labour time

That “Immigrants don’t steal your jobs, they get jobs while you’re sitting around thinking you’re too good for them!” thing annoys me.

Because that’s - not what’s really going on?

What it actually is is “Immigrants are victims of a system set up to take advantage of them, in which employers and businesses use the fact that immigrants are more often than not in difficult, dangerous positions to strong-arm them into working long hours in often unhygienic or dangerous jobs for less than minimum wage.

“And the organisations that do that are often either the same as or in bed with the organisations that push the ‘Immigrants steal your jobs / immigrants want to push their values on the entire country / immigrants don’t deserve benefits’ narrative, because it allows them to not only socially isolate immigrants and make them more susceptible to being taken advantage of, but also to do things like refuse immigrants benefits that would allow them to viably consider not working for less than minimum wage in sub-par conditions, and to frame any attempt by immigrants to politically organise themselves and push for fair treatment as them being dangerously subversive.

“While the ‘immigrants steal your jobs’ thing is bullshit, it’s calculated bullshit pushed by politicians and businesses at a working class population in conjunction with an equally calculated strategy of enacting laws that endanger that population’s livelihoods and labour rights, at a time when the shenanigans of politicians and businesses have caused an employment crisis and a recession, because it’s easy to turn people who are terrified into bigots, and it’s politically advantageous to do so.”

I mean, I realise that that’s less pithy.

But it also doesn’t glorify the horrible conditions and sub-par wages that immigrants are subjected to, so there’s that.

10

“Neat where others were sloppy, organized where they were confused, sure of himself while they floundered, he cut a swath through England’s murderers that left the police far behind.
Unimpressed by titles, unfazed by difficulties, untiring in his labours, Hercule Poirot stood as a bulwark protecting English society from legions of lady poisoners, gentlemen stranglers, and murderers of all sorts and persuasions who, without his efforts, would have escaped justice.
Though he occasionally berated himself for his few mistakes and miscalculations, he knew his own worth well enough. Spurning false modesty, he allowed as how he was ‘the greatest mind in Europe.’”

- ‘Hercule Poirot, The Man and the Myth’ by Jerry Keucher, from The Bedside, Bathtub & Armchair Companion to Agatha Christie by Dick Riley and Pam McAllister

[ image description: A screen shot of a post that reads “Don’t cross oceans for people who wouldn’t cross a puddle for you.” Someone has crossed this out with a big grey X and underneath added “No, do it. Do cross oceans for people. Love people, all people. No conditions attached, no wondering whether or not they’re worthy. Cross oceans, climb mountains. Life and love isn’t about what you gain, it’s about what you give.” End of descripton ]

I hate this post, I hate it so much. And let me tell you why.

At first it seems like a pretty good post, right? You should love people and do things for them because you want to or because it’s nice, or just because you love them, not because you expect something in return. Yeah. We learn that as kids. But listen. Listen to me. It is not that simple. Yes you should do nice things for people. Carry in your grandmother’s grocerys even if she forgets to say thank you. Sure. But you should never, never, pour yourself into someone who does not give back to you.

Doing everything for someone who gives you nothing in return is not love.

A friend of mine worded it really well “The point of the original post was to emphasise that your own mental/physical health is more important than someone’s selfish needs.” It’s not romantic to run yourself into the ground for someone who can’t even be bothered to care about you. And not only is it not romantic, it’s unhealthy.

I have, on more than one occasion, “crossed oceans” for people who I do believe loved me, but who didn’t even come close to crossing them for me. And do you know what I got out of that? The first one I lost 10 pounds because I was so miserable I could barely eat and I was throwing up what I did eat. And I was still doing whatever I could to be with them, and make them happy, even though they didn’t seem to be willing to put any work in themself. Why bother, I was always there. The second one I ran my own mental health so thin that that literally could not do anything for him, all I could do is sit in the bathtub and think about how I coudln’t feel anything. But I still refused to turn my phone off and ignore his messages. I still made myself avaible to him because he “needed me.”

