CQTM

Jun 22

Republicans Just Killed the Chance For Your Student Debts to be Lower →

againstmyweaponry:

bobbycaputo:

Republicans just killed a bill that would have allowed students to refinance their loans at lower interest rates because rich people would have to pay for part of it.

Sen. Elizabeth Warren’s (D-Mass.) Bank on Students Emergency Loan Refinancing Act didn’t even get past a procedural vote, failing 56-38. Warren said the bill was designed to ease the debts of 40 million Americans who collectively hold nearly $1.3 trillion in loans, at a stunning $30,000 per borrower.

Senate Republicans objected to the inclusion of the so-called Buffett Rule to pay for it, which would have raised income tax rates on rich people who obtain most of their income from investments. Raising taxes is a non-starter for the GOP in both the House and Senate. Just three Republicans signed on with the bill.

Read more | Follow policymic

Well color me surprised

Republican rhetoric involved cutting spending in domestic welfare bc they don’t want to leave our nations kids and grand kids in debt. In all honesty they want themselves, their kids and grand kids to get by with low ass taxes, tax loopholes, and corporate welfare. We, the nation’s kids and grand kids can be as indebted as possible bc we don’t matter. Those of us who benefit from social programs don’t matter. Those of us who would be helped by this bill don’t matter. It is clear that when republicans articulate the excuse of “not wanting to indebt our future generations” they only mean their own families who live wealthily already. Fuck them. Vote their fucking asses out.

I did the math and it translates to a difference of just over $5,500 over the life of a median loan ($29,400) and almost $50 a month. Our generation is having trouble buying houses or taking risks because we are so over burdened with debt, and Republicans have the gall to say that they don’t see how the bill would help us.

What I wonder most is who would have an easier time explaining why they voted the way they did to whomever the bill would have hurt: Mitch McConnell or Elizabeth Warren? Cause I would love to see McConnell try and justify refusing to help a bunch of students to their faces instead of to some news station. I feel Warren would have an easy time telling investors she thinks students are more important than loopholes…

Jun 12

forestlover:

keyholeslumber:

modestinferno:

circumlocute:

Books that people read romantically but shouldn’t because they’re missing the point:

  1. Lolita by Vladimir Nabokov
  2. Romeo and Juliet by William Shakespeare
  3. The Great Gatsby by F. Scott Fitzgerald

That’s your opinion.

there’s nothing romantic about a pedophile rapist, the senseless murder-suicide of teenagers because families can’t get their shit together or the hypocrisy of the roaring 20s

FINALLY SOMEONE SAYS IT

Well, yes and no… I don’t see how the tragedy faced by Romeo and Juliet makes their story less romantic. I guess I feel that overcoming obstacles, even if you fail, is actually very romantic.

Were they beyond rash? Of course. But that doesn’t mean that their tale is any less romantic (if anything a bit of spontaneity is usually a good thing, though again, they do take it too far).


Maybe you’re complaint is that they were young? Well, I guess. But for their time they weren’t that young. Even today many people experience their first heartbreak that early in life. In my mind young people are as able to experience romance as anyone.

So it seems that your only complaint left is that their parents were acting like idiots. Good to know people can only be romantic if they’ve had the perfect upbringing.

I think people give Romeo and Juliet a hard time because they don’t live happily ever after and because their romance isn’t the entire story (or even the most important element). But really, that’s exactly why it is so romantic, and why the story is so enduring. They face tragedy, a tragedy they cannot overcome, but (at least in their minds) are so truly in live that they are willing to die rather than be parted. Depressing? Yes. But still, very romantic.

Apr 19

A little something about cynics

Okay, so below you will see a kind of long rant about an Oscar Wilde quote.  You’ve been warned.

So, while taking a brief study break today, I was browsing 9gag and found a post that bothered me quite a bit.  Given that the site is about sixty percent not-funny people trying desperately to be funny (often using pointlessly off-color jokes) and thirty percent supposedly “deep thoughts” that would give Jack Handy a run for his money, you’d think I’d be past the point when a post could really annoy me like this.  Especially with how simple this post was; it wasn’t sexist or racist or any of your standard “how-can-someone-still-think-this-it’s-2014” fare.  Honestly, I’m guessing that the vast majority of people just sort of scrolled past it. 

