ha-no

What a believable series of events.

Know what I think is a really stunning series of coincidences? 

  • Louis got a club girl pregnant at the exact time needed to make an announcement possible for discussion during album promo and a convenient due date just 3 weeks after album promo officially ended
  • Louis then went to Atlanta for 3 days in November 2015 and just happened to meet a CW actress named Danielle Campbell by chance!
  • Her show was filmed in Atlanta and was filming at the time he went
  • Her character was then killed off on the show in early 2016
  • She was then able to be in Los Angeles FULL TIME!!! for the next 8 months for all the baby mama vs. new girlfriend drama needed
  • She had no other personal or professional commitments in the following 8 months
  • As she was from Chicago and worked in Atlanta, she had no housing in LA and could live in the rental and post pics when needed
  • Because she had no other work obligations, she was free for all the paparazzi pics needed for baby-related things/ trips/festivals/yachts/racing events/football charity events that came up 

All of these things perfectly aligning to make it possible for this love affair to take place in the one city Louis could be in for 7 months, which just happens to be the one city with the most available paparazzi. Truly amazing. What a believable turn of events. 

Antis reading the 1DHQ PR plan:

5

“Don’t view all that you experience in life through lenses darkened by the scars of abuse. There is so much in life that is beautiful.[…] Your depression will be converted to peace and assurance. You will close an ugly chapter and open volumes of happiness.”
–Richard G. Scott

“Believe in yourself! Have faith in your abilities! Without a humble but reasonable confidence in your own powers you cannot be successful or happy.”
–Norman Vincent Peale

The question is not “Will the Disney Channel renew GMW?” because of course they want to. It’s huge popularity means big MONEY for the company. Enough said.

The question we need to ask ourselves is “Does Michael Jacobs and the cast think its worth it to continue dealing with the horrible side of the fandom?”

That’s why I think appreciation campaigns are such a good idea. The loudest voices are usually the angriest ones. We could change that.

Info for anyone in the UK waiting for their Journal 3:

Turns out that Amazon.co.uk screwed up by not securing any copies – or at least not enough to even cover their pre-orders – before Disney ran out of them yesterday. (They really don’t want to admit it though. My questioning was met with a lot of artful dodging.)

So unfortunately even if you pre-ordered it’s possible you might be waiting for a while. You can get a refund on your postage fee if you ask them about the screw-up, though.

Quite a few months back, I entered some writing competitions. I’ve heard back from one of them today and even though I lost the competition, they want to publish my poem in a book. I never thought that I’d ever make it this far with my writing and the fact that I’m going to be published is pretty cool and to say that I’m happy would be an understatement. Hard work pays off, I guess! :)

Originally posted by allreactions

medium.com
Debunking The Bullshit Claim: “You’re Privileged If You Don’t Vote For Clinton”
No, it is not privileged to not support Hillary Clinton in a general election, nor is it a good idea, even more so with the rise of fascism in America. As marginalized people, we are screwed either way. It will not get better; it did not before, there is no sensible reason to believe this time will be any different.
By Morgana Visser

Back in 2008, and in 2012, we were told that we must vote for Obama to stop McCain or Romney; that if we allow a Republican in the white house we will have poverty, war and a string of problems. Almost every reason cited as why we need to stop the Republicans even if we do not like Obama’s policies, happened with Obama’s policies. We are still in Iraq, still in Afghanistan, and now we are also in many countries like Syria, where Obama recently added hundreds more troops. We toppled countries we were not in, before Obama’s presidency, directly or indirectly, like Libya and Honduras. We are in countries like Somalia, Pakistan, and Yemen doing inhumane acts of destruction and mass murder. We killed Osama and now we have ISIS. Things did not get better. We, in particular Hillary Clinton, sent weapons to dictators like the Saudi kings, Hosni Mubarak, and Abdullah Gül. “You have to vote to stop McCain/Romney from destabilizing the world!” — we got the same thing anyway by voting for a Democrat. The world has remains and continues to be destablized, not because Bush messed up so badly, but because Obama’s policies mimic Bush’s policies of imperialism and militarism. The problem with George Bush’s policies were not that they were “too militaristic”, “too imperialist”, etc, but they were imperialist, militarist and jingoistic. It is necessary to realize the difference between the Democrats and Republicans is not in fundamental differences; it is in very marginal ways. Democrats do coups and small military invasions; Republicans just go all out but we get the same results of death, destruction, imperialism, colonialism and chaos.

What is Hillary Clinton’s plan for Syria? More weapons, more war.

