school campaign

I hate hate HATE all those 2edgy 4me theories about kids shows. Like Angelica dreaming up the rugrats, or the ed, edd, and eddy children being ghosts, or literally anything that takes a lighthearted and fun kids show and has to turn it into some tragic take of rape or murder or misinformed mental illness.

So you know what? From now on I’m gonna do the exact opposite. Every cool grim-dark show is now because of a bunch of children. To get us started:

Game of Thrones: A middle-school DnD campaign with the most angry, vindictive DM who has promised to kill everyone’s player characters (and their family) by the end.


i know that people being on their phones has become like a symbol of apathy and uncaring but so many people i know use social media to share love. like yesterday i got to watch a wedding livestreamed to everyone who couldn’t make it. i’ve seen my friend slowly learn how to cope with being a teen mom because of a massive outpouring of “mumblr” support + tips. i’ve seen my friends come out as gay, learn to cook, discover the flaws in their feminism, work for social change, make good life choices, go to amazing places, develop passions, form educated opinions, learn to love themselves. i’ve seen people post the bravest recovery posts and shy political posts and everything in between. 

and i don’t honestly care how edgy you think your art is. what you’re telling me when you draw grey people looking at a white screen is that you don’t care what happens to the other people in your life.

but i do. i care about the boy i’m in a long distance relationship with, but i also care about people i’ve never met. i’ve been following some people for three years and genuinely care about their experiences. i’m glad you’re still in touch with the people you love, even if you’re not paying attention directly to me! i get happy when you finally dump him! i’m sad when your cat gets sick! i give a shit.

i don’t think technology is taking empathy away from us. i think it’s changing it.

theguardian.com
Neoliberalism has conned us into fighting climate change as individuals | Martin Lukacs
Stop obsessing with how personally green you live – and start collectively taking on corporate power
By Martin Lukacs

Would you advise someone to flap towels in a burning house? To bring a flyswatter to a gunfight? Yet the counsel we hear on climate change could scarcely be more out of sync with the nature of the crisis.

The email in my inbox last week offered thirty suggestions to green my office space: use reusable pens, redecorate with light colours, stop using the elevator.

Back at home, done huffing stairs, I could get on with other options: change my lightbulbs, buy local veggies, purchase eco-appliances, put a solar panel on my roof.

And a study released on Thursday claimed it had figured out the single best way to fight climate change: I could swear off ever having a child.

These pervasive exhortations to individual action — in corporate ads, school textbooks, and the campaigns of mainstream environmental groups, especially in the west — seem as natural as the air we breath. But we could hardly be worse-served.

While we busy ourselves greening our personal lives, fossil fuel corporations are rendering these efforts irrelevant. The breakdown of carbon emissions since 1988? A hundred companies alone are responsible for an astonishing 71 percent. You tinker with those pens or that panel; they go on torching the planet.

Continue Reading.

youtube

Black students are 4X more likely to be suspended than white students for similar misconduct.

Let’s change that: http://dsorg.us/2oCuMQ7

scribe: hey so for this thing in the campaign we need a song important to your character. you can definitely pick an existing folk song for it if you want

me, already pulling out a pencil and paper: okay so i’m going to filk a lullaby with multiple thematic meanings relevant to both the current situation and erwyn’s backstory, include references to d&d lore, and try to make it sound like it’s a translation from the original elvish

Mike doesn’t hear El’s voice. She doesn’t speak. Too weak, he supposes. But she’s always there, when he gets back from school, during the campaigns, when he’s dreaming (she’s especially good with dreams). The guys never see her, or they choose not to. Whenever a bulb flashes away during a campaign, whether it be during a celebration or a failure, they all give him sympathetic looks as Mike’s face lights up in a smile. But that’s okay. Because he knows it’s her.

After a year, he finally hears her. When Hopper shows up at his basement door, a fragile girl bundled in his arms, she says just one word, but it’s enough to make Mike start crying. “Mike.”

anonymous asked:

i have multiple public school experiences to mention: 1. my teacher was caught watching Bad Girlz porn in class and now it's become a meme in my school to say "bad girls... with a z" 2. a kid in one of my middle schools ate a dead non-cooked rabbit in class with the fur still on it 3. somebody tried to flush a huge fish in the toilet and it didn't fit so for at least a week there was a fish in the toilet and our school started the "FreeTheFish2k17" campaign

That’s all over the place

theguardian.com
Neoliberalism has conned us into fighting climate change as individuals | Martin Lukacs
Stop obsessing with how personally green you live – and start collectively taking on corporate power
By Martin Lukacs

Would you advise someone to flap towels in a burning house? To bring a flyswatter to a gunfight? Yet the counsel we hear on climate change could scarcely be more out of sync with the nature of the crisis.

