the affordable choice

ew.com
'Power Rangers' Director Explains Why Romantic Scene Didn't Make Final Cut
Love was in the air for a pair of Power Rangers — until test audiences said no.

They cut a heterosexual romance because it didn’t fit the story, and because including it did a disservice to the female character’s individual narrative arc.

sorry but your faves literally would never

never

Let’s be crystal clear: The Senate Republican healthcare repeal bill is a savage, immoral attack on women and the health and well-being of hundreds of millions of Americans. Take action by calling your Senator: 1-866-665-4470

Here’s How to Eat Vegan for a Week For Under $50

Some of the most affordable foods on the planet are vegan, including rice, beans, legumes, pasta, and all kinds of fruits and veggies. Despite this, people will often ask us about eating vegan on a budget.

So we’ve compiled some handy tips and tricks that will keep you veg without breaking the bank:

Dry beans are worth the wait.
Sure, you have to soak them overnight, but dry beans are exponentially cheaper than canned. They’re also a delicious, protein-packed essential in a budget-friendly vegan diet.

Buy it frozen.
One great way to save money is to reduce food waste. Frozen veggies like corn, peas, and green beans are great because they last almost forever.

Get into oatmeal.
Yeah, oatmeal is a super secret vegan hack. It’s filling, loaded with iron and calcium, and one of the cheapest things you could eat for breakfast.

Stick with produce under $2 per pound.
When choosing fresh fruits and veggies, try to stick with items under $2/lb.

If you want to splurge, buy some Vegenaise.
Of course you can just use it like mayo, but you can also create sour cream (just add lemon juice), salad dressings, and sauces with this must-have specialty item.

Soup is a thing.
Soups loaded with veggies, grains, and beans hold well as leftovers, stretch your dollars, and make great filling meals!

Stick with staples.
Rice, pasta, and peanut butter are all great choices for affordability and versatility.

Every night can be taco night.
Put those tasty veggies and beans to use inside a toasted tortilla! Add some Vegenaise sour cream and you’ve got yourself a tasty and inexpensive vegan dinner.

6

The new score from the Congressional Budget Office confirms what we already knew: Trumpcare would be a disaster for women, families, and millions of Americans. Find a town hall near you: https://townhallproject.com/

howcome whenever bruno mars is on the radio he occupies like 3 stations at once.  not only that but when those songs are playing in tandem the other stations are all commercials so i’m basically backed into a corner. i am afforded NO choice. bruno is unavoidable. my theory is that he pays off the djs to play ads on their stations while the more popular ones replay his songs, forcing the audience to choose between repetitive capitalist propaganda or overdone neo-romantic pop music. it’s sinister really. i personally get the most powerful sense of dread when i’m listening and i realize that each individual composition is like 2 hours long. that’s when the hopelessness of the situation hits me tbh

4

Trump to Tucker Carlson: “I know” counties that voted for me will lose under the Republican health plan

Tucker Carlson’s sit-down with Donald Trump Wednesday night was not exactly a hard-hitting interview, but the Fox News host did speak up at one point for conservative populists who are a bit skeptical of Trump’s embrace of Paul Ryan’s health care plan. Carlson noted that one centerpiece of the American Health Care Act is a huge tax cut for rich investors. At the same time, he added, “a Bloomberg analysis shows that counties that voted for you, middle-class and working-class counties, would do far less well under the bill than counties that voted for Hillary.“

Trump’s response: “Oh, I know.”

The president doesn’t even attempt to defend this outcome on the merits, saying instead, merely, “it’s very preliminary.”

Carlson argues that the proposal doesn’t seem consistent with the message delivered by the outcome of the election. Trump responds, “a lot of things aren’t consistent, but these are going to be negotiated. We’ve got to go to the Senate, we’ll see what happens in the Senate.”

The inconsistency, however, is much more severe than Trump seems to realize or than Carlson points out. The health care bill, as written, isn’t just a little bit off from Trump’s campaign promises — it is directionally opposed.

Trump ran and won by promising a replacement plan that would cover everybody and offer lower deductibles and more choice than Affordable Care Act plans. The Republican health bill not only doesn’t deliver on those promises, it moves in the opposition direction on all three planks — covering fewer people and leaving those who continue to have coverage with skimpier plans.

Upon taking office, Trump installed a close Ryan ally as chief of staff, then appointed a Health and Human Services secretary who has never agreed with Trump’s campaign commitments on health care, and then an Office of Management and Budget director who has also never agreed with Trump’s campaign commitments on health care.

