good:

The class of 2012 is about to get a gigantic wake-up call: In the last year, college graduates were more likely to be employed as servers, bartenders, and food-service helpers than as engineers, physicists, chemists, and mathematicians combined. Only three of the 30 occupations with the largest projected number of openings by 2020 will require a college degree—teachers, college professors, and accountants. 
Today, new numbers find that half of college grads under 25 are out of work.

Read that second-to-last sentence, Africa.

good:

The class of 2012 is about to get a gigantic wake-up call: In the last year, college graduates were more likely to be employed as servers, bartenders, and food-service helpers than as engineers, physicists, chemists, and mathematicians combined. Only three of the 30 occupations with the largest projected number of openings by 2020 will require a college degree—teachers, college professors, and accountants. 

Today, new numbers find that half of college grads under 25 are out of work.

Read that second-to-last sentence, Africa.

(via lavvocato)

Posted 1 year ago - 211 notes - SOURCE

An ER doctor just told my sister, who has anxiety, bipolar disorder, and depression, that she was “physically healthy,” “nothing is wrong with you,” and “it’s all in your mind.”

She just needs to learn to exert control over her mind and not let it affect her body, and her biggest medical issue is that she needs to stop smoking, “because those death sticks will kill you, you know.”

I

I just

can’t

Posted 1 year ago - 5 notes

eytancragg:

think-progress:

How the recession has disproportionately hurt young people. 

FUCK.

eytancragg:

think-progress:

How the recession has disproportionately hurt young people. 

FUCK.

Posted 2 years ago - 773 notes - SOURCE

"Enough ladies. I get it. You have periods."

Two and a Half Men co-creator Lee Aronsohn’s tells THR he doesn’t much care for lady-centric sitcoms. (via newsweek)

He applauded women like Whitney Cummings, Chelsea Handler and Tina Fey securing a voice to discuss formerly taboo subjects on TV.

“But we’re approaching peak vagina on television, the point of labia saturation,” he added.

The current female TV boom contrasts with Two and a Half Men mostly portraying women as bimbos, something Aronsohn isn’t about to apologize for.

“Screw it… We’re centering the show on two very damaged men. What makes men damaged? Sorry, it’s women. I never got my heart broken by a man,” Aronsohn earlier told the Toronto conference during a keynote address.

(via synecdoche)

#ENOUGH DUDES. WE GET IT. YOU MASTURBATE. #ENOUGH DUDES. WE GET IT. YOU LIKE GETTING YOUR DICK SUCKED. #ENOUGH DUDES. WE GET IT. YOUR WIFE WITHHOLDS SEX. #ENOUGH DUDES. WE GET IT. #NO REALLY. #ENOUGH DUDES. #DONE. #WITH. #THEM. 

(via falulatonks)

"What makes men damaged? Sorry, it’s women. I never got my heart broken by a man."

"What makes men damaged? Sorry, it’s women. I never got my heart broken by a man."

"What makes men damaged? Sorry, it’s women. I never got my heart broken by a man."

"What makes men damaged? Sorry, it’s women. I never got my heart broken by a man."

"What makes men damaged? Sorry, it’s women. I never got my heart broken by a man."

Lol only women break hearts.

Lol gay people don’t exist.

Lol heartbreak is the only thing that fucks a person up.

Lol what misogyny?

(via jamiemacdonalds)


Posted 2 years ago - 6,363 notes - SOURCE

What if that man who shot up his daughter’s computer was black? 

juthikaforpresident:

anedumacation:

No, seriously.

What if he was black?

What if he wasn’t some polished white dude with a cowboy hat and a job in IT, what if he was a black father taking to the internet to complain about his ungrateful child? And then what if he shot up his daughter’s computer and uploaded that clip to youtube?

Would anyone be praising him for being a model father then?

Or would we talk about how POC hurt their children, and how horrible and evil that is? We’d start talking about how certain kinds of people are just naturally harsh on their kids, and we’d take out the statistics for abuse on various minority groups. There wouldn’t be any cutesy “Texas forever” commentary from so-called progressive websites — we’d all be hopping mad at the culture of violence that exists in impoverished communities, we’d be talking about oppressed brown and black women, under the heel of their abusive husbands and fathers. 

I mean, I just don’t think there would be quite as much uncritical analysis of this video, if the father wasn’t middle-class, respectable, and white. We’re so willing to give white fathers and mothers the benefit of the doubt.

Just saying. 

To add a tangent to this, I get REALLY uncomfortable when child abuse is brought up in PoC groups. 

I haven’t even watched that video because I cannot handle another fucking ageist asshole smugly showing the world that he is all-powerful over his child.

(via juthikaforpresident-deactivated)

Posted 2 years ago - 253 notes - SOURCE

overallsarecomfortable a réagi à votre billet : Nobody tell me that that FYAK post is…

What the FUCK is that bullshit. How can they buy up pits like that and scam the fuck out of the fans. What. The. Fuck.

