class lifestyles were built on credit and debt, and on the insecurity of zero-hour, or temporary, or part-time contract work. ‘Flexibility’ did not inspire them; strangely enough, most of them wanted to work close to home, and close to family and friends, and didn’t relish having to move jobs at the whim of their employers.

Perhaps more surprisingly, none of them exactly relished returning to the alleged certainties of the past. That’s the postwar past, the 1950s and 1960s, often mythologised by politicians as a time of job security, affluence and upward social mobility. In reality, Britain never experienced entirely full employment, working-class ‘affluence’ relied on the expansion of credit agreements; and only a tiny minority of people travelled from a manual working-class home into a profession. These were years when working-class people had greater bargaining power than ever before, because of demand for their labour and the progressive reforms introduced by the 1945 Labour government. But there has never been a time when capitalism existed without the exploitation of most people, most of the time.

My classmates weren’t necessarily aware of this historical detail, but they were aware that working for a living was unlikely to bring them what they want and need. They didn’t aspire to greater job security because their aspirations didn’t focus on work. They were tentative about admitting this at first. That’s understandable, in a country where politicians of all hues claim that being a member of a ‘hardworking family’ is a criterion of citizenship. Yet as my classmates slowly began to admit, most people don’t see hard work as a virtue. Their aspirations focus on getting more leisure: time to spend with family and friends, doing things they consider worthwhile. That might be childcare, but it might equally be creative or craft work. In a study of 1990s Basildon, the social scientists Alan Hudson and Dennis Hayes found that ‘Basildon man’ and woman – the supposedly arch-working-class Tories – felt disenchanted with a society that offered them meaningless work. Asked about their aspirations, most of this group of manual workers put ‘making a scientific or medical discovery that could benefit the human race’ top of their list. Similar sentiments were evoked by their children’s generation when I interviewed them. They dreamed of winning the lottery – and concurred that they’d use the money to leave work, spend more time with family, and ensure their children didn’t have to work for a living.

This is a sensible attitude. Hard work causes stress, poor health and early death – above all, it has never solved poverty. We work longer hours now than we’ve done for fifty years, yet the gap between the rich and poor has never been wider. Working hard cannot solve an economic crisis. The fact we are all expected to work so hard is in fact a result of economic crisis: a crisis that did not appear in 2008, but has been with us far longer. This is the crisis at the heart of capitalism: a tension between the 1 percent who control the economy, and want to continually increase their wealth, and the rest of us, who are expected to work ever harder, in order to generate profit and to keep us from occupying our time in meaningful ways like questioning or challenging the status quo.

Yet throughout the last century, that strategy has never been completely successful. The history of the working class is often told as a constant struggle for work. But in fact working-class people have constantly strived to reduce the amount of time and effort spent working for ‘them’. For men that meant trying to get into reserved factory work during the Second World War because fighting in 1914 had brought no benefits for ordinary people. For women, it meant leaving domestic service, which was Britain’s largest single occupation until 1939. Thousands of servants simply deserted their posts in the weeks after war was declared, in the knowledge that factories and offices would require their labour. They weren’t enamored of working on an assembly line or behind a desk; but they were aware that clerks and factory hands had regulated hours of work, basic pay rates and in some cases a holiday entitlement. Domestic servants, by contrast, were expected to work six and a half days a week for a pittance: it was by depending on such labour that the professional middle class reproduced itself in the 19th and early 20th centuries.

After the war, the real gains of the 1950s and 1960s were delivered by ordinary people themselves. The Labour victory in the 1945 General Election delivered a welfare state and near-full employment, but more interesting is how ordinary working people chose to exploit these improvements. Factory and, increasingly, office workers mobilised to improve working conditions and, importantly, reduce the amount of time they spent at work. That’s why so many of the disputes in the 1960s and 1970s were over the basic rate of pay, and who distributed overtime. If you’re paid a decent basic wage, then you don’t have to spend evenings and weekends at work, or take on evening or night shifts in order to pay for your mortgage, car or holiday.