There was nothing romantic about either of those situations (note: only one was a romantic relationship but the idea of giving and giving and giving when you’re gettin nothing back is romanticized whether it’s in a romantic or platonic relationship.) There was nothing beautiful or selfless about it. It was miserable. I was miserable. I can remember one of my friends telling me he missed me because all I could talk about was the person I had allowed to become my whole life.

And in the end, both of them stopped talking to me.

Don’t believe anyone when they say the second part of that post. It’s bullshit and I’m really tired of seeing it romanticized. It tells people (especailly young girls) that this is an okay way for a relationship to be, that this is what they should be doing. 

There is nothing selfish about demanding that your emotional labour be reciprocated. That’s what makes a relationship (romantic, platonic, or otherwise) healthy. That’s what love is. Both people giving. Both people supportin each other. Not one person giving until they have nothing left for themself. 

If the hour’s wage is fixed in such a way that the capitalist does not bind himself to pay a day’s or a week’s wage, but only to pay wages for the hours during which he chooses to employ the worker, he can employ him for a shorter time than that which is originally the basis of the calculation of the wages for the hour, or the unit of measurement for the price of labour. Since this unit is determined by the ratio of the daily value of labour-power to the working day of a given number of hours, it naturally loses all meaning as soon as the working day ceases to contain a definite number of hours. The connection between paid and unpaid labour is destroyed. The capitalist can now wring from the worker a certain quantity of surplus labour without allowing him the labour time necessary for his own subsistence. He can annihilate all regularity of employment, and according to his own convenience, caprice, and the interest of the moment, make the most frightful over-work alternate with relative or absolute cessation of work. He can abnormally lengthen the working day without giving the worker any corresponding compensation, under the pretence of paying ‘the normal price of labour.’
—  Karl Marx in Capital Volume 1, explaining zero hours contracts about 150 years before they came about proper
Actual female power:

RESOURCES - having everything you need for survival and socializing without ever having to depend on men, having a secure place to live, source of nourishment and heat without ever having to consider marriage, sex work, or any kind of catering to men in order to establish mere survival on this planet. 

AUTONOMY - full control over your own body. Not ever having to be touched against your will, or have another person control any part of your body, especially your reproductive abilities, deciding on your own and for your own benefit what happens with your body, knowing what’s good for your body and exact risks you take if you’re willing to subject it to pregnancy, sex, or any other condition, not ever taking a bigger risk than you feel safe taking.

COMMUNITY - Bonding, sharing, belonging, participating, being protected by a community of women with the same interests, same experiences, and same goals as you have, knowing that all or most of your experiences are common and normal in society you live in, receiving support, validation and help in all of your issues, knowing that no matter what happens, women will have your back, as you have theirs, standing united against threats that hit us as a whole.

KNOWLEDGE - receiving the formidable knowledge women of history have created and achieved on this planet, knowing that women created everything and everyone, knowing the role your sex has played on this planet was vital and immeasurable, knowing your history, knowing what we had to fight for and what we still have to fight for, having a conscious mind about the endless achievements and labour women preformed, as well as the endless violence and crimes committed against our sex, and the danger we’re put in from day to day.

PHYSICAL STRENGTH - our bodies are created strong, and the stronger we get, the more chance we achieve for physical safety, having the ability to beat the crap out of anyone who tries to assault you is a real power, looking too physically intimidating to even be attacked is a real, big asset, not being threatened physically by men is a luxury most women don’t have due to social pressure to keep our bodies small and fragile, so aiming for body as strong as possible is a real power, and it’s a power men don’t want us to have.

AGENCY - acting in favour of your own interests, knowing what those interests are and knowing how to take action that will bring you to your goals, never wasting time on representing the interests of a group that works against you, never wasting your energy, labour or time on those who see you as less than a human, fighting for all that you know you deserve, and know you can get, never letting someone else speak for you or decide for you, never putting your human rights on hold for the sake of other’s goals.

