cumprise:

Nothing feels better than a clean body, in a clean room, with a lit candle

commandtower-solring-go:

commandtower-solring-go:

Did I ever mention the time that I found out my lecturer was the ghost in one of my classmate’s home town?

Righto. So a couple years ago I took a Myths and Legends class for uni. The lecturer was this really incredible guy. Loved history. Dressed, everyday, to the nines. Top hat, waistcoat, leather shoes etc. In one of the introductory classes he had us share stories we had heard, local myths and legends from the towns we grew up in. I was studying in Ballarat, an Australian town with a rich ghost history and so it made sense that a lot of people had answers. This one girl, however, grew up in a small rural town a couple hours away and talked about the ghost she knew of from when she was in high school. Every night, at the same time of night (about 3am), people recounted seeing a Victorian man walk across the golf field. This one was particularly interesting because she had seen herself. That is, where other people had just heard these stories, she knew that what had been talked about was real.

This was when he turned red. It had turned out that when he was studying for his undergrad he was living in this particular town. Not many people knew him because he didn’t grow up there. He would spend countless nights up late working and so to wind would go on long late night walks. At 3am, every night. In the full garb he wore everyday. 

It had turned out that him being the stand out that he was, had birthed a legend. He had known about it but never did he think it would catch up with him. 

hall–o–ween:

feathersescapism:

apparentlyeverything:

tikkunolamorgtfo:

apparentlyeverything:

because the Republican he’s running against is far worse and Democrats need to retake the Senate, period. You can’t do anything without a majority, that’s just how the whole thing works

Normally I would very much agree, but like…if a “Democrat” habitually votes with the Republicans, then how are they actually Democrat? Manchin’s voting recording is scarcely better than that of Rand Paul and Susan Collins. If you can’t rely on a politician as a Democratic vote, then you don’t have them as part of your potential majority. What good is a vote you can’t rely on? 

The Democrats having a majority means they control all committees, which means they control what legislation comes *out* of committees and gets a vote, and what never comes to the floor. They have final say over the rules of parliamentary procedure. They can block Presidential nominees. Controlling Congress, even because of one shitty conservative Senator, basically gives the Democrats the institutional advantage and ability to influence legislation that they completely lack right now, which is why we’re in such constant crisis. People are constantly urging them to fight harder, as if this will materialize a majority out of thin air. If they don’t control either the House or the Senate, they are virtually powerless.

Manchin represents a state that voted 68.5% for Trump, which was literally his largest margin of victory. In West Virginia, Manchin is consistently attacked for being “too liberal.” And like, let’s not forget that “scarcely better” than Rand Paul and Susan Collins still means something, because there’s still a lot of room between the most conservative Democrats and “moderate” Republicans these days. Last summer, Manchin voted against the ACA repeal, while Paul voted for it. Manchin voted against the tax bill while Collins voted for it. 

Also, the primary is over. In November he’s up against a Republican, not a more progressive Democrat. It’s going to be one of them seated in the Senate in 2019. Even if control of the Senate were not in play, there is no way anyone on the left could honestly look at his opponent Patrick Morrisey’s positions and conclude it would be better to have him in the Senate. I hope that Manchin gets sidelined in a Democratic controlled Senate, but I’m not willing to risk everything just to punish him for this cowardly, disgusting vote.

Kids, this is strategy not philosophy. You need to look at this at a very, very base level, and that base level is: every red tick in the Houses is an obstacle, every blue tick in the Houses is, at the very least, A LACK OF OBSTACLE.

This is called “hold your nose” voting. Hate Manchin a lot? That’s totally legit. If you’re in the appropriate area, right now it is absolutely also a good idea to start looking for a Democratic challenger to get rid of Manchin for NEXT time. And you should do that now, because it may well TAKE all the rest of the time working to get the right momentum to unseat Manchin. But that’s next time.

For this time, you don’t have another Dem option. You have Manchin, or a red tick. A red tick is REALLY. REALLY. BAD. Manchin is kinda crappy.

If it’s NOT MANCHIN then it will be THE RED TICK. There is no “neither” option. That option is not available to you. There is no “neither”. There is Manchin, or part of the GOP machine.

Is it crappy that this is where things are? For sure. Should it be different? Yes. It will take a lot of work to make it different, and that work does not start by handing that seat to a Republican because Manchin sucks. In fact, that will prevent the work from being done.