The email in my inbox last week offered thirty suggestions to green my office space: use reusable pens, redecorate with light colours, stop using the elevator.

Back at home, done huffing stairs, I could get on with other options: change my lightbulbs, buy local veggies, purchase eco-appliances, put a solar panel on my roof.

And a study released on Thursday claimed it had figured out the single best way to fight climate change: I could swear off ever having a child.

These pervasive exhortations to individual action — in corporate ads, school textbooks, and the campaigns of mainstream environmental groups, especially in the west — seem as natural as the air we breath. But we could hardly be worse-served.

While we busy ourselves greening our personal lives, fossil fuel corporations are rendering these efforts irrelevant. The breakdown of carbon emissions since 1988? A hundred companies alone are responsible for an astonishing 71 percent. You tinker with those pens or that panel; they go on torching the planet.

The freedom of these corporations to pollute – and the fixation on a feeble lifestyle response – is no accident. It is the result of an ideological war, waged over the last forty years, against the possibility of collective action. Devastatingly successful, it is not too late to reverse it.

The political project of neoliberalism, brought to ascendence by Thatcher and Reagan, has pursued two principal objectives. The first has been to dismantle any barriers to the exercise of unaccountable private power. The second had been to erect them to the exercise of any democratic public will.

Its trademark policies of privatization, deregulation, tax cuts and free trade deals: these have liberated corporations to accumulate enormous profits and treat the atmosphere like a sewage dump, and hamstrung our ability, through the instrument of the state, to plan for our collective welfare.

Anything resembling a collective check on corporate power has become a target of the elite: lobbying and corporate donations, hollowing out democracies, have obstructed green policies and kept fossil fuel subsidies flowing; and the rights of associations like unions, the most effective means for workers to wield power together, have been undercut whenever possible.

At the very moment when climate change demands an unprecedented collective public response, neoliberal ideology stands in the way. Which is why, if we want to bring down emissions fast, we will need to overcome all of its free-market mantras: take railways and utilities and energy grids back into public control; regulate corporations to phase out fossil fuels; and raise taxes to pay for massive investment in climate-ready infrastructure and renewable energy — so that solar panels can go on everyone’s rooftop, not just on those who can afford it.

Neoliberalism has not merely ensured this agenda is politically unrealistic: it has also tried to make it culturally unthinkable. Its celebration of competitive self-interest and hyper-individualism, its stigmatization of compassion and solidarity, has frayed our collective bonds. It has spread, like an insidious anti-social toxin, what Margaret Thatcher preached: “there is no such thing as society.”

(Continue Reading)

Hello, my name is Taylor and this coming fall I will be attending design school in Grand Rapids, Michigan. I am raising money because I currently do not have enough for tuition costs. I was honored to receive a scholarship for my art last January from this school, although I am falling short by about $2,000. My mom is a single mom and is struggling financially and even though she has always wanted me to pursue college, it is impossible for her and the rest of my family to afford my education at this time. It would mean the world to me if you could help me raise enough money so I can be able to attend this school and live my dream! If you are unable to give, I would greatly appreciate it if you would at least reblog this. Your support will definitely make a huge difference! Thank you so much lovelies!


Make a donation: http://gofundme.com/design-school-tuition

anonymous asked:

i know this is a complicated and deep topic but why is meat and dairy so heavily subsidized? is their any information u can give me? is it just because the industries are in with the government to ensure that people keep consuming their products?

It is a bit of a long story, but I’ll try to summarise it as best I can, starting with dairy. Basically during  the second world war the US government and many others started exporting a great deal of milk to nations who wanted to ration it for the war effort and provided financial incentives to farmers for switching away from crops and towards dairy. When the war ended, those countries didn’t have nearly the call for milk that they had during the war, but farmers were still overproducing, leaving a large surplus. 

The dairy industry had become very powerful due to these subsidies, so instead of reducing output they lobbied the government to promote milk in “milk education campaigns”, in schools, on TV, and even on college courses, all touting the supposed benefits of milk, which were later judged to be false. Congress later passed a law requiring dairy farmers to pay a certain amount of their earnings to support these campaigns, and taxes were introduced on the general public for the purposes of “food security.” 