The post was just an incorrect Oscar Wilde quote.  A black background, and in white the words, “People these days know the cost of everything and the value of nothing. – Oscar Wilde”.  The title was “This is so true.”  Okay, so you might not have noticed that they messed up the beginning of the quote, but for fuck’s sake, who cares?  I mean, Wilde is sometimes referred to the most misquoted man in history.  Is it really a big deal that the poster got a word or two wrong?  Well, actually yes, it is.  What they messed up actually says a lot, and points to a much more significant problem than someone missing out on some great literature.

Now, to start with, whether you could have identified that the quote above was incorrect or not, I would hope you could at least recognize that Wilde is not talking about this new century.  Hell, he isn’t even talking about last century.  The quote above appeared in The Picture of Dorian Gray, which was published in 1890.  Wilde wasn’t commenting on the world we live in now; if anything he was commenting on life in “modern” London over 120 years ago.

“Okay,” I hear you saying, “but isn’t that the whole point of literature? To find commonalities across space and time; to allow those far away or those long dead to speak to us now?” And of course, you would be right.  It would be truly remarkable if Wilde was identifying a trend more than a century ago that still applied today.  But he wasn’t.  The quote is wrong, and just changing a few words completely negates what Wilde was trying to do.  The actual quote is “A cynic is a man who knows the price of everything and the value of nothing.”  So what was changed?  How do this quote and the incorrect quote above differ?  The topic.  Wilde wasn’t making a comment on modern London; he was making a joke about cynics.

You see, cynicism is kind of a theory that life sucks.  A cynic believes people are all selfish and evil, the government is out to destroy you, everyone is actually a complete idiot, and life is a waste of time.  Seriously, it is an incredibly stupid mindset to be in.  And it’s one that everyone (myself included) seems to find themselves in every now and then, particularly on the internet.  So by changing a couple words in that quote, instead of saying cynics are silly and dumb, the poster is saying everyone is the world is cynical (and therefore, silly and dumb).  What worries me is I don’t know if the poster realized the mistake.  I do think that people today are overly cynical, but rather than comment on that trend, the poster is just playing into the exact same theme.

The thing is, Wilde’s definition of a cynic is pretty good; someone who can’t see how wonderful the world is.  Someone so focused on the bad that they can’t see the stuff that is actually important.  I feel this is a real problem right now.  So many people are whole-heartedly adopting a cynical outlook on life.  We live in a world where people freely exchange the labels “cynical” and “realistic,” as though this depressing outlook is correct beyond question.  Half the time, the kinds of things people say are downright pessimistic, but still get treated as realistic.  What is the modern day synonym for “optimism”?  “Naivety.”  If you think that the world is pretty cool and getting better; believe that people are generally good, people think you are childish.  Never mind how great the world is today.  Don’t believe me?  Well, let’s go back to Wilde, shall we?

The quote above is said by the delightfully quotable, if slightly cruel, Lord Henry.  When Wilde first wrote Dorian Gray, Henry was gay and in love with Dorian.  The editors refused to publish it, and forced him to rewrite it, cutting all instances that hinted at the relationship (of course, it isn’t hard to see that Lord Henry is gay, but Wilde subverted it enough for his audience in 1890 to miss it).  Five years later, Wilde would be tried on charges of engaging in homosexual behavior, and sentenced to two years hard labor.  Today, not only is homosexuality not considered a crime in his home country of England or in his late life refuge of America, but gay marriage is legal in at least sixteen countries and seventeen states in the U.S.  Believe it or not, but the world is getting better.

The year Dorian Gray came out, only a few countries had women’s suffrage, along with only one territory in the United States.  In fact, just three years prior, women in Utah had actually lost the right to vote.  But thirty years later, that would be fixed with the Nineteenth Amendment.  Forty-three years later, the Equal Pay Act of 1963 was passed, guaranteeing that a woman couldn’t be paid less for doing the same work as a man.  Fifty years after that, conditions are continuing to improve, and the list of countries that legally deny rights to women continues to shrink, with Bahrain, Oman, and the United Arab Emirates granting suffrage in the past decade and a half.  Is there perfect equality?  No, I’ll grant that there are certainly still discrepancies, but the world still looks a hell of a lot brighter than it did in Wilde’s time.