Ryan himself, likewise, has never been a proponent of universal coverage or otherwise on board with Trump’s campaign promises. The whole situation is highly unusual — just like a lot of things are unusual about Trump’s political career. And it to an extent raises the question of whether Trump realizes how far the bill he’s backing diverges from what he said he would do.

anonymous asked:

Hi, what is you take on ethical fashion?xx

I have a lot of thoughts about this, so bear with me.

Firstly, I believe that where it’s possible, we should make ethical choices. However, this comes with a lot of exclusions and exceptions, not because we should make unethical choices, but because many people cannot help but make unethical choices.

Unethical fashion is a product of a capitalist society, and similarly, the people who are able to afford ethical choices - paying $70 for a T-shirt - are also beneficiaries of this capitalist system. It’s not that they’re divesting themselves of the luxuries that allow them to live comfortably, it’s just that they can afford to spend more. I’m glad that it’s not exploitative or wasteful - but it’s really only possible if you have that kind of disposable income, and if you do, it means you’re benefiting from the system anyway. And it’s important to recognise that you’re one of the very few who can do that and not preach it to the many who cannot and who should not be made to feel guilty for not being able to afford the luxuries that you can.

Poor people are stuck in a cycle of being poor without any outlet really - not everyone can afford Reformation. They have to buy cheaper clothes, and cheaper clothes fall apart more quickly, so they have to buy more clothes… and so the cycle keeps going. This cannot be changed by a few individuals. The entire system needs to be dismantled - a system that keeps poor people always stuck in this cycle. People who cannot afford stores like Reformation - the poor and middle-class - should not be demonised or condescended to simply because they cannot afford the choices that rich people can afford and make a show of.

Finally, poor people have the right to dress well and look as good as they want. They should have the choice. There is already so little choice for people who can’t afford ethical fashion. It’s unfair to expect them to pay for clothes they can’t afford and limit the choices further. (There’s also the bit where clothes with “ethical fashion” are usually from small boutiques, frequently online but in any case not easy to come across - and this renders them very inaccessible, especially once shipping prices etc are applied.)

Basically, it’s great to make ethical choices if you can afford to do that, but be aware that an individual cannot make a huge ethical revolution occur without dismantling the entire system - these changes can’t happen overnight. It’s simplistic to pretend they can, and while it’s important to make sure that factory workers aren’t relentlessly exploited, it cannot be done by taking down H&M. The problem is much bigger than one store. Instead, laws must be put in place, and there needs to be a solution where people are not taken advantage of on either side of fashion consumption - the labour and the consumer. Furthermore, people who can’t afford ethical clothing should not be preached and condescended to. Ethical fashion correlates directly with your personal privilege.

It’s becoming hard to enjoy some of the books without diamonds. Endless Summer is almost impossible to find clues and interact with Jake/Quinn/Stella when you can’t afford premium choices. Love Hacks is starting to do the same, this week you had to pay to go out with the girl and convince her to join Clickit team. Or @playchoices start to give us an option to earn diamonds without having to pay real money or players will start to lose interest in the game very soon.




Glenmorangie

Part 1 of the drunk!Jason series

Ao3 link

Alfred stood in front of the doorstep of the unsavoury-looking bar for longer than was necessary, his coat wrapped tightly around him in an attempt to ward off the nippy late-night Gotham air. Neon lights flashed in a blinding red across his vision, rubbish and broken bottles scattered about the entrance, the sound of drunken revelries floating by him as a large group stumbled outside. Alfred followed them with his eyes as they passed, frowning.

Not in a judgemental way. Merely… disapproving.

Turning back to the door, he sighed, as if even having to look at the place was a burden. One would think he was lamenting the very existence of venues that served alcoholic drinks, but in reality he was simply lamenting the existence of this particular one.

In fact, to Alfred Pennyworth, the existence of most of the bars in Gotham City was an abomination, as his mind would too often wander to the cosy countryside pubs he remembered from his younger days in England. Roaring fires, hearty, intellectual conversation over pints of beer, quiet, enigmatic strangers reading a book in the corner, the bartender smiling as a rather tipsy chat carried on about this year’s harvest or local politics.

But there was nothing to it. He had to go in.

Alfred grimaced as he took a hold of the sticky door handle, and immediately regretted not bringing his gloves. But he had left in a rush as this was a semi-emergency. Truthfully, he didn’t actually know what this was. But he was about to find out.

Warily, he pulled the door open and stepped into the dim, musty bar.