SAFETY - this is a power we have to fight for the most. Safety from psychological and emotional terror society enforces onto us in order to change our bodies, to give up on our strength, looks, bodily autonomy, confidence, freedom. Safety from falling into traps men have created in order to exploit us, safety from our bodies being sold, safety from abusive marriage, safety from physical violence, sexual violence, safety from having our autonomy taken away from us, from the credit of our intelligence and our labour and our creations taken from us, safety from having to spend our entire lives catering to predators in mere hope they will spare us the pain they’re inflicting on any woman who isn’t doing what she’s being told. We deserve to be protected from all of it. We deserve to have full lives without the epidemic of psychological, physical and sexual violence ever touching our lives, much less dictating them.

Note that men already have all of these, it’s given to them by default, resources are available for them in much greater quantity, autonomy of their body is achieved, they receive plenty of validation and community from their male peers, male authority, and male directed media, their stories and achievements are over-represented in every single history course, their physical strength is celebrated and they’re encouraged to get as strong as possible, they wouldn’t dream of representing anyone’s interests but their own, and they’re safe from a big chunk of emotional, psychological and sexual terror women are going thru every single moment of their life, even if other men still from a physical threat to some of them.

WE HAVE RIGHT TO RESOURCES AS WELL. WE HAVE THE RIGHT TO OUR BODIES. WE HAVE THE RIGHT TO COMMUNITY. WE HAVE THE RIGHT TO OUR HISTORY. WE HAVE THE RIGHT TO CELEBRATE OUR PHYSICAL STRENGTH. WE HAVE THE RIGHT TO FIGHT FREELY FOR OUR OWN INTERESTS. WE HAVE THE RIGHT TO SAFETY FROM ABUSE. WE HAVE THE RIGHT TO BE LIBERATED FROM SOCIETY THAT WOULD TAKE ALL OF THIS FROM US.

I’m sick of the idea that children are somehow responsible for saving the world. New generations, new young adults, new children, they’re all brought to life with this pressure that they’re somehow supposed to fix the world that older generations have fucked up! And mind you, not fix for themselves, make life good for themselves, noo, they’re supposed to fix the life FOR the older generations! They’re supposed to save faulty industries, support exploitative capitalistic systems, make up everything to their abusive parents, and then sacrifice their time and labour and will to live so the world could function better for everyone else, and if they happen to fail at this impossible task, then they’re failure as a human being and a burden on society! Do older generations bring new people in this world literally only for their own benefit? To make things better for themselves?

I’m fucking furious about this, as if it’s not enough we’re brought in this world where it’s such fucking struggle to survive literally every person I know has this deep fear of the future, anxiety at what’s going to happen to them, how the world will change for worse and if they’ll be able to ever be safe and sound. We’re somehow expected to fix problems we haven’t created and we have no power to stop, these are problems that are done TO us, they’re not something we’ve been given power over and authority to end.

We had fucking dreams when we were born into this world. We had our aspirations and desires and things we wanted to be, we wanted to achieve, we thought this world was worth something, that we’ve been born into a functioning society, and for a reason, that we had our lives in front of us, and now we have to face that this is nothing but a dysfunctional dystopia and everyone is blaming us for it? For not being enough to impossibly make it work? We’re not here to be what the world needs, we’re here because we’re human, we’re here because we’re alive, we deserve to live, we deserve to experience the wonder and joy and beauty of being alive on this planet, how do they reason taking this away from us? How do they reason throwing us into this pit of impossible expectations while somehow failing to notice that all the good things they’ve had somehow never reached us, somehow got destroyed on the way of their path to success? Our happiness is lost among their winnings, and they’ve still not had enough.

Fucking nobody cares about children anymore.

10 | Tomorrow

BTS MAKNAE LINE X READER AU

WORD COUNT: 3,265

WARNINGS: SWEARING, ANGST, FEELS, ETC

masterlist | ask | prev 


Sweat beaded your forehead as you ran through the sea of people flooding the airport, your breathing was erratic and Jungkook was nowhere to be seen. Your heart hammered angrily against your chest, where was he? There you were, willing to drop your life for him and he didn’t have the decency to even answer the phone the 14 times you’d called.

Close to giving up your eyes wandered the busy scene desperately once more, much to your surprise you saw a tall, broad figure wearing all black holding what looked like to be a Louis Vuitton luggage bag. Your Louis Vuitton luggage bag. That had to be him. You ran up to the man who was speedily walking away, his wide strides almost impossible for you to catch up with.