What else can we say about the year 1890?  It’s the first time the phrase “separate but equal” was used in a de jure setting.  Racial segregation was not only legal, but the norm in much of the United States until “separate but equal” was finally shown to be pretty much the most horrible practice since slavery roughly eighty years later.  Today, no laws treat someone differently because of their race.  Just like gender and homosexual rights, we may be far from perfect, but we are so much better than where we have been, even compared to the past couple decades. 

If you want more proof of how far we’ve come, consider how revolted people get over racism and the like.  If the world were truly as terrible as cynics would have us believe, you’d expect us to have thicker skin for it.  But we don’t.  Consider that when Nina Davuluri was named Miss America, a few thousand racist tweets were considered an outrage, even though in her own words “For one negative tweet, I received dozens of positive tweets and support from not only Indians, but the American people across the country…”  People overwhelmingly supported her nomination, and the fact that anyone would disagree is considered awful. 

History has always been the story of people slowly moving towards a better future.  Yes, I know that there are times it feels that we’ll never reach that world we truly want to live in.  But to act like life is terrible, or that man-kind’s best days are behind us?  That is not only wrong; it’s insulting to all those who toiled to bring us to where we are today.

So do me a favor; memorize the quote correctly, and more importantly, memorize its meaning.  Try and remind yourself how silly cynicism is.  We live in the best time in history, and believe it or not, the world is going to keep getting better.  I’m going to leave you with one last quote, this time from someone a bit more modern.  It’s something that I feel really sums this up quite nicely:

“Cynicism masquerades as wisdom, but it is the farthest thing from it. Because cynics don’t learn anything. Because cynicism is a self-imposed blindness, a rejection of the world because we are afraid it will hurt us or disappoint us. Cynics always say no. But saying “yes” begins things. Saying “yes” is how things grow. Saying “yes” leads to knowledge. “Yes” is for young people. So for as long as you have the strength to, say “yes’.” 
― Stephen Colbert

Mar 29

thoseflyingdays:

goddard92:

thoseflyingdays:

condwiramurs:

shirtlesslion:

STORY IDEA: YOUR DOOR BELL RINGS AND ITS A PERSON FROM AN ALTERNATE UNIVERSE “I JUST WANT YOU TO KNOW THAT YOU ARE MY FAVORITE BOOK CHARACTER AND I KNOW HOW IT ENDS AND I WANNA CHANGE IT”

WHY DID YOU DO THAT TO ME

WANT NEED SOMEONE WRITE THIS

Isn’t that kind of what the movie stranger than fiction is about?

Yah, but not really. That’s Harold figuring out he’s a character in the story, not someone intervening…

That’s true. Though the author does intervene by changing the ending… I know it isn’t identical, but it is a similar concept

Mar 29

thoseflyingdays:

condwiramurs:

shirtlesslion:

STORY IDEA: YOUR DOOR BELL RINGS AND ITS A PERSON FROM AN ALTERNATE UNIVERSE “I JUST WANT YOU TO KNOW THAT YOU ARE MY FAVORITE BOOK CHARACTER AND I KNOW HOW IT ENDS AND I WANNA CHANGE IT”

WHY DID YOU DO THAT TO ME

WANT NEED SOMEONE WRITE THIS

Isn’t that kind of what the movie stranger than fiction is about?

Mar 07

cinnamonbritches:

verbalizations:

i-smell-sex-and-coffee:

Why does it always seem pathetic when a girl is in love with a boy who doesn’t love her back, and romantic and heartbreaking when a boy loves a girl who doesn’t love him

you know exactly why

image

Hate to rain on the anti-patriarchal parade, but the original poster is wrong (source: Taylor Swift).  It’s thought of as pathetic if you’re considered relatively unattractive (see the stereotypical idea of a nerd in love) and heartbreaking/romantic if not (see Joseph Gordon Levitt in “500 Days of Summer” or the above Taylor Swift).  In fact, I have seen far more examples of a guy being considered pathetic for being in love than the reverse.

Nov 13

quote Male privilege is “I have a boyfriend” being the only thing that can actually stop someone from hitting on you because they respect another man more than they respect your rejection/lack of interest.