I strongly suspect that this person is one of those ticket brokers who has ~connections, i.e. deals with season ticket holders, theatre patrons and industry insiders to snap up the pit seats at every concert before they go on sale, resell them, and split the profits. There is no way that person pulled those first-row tickets from the presale. No fucking way.

And you know what? IDK about this theatre, but from the charts, it looks like the pit is very small. As in, I’m not sure if there even are more than six first-row seats in that theatre.

I get that ticket brokers provide a convenient service, but this? Is the epitome of fucking people over for your own gain, and it makes me sick.


undertheaprilskies:

I just feel so helpless and hopeless with all this SOPA and ACTA stuff going on. It’s just it seems like there is nothing we can do, no amount of online petitions will drown out the power of money. I just hate everything right now.

no amount of online petitions will drown out the power of money

Relevant to all aspects of my life right now.

I’m just so disillusioned with everything. It seems like there’s no place where you can just live your life without being fucked with.


Alright people, we need to concern ourselves with ACTA 

chocotaur:

Five facts:

1. ACTA isn’t the “European” SOPA. It’s nearly GLOBAL, and will apply to every country that signs the treaty.

2. ACTA is far more aggressive. ACTA will not simply affect websites and have them blocked out of the internet - its measures go as far as surveillance of anything you share through private channels.

3. ACTA doesn’t have a campaign against it that is as wide-spread and organized as the SOPA one. This is DANGEROUS, as there’s less time between now and the final signing of ACTA.

4. ACTA has effects on healthcare, trade, and even tourism.

5. ACTA has to be stopped.

Let’s start spreading the word and organizing a good, solid response to it.

More information:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yQ56UNL5zeo

(via undoingthelaces)

Posted 2 years ago - 20,549 notes - SOURCE

verbalresistance:

Iran and the Terrorism game BY GLENN GREENWALD
 Above: This undated photo released by Iranian Fars News Agency, claims to show Mostafa Ahmadi Roshan, who they say was killed in a bomb blast in Tehran, Iran, on Wednesday, Jan. 11, 2012, next to his son.  (Credit: AP)
In the few venues which yesterday denounced as “Terrorism” the ongoing assassinations of Iranian scientists, there was intense backlash against the invocation of that term. That always happens whenever “Terrorism” is applied to acts likely undertaken by Israel, the U.S. or its allies — rather than its traditional use: violence by Muslims against the U.S. and its allies — because accusing Israel and/or the U.S. of Terrorism remains one of the greatest political taboos (even when the acts in question involve not only assassinations but also explosions which kill numerous victims whose identities could not have been known in advance). But the case of these scientist assassinations particularly highlights how meaningless and manipulated this term is.
The prime argument against calling these scientists killings “Terrorism” is that targeted killings — as opposed to indiscriminate ones — cannot qualify. After Andrew Sullivan wrote a post entitled “The Terrorism We Support” and rhetorically asked: “is not the group or nation responsible for the murder of civilians in another country terrorists?”, and then separately criticized the NYT for failing to describe these killings as Terrorism, numerous readers objected to the use of this term on the ground that a targeted killing cannot  be Terrorism. Similarly, after I noted yesterday that Kevin Drum had denounced as “Terrorism” a right-wing blogger’s 2007 suggestion that Iran’s scientists be murdered and asked if he still applies that term to whoever is actually doing it now, he wrote a post (either coincidentally on his own or in response) strongly implying that this is Terrorism; thereafter, commenter aftercommenter at Mother Jones vehemently disagreed, on the same ground, with Drum’s suggestion that this is Terrorism (many agreed the term did apply). Meanwhile, Jason Pontin, the Editor-in-Chief and Publisher of Technology Review, actually claimed that my use of the term Terrorism to describe these scientist killings is “what turns sober, hardnosed people from the Left” (he’s apparently been elected the spokesman for “sober hardnosed people” turning away from the Left), and then proceeded to insist over and over that these are merely targeted killings, not Terrorism.
Part of the problem here is the pretense that Terrorism has some sort of fixed, definitive meaning. It does not. As Professor Remi Brulin has so exhaustively documented, the meaning of the term has constantly morphed depending upon the momentary interests of those nations (usually the U.S. and Israel) most aggressively wielding it. It’s a term of political propaganda, impoverished of any objective meaning, and thus susceptible to limitless manipulation. Even the formal definition incorporated into U.S. law is incredibly vague; one could debate forever without resolution whether targeted killings of scientists fall within its scope, and that’s by design. The less fixed the term is, the more flexibility there is in deciding what acts of violence are and are not included in its scope.
But to really see what’s going on here, let’s look at how a very recent, very similar assassination plot was discussed. That occurred in October when the U.S. accused Iran’s Quds Forces of recruiting a failed used car salesman in Texas to hire Mexican drug cartels to assassinate the Saudi Ambassador at a restaurant in Washington, D.C. Let’s put to side the intrinsic ridiculousness of the accusation and assume it to be true. That plot did not involve anything remotely approaching indiscriminate killing; it was very specifically targeted at one person: the Saudi Ambassador, a government official of a country which has extreme tensions with Iran. Indeed, the targeted Ambassador is an official in a government that has engaged in all sorts of acts of war and is even linked to an actual Terrorist plot: the 9/11 attacks. As Jonathan Schwarz put it at the time: “The funny thing is, I’d bet the Saudi ambassador to the US has closer ‘ties’ to Al Qaeda than 90% of the people we’ve killed with drones.”
Nonetheless, when that plot to kill the Saudi Ambassador was “revealed,” virtually every last media outlet — and government official — branded it “Terrorism.” It was just reflexively described that way. And I never heard anyone — anywhere — object to the use of that term on the ground that targeted assassinations aren’t Terrorism, or on any other ground …
Read More: Salon