These funds were used in all sorts of nefarious ways, it was used to sponsor the “food pyramid” in conjunction with the meat industry, even though it went against what even nutritionists of the day understood, and they offered incentives to restaurants to offer meat and dairy heavy menus, which are still in effect today. Despite this unprecedented propoganda campaign, in the 50′s and 60′s the dairy industry still had a surplus, so the government bought it up and sold tonnes of it to schools, the military and overseas as aid, even though the countries they were shipping to did not generally consume dairy, or couldn’t. 

This still didn’t solve the problem, it continued into the 80′s costing the taxpayer billions by that point, and it still continues to this day. Meat and dairy lobbyists “donate” millions to election campaigns and party funding to keep people in power who will promote their agenda, and will protect their interests during the annual nutritional guidelines review. In 2016, their top 3 highest payouts went to David Valadao, Ted Cruz and Mike Conaway. This is the reason that despite the scientific consensus being overwhelmingly in favour of meat and dairy reduction, governments continue to promote both in their guidelines and meal plans. it’s also how the “ag-gag” laws got passed, making corporations able to prosecute activists for filming and exposing animal abuse on farms and in slaughterhouses. 

I’ve focused on the US here because it’s the starkest example, but the story has been very similar everywhere else, and most of these companies are large multi-national corporations benefiting from the subsidy system in many countries all at once. What happens in the US food market generally influences the rest of the world. The meat and dairy industries are also inherently linked by both profits and public support, so when the dairy industry gains power and political leverage, the meat industry does too. 

This is all made even worse by the fact that the meat and dairy industry costs lives as well as money; promoting meat and dairy consumption sets people up for an unhealthy lifestyle, which ends up costing the taxpayer even more in long-term medical costs. That’s not to mention the longterm cost of climate change, since animal agriculture is one of the leading drivers. If we instead subsidised produce which has a significantly lower production cost, we could make sure that even the poorest families could eat healthy, rather than the processed food that is so readily available now, cutting both food and medical costs significantly.

I really think there’s something to be said about current movements for social acceptance/reform and the emphasis placed on “sameness.” I see a lot of people that solely focus on how ‘everyone is human,’ ‘we all bleed red,’ etc., and while I absolutely think there is always a place for reminding everyone of our shared humanity and other similarities, I think it’s a fine balance between asserting that sort of unity without trying to erase people’s differences, especially in regards to marginalized communities. Yes, we are all human and we all have things in common, but people also have lots of different experiences and come from multitudes of different backgrounds and cultures, and have lots of differences physically, mentally, and otherwise! And sometimes, I think well-intentioned and compassionate people come off as dehumanizing in a rhetoric that ONLY focuses on sameness. I really would like to see more of an embrace and recognition of our differences, alongside calls for recognizing things people have in common.

Because sometimes what I want to hear isn’t “See, these people(you) are just like us!” sometimes what I really want to hear is “Wow, you do things differently, and you see things differently than me! That’s neat, please tell me more!”

Why dentistry over medicine?

I’ve noticed a lot of people are struggling to decide, so here is my very rough explanation of why I prefer the former :) 

- I love the artistic aspect of dentistry: sculpting, 3D skills, utilising different materials to create and perfect the mouth, application of fine motor skills, individually crafting what will eventually be a literal part of the patient
- I want to be in surgery and work with my hands, but not 15 years down the track. We began working with our hands in the first few weeks of dental school. We will have our first patient at the start of 2nd year. 
- I want to be able to see an immediate impact for my patients with, for example, restorative or cosmetic work. I think that’s incredibly satisfying. 
- I want a career that allows for a specific lifestyle where I am well compensated for my years of education and training, without restricting my free time. I want this lifestyle and career to allow for travelling often, potentially moving cities and countries, and providing enough money and time for a family.
- I want a career that involves using novel technology often. In the first couple of weeks of dental school we had experiences with haptic simulators, 3D printing, and sophisticated preclinical work on our faux-patients. 
- I don’t want to spend the majority of my late teens and 20′s in education and for my career. I can leave dental school and be a Doctor of Dental Surgery, instead of an intern. 
Overlapping advantages with medicine:
- I want to have my own patients whose quality of life I am able to impact positively
- I want autonomy over my career with the option of opening up my own clinic 
- I want the option of specialising in incredible fields that will further perfect and expand my skillset
- I want to have the option of positively impacting my community, through volunteering or involvement in public health campaigns