“Jungkook!” You shouted, earning a stare from a dozen pairs of nosey eyes in the process.

Keep reading

An open letter to recast owners

I’ve been debating with myself wether or not to post this because I’ve been away from the hobby and this ‘discourse’ for some time doing my own thing and generally trying to get my shit together but then someone had the bright idea of posting that delightful list and attempting to brand myself and some 700 people as bullies and stalkers. Not cool bro, not cool at all.

So this is my open letter to the recast owning community, particularly those like the admins of the above blog. I always welcome discourse, if you want to discuss any of this or any of my points then I more than welcome you to my inbox, it’s always open.


Greetings fellow doll lover,
The thing I really, really want to emphasise above all else is that we get it. We really do.
Who wouldn’t want something they’ve been wanting forever and a day for cheaper than usual? It’s only natural and we’re a generation (or two) of people who’ve been brought up to search for a bargain every chance we can. So we understand the temptation. But the issue of recasts vs supporting artists goes much deeper than just the price tag and that seems to be where the disconnect is, at least from what I’ve observed the last few years.

Allow me to make an analogy;
Imagine, if you will, that you’ve got yourself a job cleaning floors, be it for a bit of money on the side or your sole source of income.
You’ve got yourself all set up, you’ve bought the brooms, the dustpan, the garbage can and bags. Not to mention you bought all those cleaning chemicals which weren’t cheap at all. So you’ve come up with how much you charge your clients based on the cost of your equipment and you manage to squeeze in a little on top to cover your labour and time. You come up with what you consider a very fair price considering the time, effort and cost involved in your work. Sounds fair right?
Now imagine you’re cleaning a floor, you’ve done a good job, you could eat off that floor. Some guy comes along, tells you what a good job you’ve done and even picks up a piece of rubbish for you but the second your boss appears to pay you what you’re owed this other guy, we’ll call him Mr R quickly shows him the garbage can, telling your boss at length what a wonderful job has been done and he’ll only charge half of what you where asking for.
Oh! Well your boss loves that idea, a perfect floor for half the price! Who wouldn’t jump on that deal! So MR R leaves with the money, having done a tiny amount of work compared to you. You’re left out of pocket and with nothing to show for all that time and effort your poured into your work.
How would that make you feel? Maybe you could let it slide if it happened just once but imagine that Mr R keeps coming back, he’s got the money now to follow you to your next job and the one after that and so on after all.

I’m hoping it’s obvious where I’m going with this… on a simplified level that’s exactly what recasters do. They make money off the hard work, skill and all that time an artist pours into making dolls and deny those same artists potential sales by poaching customers with an artists own work. I don’t know about you but I’d find that so incredibly beyond galling if it were me in the artists shoes. And if your work is constantly being sold out from under you, why bother to continue?

That is the crux of why recasts are so harmful to the BJD world. Creating a BJD from scratch takes skill (something which might have entailed formal education and the debts that go with it), a hell of a lot of time and development and a lot of money sunk into it along the way for equipment and materials. Why should anyone sink all that into making dolls when someone else is going to come along, make the minimum amount of effort and make money off that artists hard work?
And if artists decide they’ve had enough and it’s just not worth their time to make dolls anymore then we ALL loose out. Even recast owners. Because what’s there going to be to recast if dolls aren’t being made in the first place?

There’s been many good posts made about the costs of producing dolls and I encourage and implore you to go look for them. Do some research on what’s involved in producing the dolls we all enjoy and you’ll come away informed and hopefully with a good sense of what it’s like for the artists who’s work we all covet.