Why, then, have people voted for the Tories, the party championing hard workers and entrepreneurialism? Precisely because the Conservatives seemed to offer an answer to many people who wanted to stop working for ‘the man’. The Tories have only ever offered individualistic solutions: home ownership or the chance to start your own business. These promises of social mobility and self preservation have always failed, because only a few can ever possess the wealth and opportunity in a capitalist country. Bankruptcies rose in the 1980s, following Margaret Thatcher’s scheme to fund business start-ups, and owner-occupiers suffered record levels of repossession in the 1990s. Today, those who ‘own’ their homes are in reality in hock to banks, burdened with huge, unsustainable debts.

Solidarity, on the other hand, has delivered important victories, and could offer a real alternative to austerity. Look at the tremendous achievements that collective struggle made over the last century: better working conditions, shorter working hours, an expanded public sector that gave us better jobs and care, democratically controlled housing and free education. The working class has declined as a collective political force, but the desire to help each other out has not – its just that its only outlet is now in worrying about children’s and grandchildren’s uncertain futures. By showing that collective effort can bring huge gains for all of us the Left could justify the redistribution of income and property, which is the only way to create a truly classless society. The political establishment scoff that this is ludicrous, but they have yet to reveal the logic behind their own incredible notion that ‘hardworking families’ can overcome the inequality perpetrated by a powerful elite determined to hang onto their privilege.

Selina Todd, a social historian, is fellow and vice principal of St Hilda’s College, Oxford. She is the author of Young Women, Work, and Family in England

Continued from: X

“…Only in the movies,” Sonny said, shifting at the absurdity of her asking. In this eleventh hour, a trip to the video store seemed a parental imperative; they’d take home another title, retire Dumbo from checkout till Justice knew a little better. However, Sonny wasn’t impatient with nor genuinely distressed by her questions. She was a smart kid – curious – and sometimes that meant no question was too wack and mustn’t be reserved for shame.

Sonny was growing full from breakfast, agitated/not agitated from the caffeine. He leaned forward and greater forward, in increments that would elude even Ricki’s keen observation, till his front was half under the table. He then deftly moved his napkin to his lap, and gently nudged Elvis with a preemptive wake-up call. “Elvis don’t have wings, hon, umm, but alligators have been known to take to the air in great big leaps!” Alligators did not include Elvis. The ‘man’ defied his species, mocked it. Some weeks the dry cleaning bill on his blanket alone put the Crocketts’ budget in the red. There wasn’t a household detergent invented yet that could mask that distinctive middle-aged male gator musk.

“This is–well, it’s just a suggestion, really, Justice, so you don’t have to take it to heart, if you don’t want to, you know, but, uh…” If he stammered anymore he’d turn into a coin-operated dummy–insert 25-cents to hear the daddy speak!  “I was thinkin’, why don’t we watch a doc-u-ment-a-ry for movie night? Hunh?” His hands folded expectantly before his chin. Sonny’s nails always looked just-manicured and his shadowy stubble never ran later than five o’clock.

At the other end of the table, Martin sat banging (and banging, and banging) pits into the vinyl tablecloth with the end of his rubberised spoon. Impressive. By comparison, his twin sister just became the world’s smallest genius.

Partial credit for the tagline, zero credit for the false promise.

6 Most Misleading Movie Titles Ever

#6. Mega Shark vs. Giant Octopus

Nobody could screw this up, right? … Of course someone could, and all they had to do was make the titular monsters bit players compared to the boring-ass humans that dominate the runtime. The monsters, while certainly big and bloodthirsty, regularly take a back seat to truly important matters, like Debbie Gibson talking and drinking.

Read More

[160227] Taemin said “Lee Jinki” came today but right now he is not “Onew”, so, he could/would not come up to greet them (Shawols). Then Taemin went down where Jinki was standing behind a black wall and started singing Selene 6.23 (Korean title is ”Distance Between You & I”). Fans yelled “zero meter!” (Minho had said the same to Shawols during SWC3)

The other fanaccount is related to Taemin’s Sketchbook recording. OP’s friend said Minho visited Taemin back then at Sketchbook(’s sets).

(x) (x) (x)

[160227] Taemin was waiting before his stage and he was gently pulled by someone and he poked him in return - that was Minho. (credit - polina_choi & thaluuu)