The Sociological Cinema

There was actually research that was done that found that women who used an “I have a boyfriend/husband” excuse to reject unwanted sexual attention and harassment by their bosses were more likely to be left alone than those who used any other excuse (including “I’m not interested”)

Because men respect another man’s property (and that’s how they see us) than a woman’s autonomy.

(via cosmic-poetry)

Dear whomever it was that first posted the above argument.  What the actual fuck?  Seriously, what the hell is going through your brain?  Here’s a general rule for any academic research: you don’t get to make up explanatory variables.  Sociologists have noticed a trend - that saying “I have a boyfriend” is more likely to get the woman to be left alone.  You can think this is a good thing or a bad thing; you get to make that (personal) decision.  However, what you don’t get to do is use that random trend to make up your own explanation.  You do not get to say, “therefore men see women as property.”  There is absolutely no evidence of this claim whatsoever.

And really, if you think about it, your claim really doesn’t hold water.  It seems FAR more likely that the reason this (for lack of a better word) excuse is more widely accepted than “I’m not interested” is that our society rarely condones judging a person based on first impressions.  This is why it’s such a common trope in film and television that two characters that hated each other to begin with end up with one another: they got over an initial impression and changed their minds.  ”I’m not interested” just says “my first impression of you was not ideal,” giving the man an incentive to try to win her over. “She doesn’t know the real me, and she deserves to,” he thinks.  On the other hand “I have a boyfriend” says “it doesn’t matter who the ‘real’ you is” so there is no such incentive.

So that just leaves one last little bit in the original post: “women who used an “I have a boyfriend/husband” excuse… were more likely to be left alone than those who used any other excuse.” What the hell does that even mean?  Say 100% of women who said “I have a boyfriend” were left alone and 99% of women who used any other excuse were left alone (I’m sure these aren’t the numbers, but that doesn’t change the point).  Yes one is “more likely,” but it’s hardly worth mentioning (all it takes is a couple slightly more persistent men to justify that claim).  And the fact that the original poster felt the need to emphasize that statement makes me wonder how significant of a difference this really was.

;tldr: The research cited in this context does not support you and your claim about men thinking of women as property reveals ridiculous levels of misandry.

Oct 31

I thought I’d write a rant

I’m really sick of being an American. Not in the way that I’ve read approximately 5000 Tumblr posts or Facebook statuses about what’s wrong with America (we are: fat, lazy, uncultured, stupid, self-centered, etc.), but in the fact that it’s only deemed okay to say these things about Americans.

My girlfriend and I just had a bit of a fight, and it was very apparent that she had decided long ago that she hated Americans, and any behavior I exhibited that was remotely American was proof enough of every other label she wanted to assign me. Even worse was when I didn’t fit into her exact definition of American (you know, the people she hates), because it would mean she was wrong about something. When I enjoyed Mexico City, she was upset. She assumed that as an American I would either be astounded to the point of falling in love with the city and thinking it was perfect or I would hate it because as a stupid American I would be mad that it didn’t fit my racist definition of Mexico established by taco bell. The idea that I could have an independent thought seemed to bug her.

Now, imagine if I tried to tell you I hated all Mexicans: you would call me racist or ethnocentric. But a Mexican saying she hates all Americans is fine: hell, I’ve been expected to apologize for the fact that there are rude Americans, not just with her. I’m kind of done with it. Are there problems with America? Of course. Do other cultures have more validity than portrayed by American media? Absolutely. Does that make it okay to judge all Americans before you meet them? Something tells me that the answer is no.

The root problem is that there is a widely held belief that it is okay to insult or belittle a member of the dominant culture: a girl kicking a guy in the nuts is funny, while that same guy hitting the girl makes him an asshole (hint: they’re both assholes). Every film and TV show portrays the fabulously wealthy as shallow and stupid (Gossip Girl, The OC, Gilmore Girls, plenty of shows actually aimed at my demographic) but calling the poor lazy marks you as evil. There was even a five season show about the fact that straight men don’t know how to dress or behave.

I understand that the reason these are deemed appropriate while the alternative is not is because these are seen as a check on the most privileged (I class I fully realize that I epitomize: straight, white, middle class, male). However, maybe it’s time we stopped accepting this line of reasoning as okay. Maybe my arrogance can be traced to something other than my country of origin. Maybe my tastes aren’t based on my race or gender. Maybe, just maybe, all the things that make me me are more personal than the same label you can smack on three hundred million people. The real problem with these lines of reasoning is that like so many areas in our lives, we are working hard to deny the complexity of reality. As John Green has said many times: the truth resists simplicity. Perhaps some more people should listen to him.

