21 10 / 2014

mechanicmuffin:

feedmyaddictionnow:

kingofwesteros:

Publicity done right in an anti-rape campaign: double-page spread, pages glued to one another. After the reader forcefully separates them, the image above is revealed with the caption “if you have to use force, it’s rape”.

THIS IS BRILLIANT

I WANT THIS IN EVERY MAGAZINE

mechanicmuffin:

feedmyaddictionnow:

kingofwesteros:

Publicity done right in an anti-rape campaign: double-page spread, pages glued to one another. After the reader forcefully separates them, the image above is revealed with the caption “if you have to use force, it’s rape”.

THIS IS BRILLIANT

I WANT THIS IN EVERY MAGAZINE

(Source: barbarajoangordon, via tsunderehairflip)

21 10 / 2014

21 10 / 2014

tastefullyoffensive:

Roomba, the NOPE of dog world. -makattic

tastefullyoffensive:

Roomba, the NOPE of dog world. -makattic

21 10 / 2014

starpatches:

I saw people drawing flight rising dragon gijinkas so I had to do a quick one of my fave dragon baby ok

*Screams like a girl* now I HAVE to do this.

starpatches:

I saw people drawing flight rising dragon gijinkas so I had to do a quick one of my fave dragon baby ok

*Screams like a girl* now I HAVE to do this.

19 10 / 2014

chrisroberson:

castielsteenwolf:

pr1nceshawn:

The evolution of Halloween costumes for girls…

this is really important

Fuck. This. Shit.

yep more than a bit creepy

(via swegener)

18 10 / 2014

17 10 / 2014

allthecanadianpolitics:

Two child care plans — one for the rich, one for the rest

All of a sudden, it looks like the battle lines in the coming federal election may be less over whether to send our warplanes to Iraq and more over whether to send our children to day care.
With their announcement this week of plans for a national child care program, the NDP has not only proposed the beginnings of a solution to a gaping social need in Canada, it also has carved out territory where its contrast with the Harper Conservatives could not be starker.
Like the NDP, the Conservatives are planning to take a chunk of money from the surplus accumulating in Ottawa and spend it on a big initiative related to children. But that’s where the similarities end.
The NDP plan, which would provide subsidized child care at a cost to parents of $15 a day, is national in scope, based on a strong role for government, funded by taxes, and egalitarian — all things from which the Conservatives, as if by genetic disposition, recoil.
By contrast, Stephen Harper’s Conservatives want no national plan. They oppose a strong role for government — or any role — in meeting the needs of working parents with kids. Their answer is to give parents money in the form of tax cuts to spend as they want. But for the vast majority of Canadian parents, the Conservatives’ promised centerpiece — a tax break allowing income-splitting for parents with children under 18 — will offer virtually nothing, and that may be overstating its generosity.
But before we get to the latest Conservative plan, let’s recall what the Conservatives did in 2006, when Paul Martin’s Liberal government proposed a national child care plan but was toppled shortly after by the Conservatives and NDP. After winning the election, Harper scrapped the plan and instead announced that Ottawa would pay $100 a month per child to families with children under age six.
Not content to just discard a national child care plan, Harper, after winning a majority in 2011, became bolder in advancing two key prongs of his arch-conservative agenda: enriching the rich and encouraging women to stay home. Promising to introduce income-splitting offered him a splendid opportunity to do both, since the benefits of the costly $3 billion tax cut would go almost exclusively to rich families with stay-at-home mothers.
Tax breaks typically offer bigger benefits the higher you go up the income scale, but the imbalance in the case of income-splitting is so profound that the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives (CCPA) calls it “inequality by design.”
Neil Brooks, tax professor emeritus at Osgoode Hall Law School, calls it “immoral.”
As the CCPA notes, fully 86 per cent of Canadian families would receive no benefit whatsoever. Meanwhile, one per cent of all families (not hard to guess which one per cent) would get an average tax saving exceeding $6,500.
Imagine a cartload of federal surplus cash bypassing virtually every home in the country — before making a beeline for a few well-to-do enclaves and dropping thousands of dollars on doorsteps.
(The Harper government also announced last week that it was enriching the child fitness tax credit from $500 to $1,000 — another measure where the benefits are highly skewed to the rich, who are far more likely to have a spare $1,000 to spend on their children’s sailing or riding lessons.)
But back to income-splitting. Among the losers are working women. This is revealing, since governments typically use tax incentives to encourage certain kinds of behaviour. Harper’s message to women: marry rich and stay home. No longer barefoot, pregnant and in the kitchen, today’s woman should be … in the kitchen, pregnant and wearing Guccis.
A national child care program, on the other hand, would make it easier for women to work. Quebec’s child care program has significantly increased female workforce participation. With more women working and paying taxes, the program has done “much better than pay for itself,” according to a study led by prominent Montreal economist Pierre Fortin.
The Conservatives’ income-tax splitting plan is so inequitable that even the late Conservative finance minister Jim Flaherty — perhaps suffering a twinge of conscience after a political career spent rewarding the rich — was moved to question its fairness.
That — and the fact that Conservatives continue to lag in the polls — may yet cause the government to retreat from their income-splitting promise.
But if they felt they could get away with it, this is what they’d really want to do with $3 billion of our hard-earned surplus: Hand $6,500 each to some of our richest, most ‘traditional’ families, and give most other Canadians precisely nothing.


this sounds intersting

allthecanadianpolitics:

Two child care plans — one for the rich, one for the rest

All of a sudden, it looks like the battle lines in the coming federal election may be less over whether to send our warplanes to Iraq and more over whether to send our children to day care.

With their announcement this week of plans for a national child care program, the NDP has not only proposed the beginnings of a solution to a gaping social need in Canada, it also has carved out territory where its contrast with the Harper Conservatives could not be starker.