Hillary’s plan regarding Syria is to increase the support to Syrian rebels. Hillary calls herself a “progressive that likes to get things done” — but by “things”, she means getting a no-fly zone over Syrian airplace in order to start war with Russia, Syria, etc. This is a third force-esque resemblance of when the USAsupported Ngô Đình Diệm for his anti-communist stances despite him being an oppressive authoritarian; but I bet the rebels this time actually are moderate (sarcasm). My point being, there are no moderate rebels in Syria. If we aid Syrian rebels against Assad, we are going to topple Syria and create the same type of geopolitical power vacuum that we created for the Khmer Rouge and Pol Pot to occupy Cambodia but for ISIS. Which is actually already happened in Libya because Hillary Clinton decided to go on an imperialist rampage of death and destruction. If it is actually not her goal to help the rebels destroy the Syrian government, but actually a plan to equalize the battlefield in hopes of forcing Assad to the bargaining table, what makes anybody think that is going to work? That did not work historically and we have only ended up dumping more andmore money, lives and energy into this than we were originally told it would cost. With the ground that Assad has been able to accumulate back, why would anybody think pouring more money into the industrial military complex would solve the problem? It did not work then, it is not working now, it will not work later.

Anwar al-Awlaki after 9/11 was invited to the Pentagon to give a lecture on how to improve relations between Muslims and Christians, as a “moderate muslim” in the U.S.A. After it, as the U.S government increased spying on muslims and mosques, he became “radicalized”. After some time, he went to Yemen and began to fight against the U.S with terrorists. He, an American, was killed by a drone strike, without due process by Obama’s administration. You may say: “Well, he was a terrorist, who cares!?” or say he denounced his citizenship therefore he gets no due process. That is a completely different conversation to be had about due process, constitutionality of the “hit list” and drone strikes but that is not why I am telling you this. I am telling you this because he had a son. His son’s name was Abdulrahman al-Awlaki. He was a 16 year old American citizen. He was not a terrorist. But Obama’s administration assassinated him, just a few weeks after they killed his father — his father, that he did not see for years. This is how the administration defended that.

[…]

We were told we cannot have another Republican because the economy will be horrible — newsflash: it is still horrible. After the economic crash, poverty rose to 15%. Since 2010, it has steadily been about 14%–15%. Income inequality reached an all-time high, velocity of money reached an all-time low, poverty is still high, and although unemployment was cut in half, it does not matter that much. There is still soaring levels of underemployment and economic growth and low unemployment rates did not reduce poverty. It is not about how many jobs are added to an economy if those jobs cannot give the working class people a minimum standard of living, free of poverty. The U.S economy is not all that great and the global economy is far worse — and ours has no signs of getting better and the global economy is getting worse.

[…]

Income inequality has been on the rise for nearly half of a century and with all of the Democratic presidents or congresses we have had, did not fix it. There is no reason to believe another one will. If anything, we should understand another one, will not. Does the president have the ability, through Dodd-Frank, to break up the banks? Yes. But Obama has not and Hillary has made it clear she will not. Current legislation mandates the large financial institutions to submit a plan that they can quickly and swiftly liquidate assets in lieu of systemic risks; they have routinely failed to submit an adequate plan for years — and no action has been taken, they are still posing a systemic risk to the economy. Hillary Clinton’s policies are no better and given her relationship to corporate and bourgeois interests, there is no reason to believe she will be any different. It will be all talk, no show. There has been and will be no accountability for financial institutions.

The banks that pose the largest systemic risk to the economy; the banks on the G-20 stability board’s watch list of banks that pose a systemic risk, are the banks that donate to her campaigns. You cannot decry Republicans taking donations from these same interests, saying it affects how they vote but then turn a blind eye, foolishly saying it does not affect Hillary’s decisions. She praised Dodd-Frank and given that her husband, with her by his side, deregulated the hell out of the economy in the 1990’s, was okay — but only because there was such little to begin with that almost anything was good. Her refusal to support a reinstatement of the Glass-Steagall Act is because of who her donors are. Dodd-Frank to actual standards, not compared to the status quo, is pathetic and weak.

[…]

Will immigrants be safer under a Clinton presidency? No. Do I fear Trump more than Clinton? No. His border wall is unrealistic for varying reasons, his plan to deport ‘every illegal immigrant’ is unrealistic and given all of the checks and balances via courts and branch powers — there is no reason to believe any of it would or could actually happen. Democrats in congress would oppose both for being anti-immigrant and Republicans in congress would (and many already do) oppose both for being too expensive and unrealistic. Anything Trump says he will do, in his aggressive xenophobic tongue, Hillary will do also but with a smile and flowery words.