Jun 10
manhailnaww:

“Before you can grow up, you must fall in love 3 times.

Once you must fall in love with your best friend, ruining your friendship forever. This will teach you who your true friends are, and the fine line between friendship and more.
Once you must fall in love with someone you believe to be perfect. You will learn that no one is perfect, and that you should never be treated as any less than you deserve.
And once you must fall in love with someone that is exactly like you. This will teach you about who you are, and who you want to be.


And when you’re through with all that, you learn that the people who care about you the most are the ones that you hurt, and the ones that hurt you are the ones that you needed the most.”

manhailnaww:

“Before you can grow up, you must fall in love 3 times.

Once you must fall in love with your best friend, ruining your friendship forever. This will teach you who your true friends are, and the fine line between friendship and more.

Once you must fall in love with someone you believe to be perfect. You will learn that no one is perfect, and that you should never be treated as any less than you deserve.

And once you must fall in love with someone that is exactly like you. This will teach you about who you are, and who you want to be.

And when you’re through with all that, you learn that the people who care about you the most are the ones that you hurt, and the ones that hurt you are the ones that you needed the most.”

Jun 06
oxygensonata:

claireandpresentdanger:

on-the-paddle:

IRON MAN STROKE WOOO!

I feel like Tony has a bowseat personality- the one who makes snarky comments

And Steve would probably be stroke. I could imagine the Hulk getting pissed if the set was off or there was rushing. Though I can’t really imagine a shell set with the Hulk inside it. 

So bases on the meanings of each seat in an eight, I’ve assigned each member of the Avengers/SHEILD, so here it goes:Stroke: Fury. Duh.7 seat: Captain America. After Lt. Fury, Cap is the leader of the Avengers, so it seemed natural to make him the ‘second stroke’6 seat: The Hulk. He is LITERALLY the inhumanly strong rower every 6 seat strives to be.5 seat: Thor. Insanely strong, yet not Hulk strong. And I doubt he feels too bad about not being the most powerful…4 seat: Agent Coulson. The only one that at least gives the illusion of being a normal person. You could imagine him spending his weekends at the beach with his wife and kids.3 seat: Hawkeye. I really didn’t want to put him here because he’s my favorite, but most people seem to think he’s the least impressive, and since every other seat is taken, I’ll let them have it :(2 seat: Black Widow. She’s brilliant and insanely tough, but her past has scarred her to the point that she’ll never be stroke.Bow: Iron Man. That snarky bastard would give anything to be at the back yelling at everyone else…So I guess Robin (or whatever her name is) would cox… I really want to see this now…

oxygensonata:

claireandpresentdanger:

on-the-paddle:

IRON MAN STROKE WOOO!

I feel like Tony has a bowseat personality- the one who makes snarky comments

And Steve would probably be stroke. I could imagine the Hulk getting pissed if the set was off or there was rushing. Though I can’t really imagine a shell set with the Hulk inside it. 

So bases on the meanings of each seat in an eight, I’ve assigned each member of the Avengers/SHEILD, so here it goes:

Stroke: Fury. Duh.

7 seat: Captain America. After Lt. Fury, Cap is the leader of the Avengers, so it seemed natural to make him the ‘second stroke’

6 seat: The Hulk. He is LITERALLY the inhumanly strong rower every 6 seat strives to be.

5 seat: Thor. Insanely strong, yet not Hulk strong. And I doubt he feels too bad about not being the most powerful…

4 seat: Agent Coulson. The only one that at least gives the illusion of being a normal person. You could imagine him spending his weekends at the beach with his wife and kids.

3 seat: Hawkeye. I really didn’t want to put him here because he’s my favorite, but most people seem to think he’s the least impressive, and since every other seat is taken, I’ll let them have it :(

2 seat: Black Widow. She’s brilliant and insanely tough, but her past has scarred her to the point that she’ll never be stroke.

Bow: Iron Man. That snarky bastard would give anything to be at the back yelling at everyone else…

So I guess Robin (or whatever her name is) would cox… I really want to see this now…