So much of the narrative being used by blogs like bjdrecastpositive and the people behind them relies upon is attempting to paint anyone who disagrees with them as bullies and stalkers.  I can’t speak for all 700 people singled out on that list they complied but I know that I’ve never stalked anyone in my life (who even has the time or energy for that?) and I certainly don’t bully anyone. Being vocal and disagreeing with something someone posts publically is not bullying.
And once again I implore you to use your own common sense and take that list and posts like it for what it is; an attempt to shift focus away from the real issues at hand.
There’s some very impressive mental gymnastics going on (which we’ve seen before) comparing recast owners and their side of the ‘debate’ to the struggles of the black community or the LGBTQA community among others, not to mention all that intersectionality but and I really must emphasise this as hard as it may be to hear it; recasts owners are not the victims, they are not being persecuted or discriminated against. That isn’t what being disagreed with in a debate is. That isn’t what having your decision to buy a fake doll called into question is.
And a decision is exactly what recast ownership is, with the exception of course of the poor people who get scammed, it is a conscious decision to put luxury wants above all else, regardless of whom it hurts. How ever someone wants to justify it to themselves on no level does deciding to buy a fake doll and having that called into question compare to being persecuted for your skin colour or sexuality. And I honestly cannot believe that’s even something I have to explain. The mind boggles.

Like I said at the beginning. I get it, I really do. None of us are pretending to be perfect or to have never made questionable decisions but the point is that we are all capable of looking back on our decisions, realising it was a mistake and doing the right thing. Be that by changing our ways or by making amends. Even some of the big name doll companies have made such journeys, Dollzone started out as a recast company, they decided to change their ways and they’ve since flourished into what they are today, likewise Fairyland fucked up pretty big by copying the designs for their steampunk weapons a year or two back but they realised they’d messed up and made it right. We are all constantly growing and learning. It’s part of life and learning from our mistakes is a fundamental thing we all share.

All I’m asking with this letter is to encourage recast owners and supporters to simply put themselves in someone else’s shoes, to think about the implications of buying fake dolls and to have a good hard look at their decision to do so. There are so many alternatives, be it layaways or this awesome list of dolls under $300 that @bluekitsune put together. The alternatives are there, you just need to look for them.

hey i see a lot of posts like this going around (also a lot of ones about sugar baby culture etc) and as someone who’s done this kind of sex work this is really frustrating. this stuff isn’t just a funny, whacky way to make extra cash, and joking about doing it isn’t funny because this is a real full time job for a lot of people that requires a huge amount of time and labour. sex work of all kinds can be incredibly emotionally and physically intensive and potentially damaging. it isn’t “easy money”.

the reason these posts are funny is because of the tongue-in-cheek nature of them, the underlying “haha this is funny because i would never actually become a sex worker” thing. and that’s incredibly alienating, othering and dehumanizing to the real people who do this stuff.

8

It’s a revolution, not a war;

London, in the early 1900′s. Lady Morgana Pendragon is the highly controversial daughter of the Conservative leader The Rt Hon. Sir Uther Pendragon, MP. It has been widely speculated by the tabloids that the Lady Morgana is secretly funding the suffragettes movement. It would seem where the Lady Morgana would go she would attract attention from her bold fashion reflecting her general demeanour to her choice of “companion” with the young Miss Guinevere Leodegrance, a once servant to the Pendragons, now with the help of the Lady Morgana a sensation in London’s affluent music scene. 

On the other side of the Spectrum the working class are rising in the form of the Labour party, the leader is rumoured to be the opposition’s own wayward son, The Rt Hon. Arthur Pendragon, MP. who gave up his titles after his rebellion. Mister Pendragon is often criticised for the position due to his privileged upbringing, most publicly by a certain reporter by the name of Mister Merlin Emrys. Mister Emrys is The Guardian’s most favoured reporter, whose wish with the help of his undercover colleague Miss Mithian Nemeth it is to expose the Lady Morgana’s affair with Miss Guinevere, in the hope to use the scandal to bring upon an uprising against the Aristocracy for a modern Britain.  

nobody is disputing that working conditions for workers in imperialist nations are better, but to argue that this means workers in imperialist nations have the same class interests as the bourgeoisie is ludicrous. a Marxist understanding of class derives from the material relations of production. proletarians, regardless of the conditions in which their surplus labour time is expropriated, share a common relation to capital: it controls them. 

that relation is not changed by the conditions in which labour is conducted. all proletarians share the same relationship to the means of production and to the bourgeoisie. if you want to argue that this isn’t the determining feature of class, that is absolutely your prerogative, but you are abandoning Marxism to do so.

cnn.com
Record number of women elected to British Parliament
By James Masters, CNN

It’s official – Britain will have more women members of Parliament than ever before.