Keep reading

ohdeathless  asked:

Dear Maggie. You rock. I love your sense of humour. Now on to the question: what is the financial state the Sargent family? I don't anyone who doesn't own a phone (an old nokia is way better than no phone.). I'm not from USA so I have no idea what's the poverty level there. Thank you for the answer. Keep making me laugh while I should be listening to my professor but I'm secretly reading The Raven cycle books. Byeee.

Oh oh oh! I am so glad you’ve asked this, because I’ve been waiting for three years for someone to give me an excuse to talk about economics in the Raven Cycle.

Here’s an insidious belief in the U.S.: that poverty is a culture. That people who live in poverty have some sort of commonality beyond not making enough money to pay their bills. That poverty is dirty and uneducated and lazy. That you can use poverty to generalize millions of people.

Here’s another insidious belief in the U.S. that wealth is a culture. That the wealthy also form some kind of group that can be standardized into an entitled, out-of-touch populace vacationing in Cape Cod. That money somehow renders you an untouchable asshole with great hair and rarified problems.

In the Raven Cycle, we have Gansey, entitled and cosseted wealthpet, who has bought this idea, hook-line-and-sinker. To him, Adam Parrish’s family is what the poor look like. They have shitty family lives, they live in trailer parks, they waste their money on things that won’t get them out of poverty. It literally breaks Gansey’s brain when he meets Blue, because her family is just as poor as Adam’s, but doesn’t look anything like what he thinks poverty is supposed to look like. In the Dream Thieves, Gansey says, clumsy and oafish, “I used to think, before I met you, that it was about the money. Like, I thought Adam’s family was too poor for love.”

Oh, Gansey, my wealthpet, this is what we call a teachable moment for you!

Likewise, Gansey is what Adam thinks rich people look like. Oblivious about money and real-life issues, condescending, judgmental, the product of a Washington, D.C. white family living in a house made glorious by buttresses of old money. Also, great hair. When Adam goes to a Congressional party in The Dream Thieves, he sees dozens of examples to back up this idea of what he thinks the wealthy look like. But then there is Ronan Lynch: he’s rich too, but missing the markers Adam thinks identify the rich. In The Raven Boys, Adam thinks, This was so like Ronan. His room inside Monmouth was filled with expensive toys, but, like a spoiled child, he ended up playing outside with sticks. Adam hasn’t figured out yet — that’s for later in the series — that playing outside with sticks is much more Ronan’s speed than any expensive toy. It doesn’t matter if he’s rich or poor, he’d be building ramps to the moon either way.

I realize this doesn’t answer the phone question. I’m getting there. I’ve been disastrously poor: I distinctly remember the day my car got repossessed in college, and I remember discovering I wouldn’t have enough money for my last semester despite being on the Dean’s List, and I remember having three jobs, and I remember my parents offering to cook my husband and I dinner and us having to turn it down because we couldn’t afford the $7 in gas it would take to visit them in their part of Virginia. I had a cell phone, but it was shut off for nonpayment and the land line was cheaper to keep going. Also they’d take a check when they came to the door for payment.

But I don’t know if people knew I was poor, because I didn’t look like what people thought was poor — I’d made it to college, after all! I was a doctor’s daughter, after all! People assume poverty comes with universal markers. That poor people all make similar choices or got there in similar ways. I probably could’ve moved my funds around to get my cellphone turned back on more regularly, but it was more important to me to use that money for buying art supplies. Blue’s family is poor, but I’m sure that she could make choices and afford a $20 gas station phone if she really wanted one. But she chooses to spend that $20 on strange boots or a shirt to deconstruct or her hopeful college fund. If Blue missed having a cellphone, you’d know it — she’s a whiner, it would have been in the text.

So the answer is that she’s poor enough that she has to make decisions about whether or not she has a cellphone. But just how poor “poor enough” is to warrant that decision is incredibly subjective, because Blue is not her money.

anonymous asked:

Hi girl,I love your Errow salt! People say that Laurel's recovery from addiction was too rushed,but I disagree. What's your opinion about that arc?

Hi! Brace yourself, this is probably gonna get long! The real question is: why does that matter?

Laurel’s addiction arc had all of the things it should have. Tommy and Laurel may not have been together when he died, but he died trying to save her, Laurel and Oliver (who had at that point shown signs of rekindling their romance) then decided that they couldn’t in good consciousness date each other whilst Tommy’s loss was so fresh. 