Triage. Prioritize. You are trying to get to a point where you will have the breathing room to do real work: to try and bring the landscape up to where you can have better options than Manchin. If a Republican takes that seat, YOU WILL BE FURTHER FROM THAT PLACE.

Voting Manchin in DOES NOT MEAN you’re saying “I approve of everything they do and think shit is solved if Manchin gets elected”. You can (and SHOULD) vote Manchin in AND THEN KEEP PUSHING.

But in this mid-term you have two choices. One of them adds strength to the GOP machine that is a problem. One of them doesn’t.

One of them means your bigger project of Changing Things stops dead in the water or worse, gets pushed backwards. One means it doesn’t, even if it doesn’t help.

That’s a no-brainer.

Please do not let Evil win because Good is too effing stupid to be able to set up a long-term ongoing strategy to effect our goals.

ron-easom:

feministism:

This…

plantyhamchuk:

plantyhamchuk:

thecarboncoast:

cookinguptales:

A lot of people are really scared and angry because of the results of the newest climate change reports — as they should be. But I’m already seeing a lot of posts and news reports like “HERE’S WHAT YOU CAN DO TO FIGHT GLOBAL WARMING” and bizarrely enough, the answers are never like “weed out climate change deniers from your government, impose strict new rules for the corporations that are  creating most of the emissions, pour government resources into alternate forms of fuel, etc.” It’s always like “carpool to work!”

Look. Of course you should be working to reduce waste in your own life. But let’s not fucking pretend that consumers are the ones who made this mess. You know what another recent study found? Just 100 companies are responsible for 71% of global emissions. If the rest of us stopped ALL WASTE and fucking ascended to a higher plane of existence that no longer requires consumption of any kind, the world would still be absolutely fucked if those 100 companies keep on as they do.

I hate this personal responsibility model when it comes to conservation. By ignoring the actual source of the problem and focusing on individuals instead, guess who gets targeted? The absolute most vulnerable individuals on the planet. When people advocate personal responsibility, somehow they’re never talking about billionaires and their private jets. They’re creating straw bans that will make life more dangerous for people with disabilities. They’re shaming women for using disposable menstrual products. They’re criticizing the poor and destitute for using “wasteful” products because they’re all they can afford. They’re making vaguely eugenic statements about getting people in “third world countries” to stop ~breeding~ so much. It’s monstrous.

Stop shaming consumers for the sins of corporations and their powerful investors. Stop placing the blame at the feet of the people who already have the hardest time getting through life. Do something, and by “do something” I mean buy a reusable coffee cup on the way to fucking vote. Go to a protest. Call a representative. Demand accountability from the people who got us into this mess.

^^^^

Let’s talk about those 100 companies for a moment. 

To defeat your enemy, you first have to know who they are.

As a wonky nerd, I looked up the actual report everyone keeps vaguely referencing. Here’s some actual info on the worst polluting companies in the world according to the Carbon Disclosure Project.

In case you can’t read that tiny writing, here’s a list of what is on this graph, which is labeled: Oil and gas company product portfolio mix and GHG emissions intensity. The point of this graph is to show and shame, since even among fossil fuels, some are worse than others. From left to right: 

Suncor (Canada), Husky (Canada), Petrobras (Brazil), Lukoil (Russia), Rosneft (Russia), Canadian Natural (Canada), Marathon Oil (USA), Occidental (USA), Hess (USA), Chevron (USA), Murphy Oil (USA), BP (UK), ConocoPhillips (USA), ExxonMobil (USA), Devon Energy (USA), Apache (USA), Total (France), Eni (Italy), Statoil (now named Equinor.. Norway), OMV (Austria), Shell (USA), Anadarko (USA), BHP Billiton (Australia), Repsol (Spain), Encana (Canada), Gazprom (Russia).

As you can see here, on the far left is Suncor, and they’re all about mining those Canadian tar sands, the #1 most polluting way to create energy on an industrial scale.

Here’s another too-small picture I screen-shotted from the report. Here’s some key words: “The distribution of emissions is concentrated: 25 corporate and state producing entities account for 51% of global industrial GHG emissions. All 100 producers account for 71% of global industrial GHG emissions.”