On a dramatic night that shook the political establishment to its core and forced Prime Minister Theresa May to place her Conservative Party into a coalition with Northern Ireland’s Democratic Unionist Party, some 207 female lawmakers were elected to the House of Commons.

With one seat yet to be declared, that number already surpasses the 196 elected in the 2015 vote and subsequent by-elections.

One of the biggest surprises came in Canterbury, Kent, where Rosie Duffield clinched the seat for Labour for the first time since 1918.

There was also history made in the constituency of Birmingham Edgbaston, where Preet Kaur Gill became the first Sikh women to be elected to Parliament.

The Green Party’s Caroline Lucas retains her seat in Brighton Pavilion.

Caroline Lucas, the Green Party’s only member of Parliament, retained her seat in Brighton Pavilion with a healthy majority.

Labour’s Diane Abbott, the shadow home secretary, and Emily Thornberry, the shadow foreign minister, both enjoyed successful evenings Thursday.  

The radar couple of Norwegian LGBT+ history

Karen-Christine “Kim”  Friele is a famous Norwegian LGBT+ activist and she was the first publicly out LGBT+ person in Norway. She was born Williamsen in Fana kommune in present day Bergen into a home she herself described as “conservative and respectable” in 1935. In her teenage years she played with the idea of her being a lesbian, but never acted on her attraction to women. In 1956 she got engaged to the young lawyer Ole Friele jr.

Less then a year later Kim broke off the engagement after meeting Aileen Britton, an Australian actress, that Kim describes as “an amazing woman” but when Ola broke his arm and begged for Kim to take him back she broke it off with Aileen and married him in 1959.

After the weeding Ola and Kim moved to Oslo together. After two years of marriage Kim told Ola that she was a lesbian and wanted a divorce. Her parents accepted her and supported her decision to divorce. 

She joined the secret organization for LGBT+ Norwegians called “Det norske forbundet av 1948″ Kim disliked how the organization was mainly used as a pick-up scene and had no real political power. She became leader in 1966 and started an aggressive politics to remove the 213 paragraph which made homosexuality illegal. The paragraph was removed in 1972. She later also got homosexuality removed as a mental disorder in Norway in 1978. In 1978 she also got “fritt ord”-award for her promotion of freedom of speech. 

In 1977 Kim Firele met Wenche Lowzow who was a member of parliament of the time. Wenche Lowzow was a conservative MP and Kim Firele was a member of the Norwegian Labour party at the time at first refused to meet with her meaning that it was impossible for a conservative MPs support the LGBT rights. Kim’s father was once quoted to say “Her being a lesbian isn’t that bad, her being a socialist is much worse” 

Nedless to say Kim and Wenche feel madly in love. Wenche wasn’t ready to come out and had problems dating the most prominent LGBT person in Norway. In 1979 she and other MPs was invited to “Det norske forbundet av 1948″  and when the Labour party MP said in her speech “that she didn’t know any gay people” Wenche Lowzow interrupted her and said:

“Dear Merle, for eight years I have been sitting behind you in the city consul. But today is the first day I tell you who I am. I am not here because of the Conservative party, but as a homosexual and a member of “Forbundet av 1948″” 

She then became the first openly LGBT+ MP in the Norwegian parliament. 

Kim and Wenche became one of the first same-sex couples to get a partnership in 1983 

Wenche sadly died in 2016 and Kim still lives in their home in Geilo.

Two inspiring strong women. Here is a picture of them from the Oslo pride parade in 2010 where they were both honorary guests

anonymous asked:

I came here cos i dont rlly know where else, but im from the uk and i live in a family that votes conservative in a pretty conservative area, speaking to my mum she doesnt really want to vote for any of them but shes going to vote anyway so she can have a say. What i wanted to ask was, im under the impression that whilst labour has a load of good points socially and for the good of wellbeing, there arent as many good financial points, and that labour has put us into recession before (1/?)

and that wiht brexit and everything, we dont want anymore financial difficulties? as well as on top of allthe terrorism and things, shouldnt the government stay without drastic changes for a while, just for the sake of consistency? idk this is my first year to be able to vote and im panicking cos i really feel underinformed about everything and i dont really know who to vote

Hi anon,

I’m really sorry I’ve been away from tumblr the past couple of days and tumblr’s only just told me I’ve got messages in my inbox! I hope this isn’t too late!