They both felt to blame for what happened to him. Laurel committed herself to Tommy, it was difficult for Laurel to deal with Oliver because she never got closure for what happened between them, they never broke up, he “died” whilst they were still an item, she never got answers from him. Yet, Tommy and Laurel also have history, they comforted each other through the loss of Oliver and feelings blossomed. It was Tommy who doubted that. It was Tommy who was jealous and continually pushed Laurel towards Oliver and was convinced he was second best, despite Laurel wanting the three of them to establish a friendship and Oliver giving them his blessing.

So, Tommy breaks up with Laurel because he doesn’t trust her feelings and is convinced she belongs with Oliver. Oliver then tells Tommy that he needs to man up and let Laurel make her own choices and go after what he wants, but then decides to take his own advice and pursue Laurel himself right under Tommy’s nose. Laurel and Oliver sleep together shortly before Tommy’s sacrifice. It’s fucked up. There is so much blame on all sides here, though Laurel was often manipulated by these two men who allowed their feelings for her to come between their friendship and continuously pushed her away whilst trying to keep her. 

So, both Oliver and Laurel feel to blame for Tommy’s death. Tommy died while on less-than-stellar terms with both of them. Even though Tommy and Laurel were no longer together, Oliver and Laurel still felt that they had betrayed him and decided to stay as friends. Oliver took off and self-isolated to deal with this, whilst throwing himself head-first into his crusade and indulging in violence as a means to cope. Meanwhile, Laurel finds out her sister is still alive and (after Sara fucked Laurel’s boyfriend behind her sister’s back, pretended to be dead for 6 years, tore their family apart because their parents couldn’t deal with her loss, their mother up and left, abandoned Laurel in the process and their father became a controlling alcoholic), Sara pretty much ruined Laurel’s home-life and most of the plans Laurel had made for her future because she fucked her sister’s boyfriend. So, suddenly, Sara is still alive and shows up, and suddenly their mother decides to be in the picture again, Sara doesn’t apologize to Laurel in any significant way and repeats the same behavior by not only fucking Oliver again, but inviting Oliver to a family-only dinner at Laurel’s house to essentially rub Laurel’s nose in it, before the two of them had even begun to build bridges. Oliver blames Laurel. Oliver tells Laurel he no longer has time for her and makes out that her struggles are nothing but a burden to him and accuses her of blaming everyone but herself (which is disgusting af and victim blaming because Laurel actually BLAMED HERSELF for Tommy’s death, that combined with her father’s substance abuse - addiction can be hereditary - it was inevitable that Laurel would start hitting the bottle.)

Laurel was the only person to be suspicious of Sebastian Blood, but her substance abuse had caused people to doubt her judgement and lose her job. No one believed her about Blood despite her being 100% correct. It destroyed her relationships and her credibility.. And because her grief/anger/addiction had caused people to turn their backs on her, she had no support network, which made her addiction worse. She denied it at first, the same as any addict. She tried to make out it wasn’t that big of a deal. It consumed her. Slowly, she started to admit she had a problem, she worked to attend AA meetings and repaired her relationship with her father now that she could understand him a little better, she even apologized to Sara (which will never not piss me off) for being hostile to her. When Sara then died Laurel fought to not go back to that place she was at when Tommy died. She channeled her grief into honoring Sara’s memory.

When Laurel became Black Canary Oliver accused her of chasing a high and doing this for the wrong reasons because she was an addict. He pretty much dismissed her choices and afforded her no agency by basically saying that the only reason she would do that is because she needs her fix and she was hiding behind the mask to avoid her problems. And Laurel rightfully called him the fuck out for that because Oliver had been burying himself in his crusade to avoid his feelings pretty much since the pilot so where the fuck does he get off. So, even in her Black Canary arc, Laurel’s addiction was brought up and the commonalities in these plots were highlighted to tell us “she has learnt/grown and is channeling her grief into something positive/productive this time”.

The addiction arc had everything it needed to: a catalyst, denial, hitting rock bottom, picking herself up, struggling to overcome, being faced with a situation that could trigger relapse but persevering, and then that scene where Laurel pours that full bottle out onto the earth at Sara’s grave when she decides that she’s not that person anymore, and she’ll make her sister proud.

Could it have been longer? Sure. Did it need to be? No. Not really. It was handled well and realistically. There was a definite step-by-step of development that told the tale of a real addiction. Katie’s performance was exceptional, and as someone who has a history of addiction in her family Katie took it seriously, did her research, sat in on AA meetings and fully deserved that PRISM award (making her the only actor on the cast to win an award for performance). It was inspiring and raw and cemented in the real world in a way that no other arc was.