Here’s that list of the 25 worst emitters, roughly ordered as worst polluters to least:

1. China (a collection of state-owned Coal companies)

2. Saudi Aramco (Saudi Arabia)

3. Gazprom (Russia)

4. National Iranian Oil (Iran)

5. ExxonMobil (USA)

 6. Coal India (India)

7. Russia (a collection of state-owned Coal companies)

8. Pemex (Mexico) 

9. Shell (USA)

10. CNPC – China National Petroleum Corporation

11. BP (UK)

12. Chevron (USA)

13. PDVSA – Venezuela state owned 

14. ADNOC – Abu Dhabi National Oil Company state owned 

15. Poland Coal (Poland)

16. Peabody (USA – coal) 

17. Sonatrach – Algerian state owned 

18. Kuwait Petroleum Corp state owned 

19. Total (France) 

20. BHP Billiton (Australia) 

21. ConocoPhilips (USA) 

22. Petrobras (Brazil) 

23. Lukoil (Russia) 

24. Rio Tinto (UK/Australia) 

25. Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation (Nigeria)

As you can see, this is a truly global problem. Most of us aren’t going to be able to make an impact on governments far away from us, but we can sure as hell put pressure on our own governments. And yes, we can also do individual acts of protest – be it buying a solar charger for your phone or pinning blankets to your curtains to make them more insulative or riding your bike more instead of using a car – because the non-state owned companies rely on consumers in order to survive. 

If you want to read the report for yourself, which has lots more charts and graphs, you can find it here (PDF). It is meant to sway investors, so if you know anyone investing money in company stocks, this would be a great thing to show them.

Astute observers will note that I did not actually name and shame 100 specific companies. The report doesn’t either…

FURTHER ACTIONS YOU CAN TAKE:

• Find out who your local energy company is
• Find out how they generate electricity
• Find groups pressuring them to switch over to more sustainable energy methods. Join / help out / volunteer / donate to those groups

minim-calibre:

fangasmagorical:

blooming-wilting:

gladnis:

hey ao3 can you like give the extra $38k you made from this month’s funds drive to charity

You know it legally is a charity, right?

If x charity aims for £10, but gets £15, would you expect then to give back the extra five or give it then to another charity? No. Any extra costs go into the “rainy day” fund; sometimes servers crash or break, sometimes false reports are made that require the legal team, sometimes you need to hire coders or what not to implement new features or fix bugs or deal with broken code … 

The money they aimed for is the bare minimum, which goes towards things like basic server costs and domain names and legal advice and so forth, but they don’t just “pocket” the rest (as people claim). It’s not a business. It has no advertisements. It needs some “rainy day” cash to function. 

You can’t ask a charity to give money to another charity. 

It needs what it gets to function and improve. 

kiena-tesedale replied to this post

They don’t “pocket” excess money. They have a
publicly accessible budget – waaaay more info than most charities, in
fact. In it, you can clearly see where each dollar goes. (Also, you are
vastly underestimating either how much traffic AO3 gets or how much
servers/hosting costs.)                    

In my experience, people who don’t work in web design and hosting just have no concept of how heavy a load something like AO3 would have. Not only is the traffic absolutely buck wild, but the quantity of data that archive needs to store is fuckoff crazy.
I’m talking “more than the library of congress” crazy. The only reason
it doesn’t require Netflix levels of data serving is that it’s text
based rather than video.

AO3 is in the top 300 websites in the world, and the top 100 in the US. It is the number 2 literature website.

Number 2 in the entire world. JSTOR is 20.

It sees about 6 million people a day.
About 250k an hour. Each of those people is loading multiple pages, many are running
searches that execute on literally hundreds of potential variables per
search. The demands involved are astronomical.

JSTOR, btw, makes 85 million dollars a year.

It’s 18 ranks below AO3′s traffic, and takes in 650 times the amount of money.

But let’s say you think that’s an unfair comparison. Would you say that the Project Gutenberg Literature Archival Group- another text based archive that handles literature operating outside traditional copyright requirements- is more similar?

Because it sees all of 4% of the traffic that AO3 handles.

Care to guess its budget?

Double that of AO3.

AO3 is doing shit on the kind of shoestring budget that I fully, 100% cannot comprehend. And that’s just the archival service.

The 130k also pays for the OTW’s legal team, which they use to defend the right of fandom to fucking exist.

It’s
absolutely batshit fucked up that people are fighting to have the OTW
defunded and AO3 shut down. They are the only organized group that
actually stands directly between fandom- all the art and the fics and
the vids and the music and the chats and the memes and everything we
love about interactive, transformative work- and an incalculable amount of lawsuits.

The number of people on this blue hellsite who apparently do not understand how nonprofits work is mind-boggling (pro tip: by definition, THEY DON’T MAKE A PROFIT), as is the number of people with no idea about the cost of running something that gets that much traffic.