Given that the election is today I really don’t have time to answer this as fully and well as I’d like to, but I will try and explain as best and as quickly as a I can…

Finances.

The Tories financial policies are about austerity - squeeze the working class and the ordinary people; reduce public spending and make budget cuts across all kinds of public provisions. So the NHS gets massive cuts. So does every other government funded thing like the BBC, disability benefits for people who are too ill to work, the education system etc.

The Labour party’s financial policies are all about taxing huge corporations (that make billions and billions of pounds) and the richest people in our society (also billionaires) in order to provide the funding for things that we need, such as the NHS, the education system, welfare, pensions and other things.

I really, honestly don’t believe that this is an exaggeration or a hyperbole:

If the Tory get into power again with this government, under Theresa May, the NHS will collapse within the next few years. The Tories have already begun selling off parts of the NHS and privatizing it piece by piece (meaning that we’re heading for a healthcare system like they have in America, where if you’re too poor to afford health insurance, you die from things that are totally curable or treatable, and an accident or serious illness could literally leave you bankrupt). They are repeatedly making cuts that put a totally unreasonable strain on staff workers like Doctors and Nurses, and put patient lives at risk.

Labour’s track record

The last Labour majority government we had was under Tony Blair. He wasn’t a leftist. He was a right-wing thinker dressed in a left-wing suit. He was a disaster for the economy. He took us to war in Iraq, totally illegally. I will make no excuses for him.

Jeremy Corbyn is a completely different person. He is very left-wing. He is a man of conscience, who has voted on the right side of history for decades, long before he became a famous politician and people started paying attention.

Terrorism

As for terrorism - believe it or not, we are actually safer now from terrorism that we have been in years. There have been less terrorist attacks in the last few years than there were during the 90s with the IRA. But if you’re really concerned for our nation’s safety, consider this: Theresa May was home secretary before she became Prime Minister. It was her job to oversee the security of the nation. And all she has done is make continuous cuts to the police force, making it harder for them to do their job.

She has also announced that she plans on censoring the internet - controlling what people post and say, and giving the government the power to spy on everyone. She’s using the public’s fear of terrorism to gain control over the public. It’s fear-mongering tactics and it’s honestly abhorrent.

Voting

I can’t make you vote any particular way, anon. I know you feel uninformed. But I would urge you to vote Labour. Even if you feel like it’s not going to make a difference. Even if you’re not 100% sure.

Because under a Tory government, people are going to die. Disabled people are going to die because their benefits will be cut and they won’t have enough money to pay for their basic needs. Thousands of disabled people have already died as a result of the cuts. We can’t take any more of them. Sick people are going to die because our NHS is collapsing under the weight of the Tories heavy cuts. People are waiting for hours and hours in A&E, and waiting lists for really important, urgent appointments are months, sometimes even years long. And it’s only going to get worse.

Corbyn has been nothing but truthful, conscientious, and consistent throughout his time as Labour leader. He is honestly the first leader since I’ve been engaged with politics at all, that I actually believe cares about normal people. Because he’s shown throughout his entire political career, that he votes for the right thing, even when it’s unpopular, even when he’s the only one, even when nobody’s looking. And all of his policies are about taking care of the poorest and those most in need of help in our society.

CRACKPOT THEORY ABOUT SHADE/TLH/LOS

Why do we blindly accept that Will and Tessa had only two children???

WELL, IT’S WRITTEN IN THE FAMILY TREE.

THE FAMILY TREE WE SHOULDN’T TRUST, ACCORDING TO CASSIE.

Hear me out! What if Tessa was pregnant during the Last Hours? There is snippet from Chain of Gold where Will is literally sobbing onto Jem’s shoulder. And I thought so much about what could Will be crying about. Jem is obviously fine. Lucie, Jamie and Tessa seem fine too. But are they?