verbalresistance:

Iran and the Terrorism game BY GLENN GREENWALD

Above: This undated photo released by Iranian Fars News Agency, claims to show Mostafa Ahmadi Roshan, who they say was killed in a bomb blast in Tehran, Iran, on Wednesday, Jan. 11, 2012, next to his son. (Credit: AP)

In the few venues which yesterday denounced as “Terrorism” the ongoing assassinations of Iranian scientists, there was intense backlash against the invocation of that term. That always happens whenever “Terrorism” is applied to acts likely undertaken by Israel, the U.S. or its allies — rather than its traditional use: violence by Muslims against the U.S. and its allies — because accusing Israel and/or the U.S. of Terrorism remains one of the greatest political taboos (even when the acts in question involve not only assassinations but also explosions which kill numerous victims whose identities could not have been known in advance). But the case of these scientist assassinations particularly highlights how meaningless and manipulated this term is.

The prime argument against calling these scientists killings “Terrorism” is that targeted killings — as opposed to indiscriminate ones — cannot qualify. After Andrew Sullivan wrote a post entitled “The Terrorism We Support” and rhetorically asked: “is not the group or nation responsible for the murder of civilians in another country terrorists?”, and then separately criticized the NYT for failing to describe these killings as Terrorism, numerous readers objected to the use of this term on the ground that a targeted killing cannot be Terrorism. Similarly, after I noted yesterday that Kevin Drum had denounced as “Terrorism” a right-wing blogger’s 2007 suggestion that Iran’s scientists be murdered and asked if he still applies that term to whoever is actually doing it now, he wrote a post (either coincidentally on his own or in response) strongly implying that this is Terrorism; thereafter, commenter aftercommenter at Mother Jones vehemently disagreed, on the same ground, with Drum’s suggestion that this is Terrorism (many agreed the term did apply). Meanwhile, Jason Pontin, the Editor-in-Chief and Publisher of Technology Review, actually claimed that my use of the term Terrorism to describe these scientist killings is “what turns sober, hardnosed people from the Left” (he’s apparently been elected the spokesman for “sober hardnosed people” turning away from the Left), and then proceeded to insist over and over that these are merely targeted killings, not Terrorism.

Part of the problem here is the pretense that Terrorism has some sort of fixed, definitive meaning. It does not. As Professor Remi Brulin has so exhaustively documented, the meaning of the term has constantly morphed depending upon the momentary interests of those nations (usually the U.S. and Israel) most aggressively wielding it. It’s a term of political propaganda, impoverished of any objective meaning, and thus susceptible to limitless manipulation. Even the formal definition incorporated into U.S. law is incredibly vague; one could debate forever without resolution whether targeted killings of scientists fall within its scope, and that’s by design. The less fixed the term is, the more flexibility there is in deciding what acts of violence are and are not included in its scope.

But to really see what’s going on here, let’s look at how a very recent, very similar assassination plot was discussed. That occurred in October when the U.S. accused Iran’s Quds Forces of recruiting a failed used car salesman in Texas to hire Mexican drug cartels to assassinate the Saudi Ambassador at a restaurant in Washington, D.C. Let’s put to side the intrinsic ridiculousness of the accusation and assume it to be true. That plot did not involve anything remotely approaching indiscriminate killing; it was very specifically targeted at one person: the Saudi Ambassador, a government official of a country which has extreme tensions with Iran. Indeed, the targeted Ambassador is an official in a government that has engaged in all sorts of acts of war and is even linked to an actual Terrorist plot: the 9/11 attacks. As Jonathan Schwarz put it at the time: “The funny thing is, I’d bet the Saudi ambassador to the US has closer ‘ties’ to Al Qaeda than 90% of the people we’ve killed with drones.

Nonetheless, when that plot to kill the Saudi Ambassador was “revealed,” virtually every last media outlet — and government official — branded it “Terrorism.” It was just reflexively described that way. And I never heard anyone — anywhere — object to the use of that term on the ground that targeted assassinations aren’t Terrorism, or on any other ground …

Read More: Salon





krauss, heartbreak and curry