Like the NDP, the Conservatives are planning to take a chunk of money from the surplus accumulating in Ottawa and spend it on a big initiative related to children. But that’s where the similarities end.

The NDP plan, which would provide subsidized child care at a cost to parents of $15 a day, is national in scope, based on a strong role for government, funded by taxes, and egalitarian — all things from which the Conservatives, as if by genetic disposition, recoil.

By contrast, Stephen Harper’s Conservatives want no national plan. They oppose a strong role for government — or any role — in meeting the needs of working parents with kids. Their answer is to give parents money in the form of tax cuts to spend as they want. But for the vast majority of Canadian parents, the Conservatives’ promised centerpiece — a tax break allowing income-splitting for parents with children under 18 — will offer virtually nothing, and that may be overstating its generosity.

But before we get to the latest Conservative plan, let’s recall what the Conservatives did in 2006, when Paul Martin’s Liberal government proposed a national child care plan but was toppled shortly after by the Conservatives and NDP. After winning the election, Harper scrapped the plan and instead announced that Ottawa would pay $100 a month per child to families with children under age six.

Not content to just discard a national child care plan, Harper, after winning a majority in 2011, became bolder in advancing two key prongs of his arch-conservative agenda: enriching the rich and encouraging women to stay home. Promising to introduce income-splitting offered him a splendid opportunity to do both, since the benefits of the costly $3 billion tax cut would go almost exclusively to rich families with stay-at-home mothers.

Tax breaks typically offer bigger benefits the higher you go up the income scale, but the imbalance in the case of income-splitting is so profound that the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives (CCPA) calls it “inequality by design.”

Neil Brooks, tax professor emeritus at Osgoode Hall Law School, calls it “immoral.”

As the CCPA notes, fully 86 per cent of Canadian families would receive no benefit whatsoever. Meanwhile, one per cent of all families (not hard to guess which one per cent) would get an average tax saving exceeding $6,500.

Imagine a cartload of federal surplus cash bypassing virtually every home in the country — before making a beeline for a few well-to-do enclaves and dropping thousands of dollars on doorsteps.

(The Harper government also announced last week that it was enriching the child fitness tax credit from $500 to $1,000 — another measure where the benefits are highly skewed to the rich, who are far more likely to have a spare $1,000 to spend on their children’s sailing or riding lessons.)

But back to income-splitting. Among the losers are working women. This is revealing, since governments typically use tax incentives to encourage certain kinds of behaviour. Harper’s message to women: marry rich and stay home. No longer barefoot, pregnant and in the kitchen, today’s woman should be … in the kitchen, pregnant and wearing Guccis.

A national child care program, on the other hand, would make it easier for women to work. Quebec’s child care program has significantly increased female workforce participation. With more women working and paying taxes, the program has done “much better than pay for itself,” according to a study led by prominent Montreal economist Pierre Fortin.

The Conservatives’ income-tax splitting plan is so inequitable that even the late Conservative finance minister Jim Flaherty — perhaps suffering a twinge of conscience after a political career spent rewarding the rich — was moved to question its fairness.

That — and the fact that Conservatives continue to lag in the polls — may yet cause the government to retreat from their income-splitting promise.

But if they felt they could get away with it, this is what they’d really want to do with $3 billion of our hard-earned surplus: Hand $6,500 each to some of our richest, most ‘traditional’ families, and give most other Canadians precisely nothing.

this sounds intersting

17 10 / 2014

swegener:

I’m not scared of desperately uncool cultural reactionaries like Jack Thompson or anti-witchcraft Harry Potter burners. I’m scared of the people who do hold cultural power, who have the loud voice, who are, in fact, the cool kids, but think they’re embattled underdogs. I’m scared of the people who think that because disco was “taking over music” they had the right to “fight back” bullying and attacking disco performers and fans.

I’m scared of people who look at someone like Zoe Quinn, an individual who makes free indie games, or Anita Sarkeesian, an individual who makes free YouTube videos, and honestly think that these women are a powerful “corrupt” force taking away the freedom of the vast mob of angry young male gamers and the billion-dollar industry that endlessly caters to them, and that working to shut them up and drive them out somehow constitutes justice. The dominant demographic voice in some given fandom or scene feeling attacked by an influx of new, different fans and rallying the troops against “oppression” in reaction is not at all unique. It happens everywhere, all the time.

But let’s be honest: It’s usually guys doing it. Our various “culture wars” tend to boil down to one specific culture war, the one about men wanting to feel like Real Men and lashing out at the women who won’t let them. Whenever men feel like masculinity is under attack, men get dangerous. Because that’s exactly what masculinity teaches you to do, what masculinity is about. Defending yourself with disproportionate force against any loss of power? That’s what masculinity is.

I would strongly disagree; that is *not* what masculinity is at all.

But i otherwise agree with this.

(Source: the-full-grohac)

14 10 / 2014

coelasquid:

To be honest it bugs the hell out of me when (my fellow) Canadians are like “oh my god the US is so fucked up what is even happening” because the whole “US sucks Canada is great” attitude is a huge part of what keeps Canadians apathetic about Canadian politics and our own problems with racism and…

(via broliloquy)

14 10 / 2014

Why do you people have to make everything about race???

  • 1: White Europeans decided to colonize the rest of the world. They enslaved, massacred, segregated, displaced, tortured, disenfranchised, and raped other racial groups. They stole land, resources, and art. They put other races in zoos and death camps. They destroyed written and pictorial history. They suppressed the religions of other races. They dehumanized us. They refused to teach the history of these atrocities in their schools. They refused to acknowledge the achievements of other races. They used the theory of their racial superiority as their excuse. All social institutions reflect this history. All affected racial groups are still feeling the aftereffects of this. So it tends to come up a lot.
  • 2: Please shut up.