Tessa could have had a problematic pregnancy or perhaps even be in labour at that time. Maybe she just had a miscarriage.

And there is this mysterious warlock that appeared in Los, who flees from Magnus. Most of us think it’s Ragnor. But what if it’s related to the Herondales?

One reason why he might be fleeing from Magnus is that he fears if Magnus sees him, he’ll tell Tessa. Additionally, he calls himself “Shade”. Who could turn into shadows? James Herondale.

All I am saying is that Shade is perhaps a lost child of Tessa that is perhaps assumed to be dead. His name is a tribute to his brother.

BUT HE IS GREEN AND IMMORTAL! HER KIDS ARE NOT LIKE THAT.

C'mon Tessa is one of a kind. Who says she can’t have a child that is more warlock than Shadowhunter.

I KNOW THIS IS FAR-FETCHED AND MORE OF A CRACKPOT THEORY BUT TESSA HAVING ANOTHER CHILD DOES MAKEE SENSE. THANK YOU FOR YOU ATTENTION.

Strawberry Tart

Group: BTS

Pairing: JIN X READER

Summary: You are a clumsy baker and Jin is an encouraging customer.

Genre: drabble, fluff

Length: 1k

A/N: anyone for a part two?


Originally posted by tiffanyhwangz

The shop bell dinged as a new customer walked into the bakery, the scent of warm bread wafted throughout the air. You were currently manning the store by yourself, your boss having to leave due to a family problem, with your back turned to the counter as you tried to pull the freshly baked croissants out of the oven, but the tray got stuck and tugging it slightly too hard, the tray jerked free.

Stumbling back slightly due to the sudden force you steadied yourself by leaning on the counter with an elbow, feeling it sink into what felt suspiciously like a strawberry tart. You stepped forward and placed the tray down on one of the marble counters. Then whipping around to see if you were right about the tart, you were face to face with a boy, his hair was a light pink and you had to look away to stop yourself from drooling, yet you could still see his plump lips that were pulled into a smile as he watched how mortified your face went as your eyes locked with the now crushed strawberries and cream spread on the counter and table.

Keep reading

corybanter  asked:

Here's a fun question. In Hamlet's first soliloquy (1.2), which do you prefer: sullied, solid, or sallied? (I've always preferred "solid" (First Folio) myself, but the New Oxford reads "sullied," while the Norton 3rd reads "sallied" (Second Quarto).) Would love to hear your opinion!

Ah, a classic question. 

To add to your little list, Q1 has ‘sallied’, the Arden Shakespeare has ‘sallied’ (because it’s the Q2 version), the Oxford Shakespeare has ‘solid’, The New Cambridge has ‘solid’.

My general preference is also for ‘solid’ – It’s the simplest option, and it works best with the rest of the melting and liquid imagery: ‘O that this too too solid flesh would melt, / Thaw, and resolve itself into a dew’ (1.2.129-30).

I wouldn’t preclude the other possibilities though. ‘Sallied’ usefully conveys the sense that Hamlet feels besieged, which fits with my general understanding of his unenviable position. ‘Sullied’, is a possibility because it’s a variant spelling of ‘sallied’, found in other early modern texts of the time (Love’s Labours Lost is one). ‘Sullied’ is often preferred by psychoanalytic readings because it focuses on Hamlet’s sense of contamination by his mother’s remarriage, but for me, it also adds to the sense of being infected by the rotten state of Denmark. Once again, it emphasises Hamlet’s inextricable complicity with his situation.

The benefit of texts written for a predominantly aural reception in an age when not everyone was literate is that homophones are fluid, expansive rather than restrictive. It’s worth remembering that Shakespeare’s audience called it ‘hearing a play’, not ‘seeing a play’ (and reading always came afterwards). And we are talking about the master of puns here. It’s part of the beauty and difficulty of Shakespeare that multiple meanings can exist at once, or each audience member can make up their mind on what meaning they prefer. Naturally, editors have to make a decision and settle for one to put in print, but on some level, it’s not necessary to privilege one meaning over the other.