Yet, people always use this “it was rushed” excuse as a means to undermine Laurel/Katie…But like…..it’s such bullshit. Because that arc took all of Season 2 and then was concluded in Season 3 upon her becoming Black Canary. 

Meanwhile, Thea disappears in the last scene of the last episode of Season 2, then appears in episode 2? of Season 3 as a fully-fledged, League-trained martial artist, and it was all tell and no show (the same as Sara’s training, or the vast majority of Roy’s training). 

People say Laurel became Black Canary too quickly and it was unrealistic? HOW? Laurel had been taking self-defense classes her whole life, beat up a couple of thugs to save Tommy and Oliver in one of the first ever episodes of the show, was shown holding her own against criminals in Season 1 and even Season 2 on multiple occasions, then in Season 3 she spent months training with WildCat and Nyssa Al Ghul, but all the haters say her fighting skills “came out of nowhere”. Yet, these people don’t complain about Thea “I’m a sheltered rich girl who’s never thrown a punch in her life” Queen being a master assassin after a few off-screen months of training. I love Thea, I do. I adore her. But the hypocrisy in mindlessly hating Laurel’s arc without acknowledging the plot-holes in Thea’s just makes your hatred for Laurel transparent af. The same could be said about Roy, he was a street criminal who had definitely been in his fair share of street fights, but after one or two scenes of training with Oliver he’s suddenly suited up and he’s Arsenal, yet no one complained that happened too fast. What about all the new recruits in Season 5? Like? 4? 5? of them appeared out of fucking nowhere with limited and varied combat experience yet they’re all suited up with code-names the first time we fucking see them. Felicity was handed a CEO position at a company with absolutely no business experience but there’s no complaints about that being ‘rushed’ or ‘forced’ by Laurel haters? oh, I wonder why! Felicity was romantically linked to 3 superheroes within a year and was emotionally toying with Ray by leading him on/dating him whilst she blatantly had feelings for Oliver, all for the sake of the writers throwing in some needless angst/drama, yet Oliciters hate Laurel for the Tommy/Oliver situation, when Tommy and Oliver were the ones who were causing the drama themselves, yet they make Felicity exempt of her treatment of Ray because ???? idk they just excuse her for everything whilst demonizing laurel and I don’t get it??????????????????? like,  you love her that’s great for you, that’s your opinion but when you love one character whilst hating another for being subjected to the same poor writing decisions you have to consider you’re hating for the sake of it.

Haters are just haters. They try and make excuses and come up with half-baked justifications for why they hate Laurel, but none of them hold any logical weight. It’s like those who demonize Laurel and say she’s “not like comic Black Canary” except Laurel is 136894742748482 times more like Dinah Lance than Arrow!Oliver is like his comic counterpart. Yet, they defend Oliver with “it’s a different take on the character” as if the same can’t be applied to Laurel/Black Canary. It’s nonsensical. 

Basically, to quote queen Laurel Lance: “It’s the hypocrisy that I can’t stand.”

*adjusts megaphone*

KISAME CHOSE ITACHI AS HIS AKATSUKI PARTNER. ITACHI WAS NOT ASSIGNED TO HIM. ITACHI WAS NOT HIS ONLY OPTION. KISAME WAS AFFORDED A CHOICE, AND HE PERSONALLY CHOSE ITACHI.

This detail matters because KISAME HAD A SPECIAL REASON FOR PARTNERING WITH ITACHI. It’s not that he wanted bishounen eye-candy, or an equally powerful fighter. Of all the reasons he could have had, we are explicitly informed that Kisame thought he could understand Itachi. He chose Itachi for their shared experiences. He wanted a partner who could get him, and vice versa.

I REPEAT !! MR. KILL YO TEAMMATES !! WANTED SOMEONE ON THE SAME PAGE !! HE WANTED A CONNECTION !! CONVERSATION !! EMPATHY !! THIS IS IMPORTANT !!

2

Here are some current results on my Twi’lek OC development, with a bunch of color schemes for her! The photo of just the two(pink and blue) are my best picks out of the original batch, I’ll be sure to keep you guys posted on her progress! I really want her to be a Resistance pilot, but since I’m making this into a cosplay– I’ve having to take into account price and budget, which weirdly jedi robes would be easily more affordable. Gah! Choices choices, but thanks for hearing me out! Any input would be appreciated!