you will never get away from the sound

RSS

quarterclever:

accioguitardis:

cyberunfamous:

trillow:

how much do islands cost i want one

Less than a college education

image

what the fuck

So, if you actually look, a lot of those are actually “island parcels” not “private islands”— essentially you’re just buying a plot of land on an island, not the entire island. The one that is an entire island (Chandler Island) says it’s only about an acre, and if you actually look it up, “the high tide area is only about half an acre: the size of an average suburban yard.”

Many of the islands listed as private islands rather than island parcels on the site actually appear to be lots on islands rather than entire islands when you look into the details of the descriptions. A piece talking about the most desirable private islands for under $350,000 has the cheapest one ringing in at about $180,000.

According to the College Board, the average costs for college (including tuition, room, and board) were around $20,000 for a 4-year public, in-state school and $40,000 for a 4-year private, non-profit (these are rounded up and down by about $1000 dollars respectively to make the math easier). This means that the cost for a four year college education ranges from $80,000 to $160,000.

So, well, yeah, technically you can buy a private island for more than a college education, it’s going to be (a) a pretty crappy island and (b) almost definitely cost more than a state school. I’m not saying that the costs of college aren’t ridiculously high and getting higher (they are) but they’re not quite private island high. This is especially true when you consider the fact that some costs, such as room and board, while you may be paying at inflated rates depending on how you have to do it at a particular college, you will be paying regardless of whether you’re in college or not— you have to live and eat somehow, after all (even if you’re living with your parents for free, there are still costs there, you’re just not the one paying for them). You would have to pay to live on that private island, after all— especially considering it might come undeveloped, you’d need to get in food and all sorts of things, etc.

somehowfurious:

kissing-monsters:

apiphile:

sexxxisbeautiful:

pizzagrrrl:

Peggielene Bartels, A.K.A. King Peggy, is currently the King of Otuam, Ghana. She was chosen to be one of only three female kings in Ghana, and when she discovered that male chauvinists wanted her to only be a figurehead, she said: “They were treating me like I am a second-class citizen because I am a woman. I said, ‘Hell no, you’re not going to do this to a woman!’” When she encountered corruption and the threat of embezzlement to the royal funds, she declared “I’m going to squeeze their balls so hard their eyes pop!”
King Peggy has maintained her work in Ghana’s embassy in Washington, D.C. while making education affordable in Otuam, installing borehead wells to produce clean drinking water, enforcing incarceration laws to deal with domestic violence, replenishing the royal coffers by taxing Otuam’s fishing industry to improve life in the village, and appointing three women to her council.
“Nobody should tell you, ‘You’re a woman, you can’t do it,’” she insists. “You can do it. Be ready to accept it when the calling comes.”
Quoted from the Spring/Summer 2012 issue of Ms. Magazine.

What a beautiful badass woman.

King Peggy has been on my blog before but this is my goddamn blog and I will have King Peggy on here twice if I want.

MORE FEMALE KINGS.

Always reblog King Peggy, who is on my dash far less than she should be. Did you know she has written a book about her life? It is great, and you should all get right on that if you haven’t already.

somehowfurious:

kissing-monsters:

apiphile:

sexxxisbeautiful:

pizzagrrrl:

Peggielene Bartels, A.K.A. King Peggy, is currently the King of Otuam, Ghana. She was chosen to be one of only three female kings in Ghana, and when she discovered that male chauvinists wanted her to only be a figurehead, she said: “They were treating me like I am a second-class citizen because I am a woman. I said, ‘Hell no, you’re not going to do this to a woman!’” When she encountered corruption and the threat of embezzlement to the royal funds, she declared “I’m going to squeeze their balls so hard their eyes pop!”

King Peggy has maintained her work in Ghana’s embassy in Washington, D.C. while making education affordable in Otuam, installing borehead wells to produce clean drinking water, enforcing incarceration laws to deal with domestic violence, replenishing the royal coffers by taxing Otuam’s fishing industry to improve life in the village, and appointing three women to her council.

“Nobody should tell you, ‘You’re a woman, you can’t do it,’” she insists. “You can do it. Be ready to accept it when the calling comes.”

Quoted from the Spring/Summer 2012 issue of Ms. Magazine.

What a beautiful badass woman.

King Peggy has been on my blog before but this is my goddamn blog and I will have King Peggy on here twice if I want.

MORE FEMALE KINGS.

Always reblog King Peggy, who is on my dash far less than she should be. Did you know she has written a book about her life? It is great, and you should all get right on that if you haven’t already.

(Source: pizza-grrrl)

if you consider a woman
less pure after you’ve touched her
maybe you should take a look at your hands

-

(via solacity)

I will never not reblog this

(via nuedvixx)

(Source: anachronica)

quarterclever:

like there are people that are good looking

and then there’s natalie dormer and matt bomer

Baking with JJ Abrams

raktajino-hot:

Person: JJ, I want you to make some chocolate chip cookies.

JJ: [Returns several hours later with an apple pie mashed into a cookie box]

Person: … this is an apple pie mashed into a cookie box.

JJ: No, it’s chocolate chip cookies. Made for people like me, who hate chocolate!

Read More

The thing that I worry about more is the media’s bias toward fairness. Nobody uses the word lie anymore. Suddenly, everything is “a difference of opinion.” If the entire House Republican caucus were to walk onto the floor one day and say “The Earth is flat,” the headline on the New York Times the next day would read “Democrats and Republicans Can’t Agree on Shape of Earth.” I don’t believe the truth always lies in the middle. I don’t believe there are two sides to every argument. I think the facts are the center. And watching the news abandon the facts in favor of “fairness” is what’s troubling to me.

-

Aaron Sorkin (via dduane)

“You are entitled to your opinion. But you are not entitled to your own facts.” — Daniel Patrick Moynihan

(via waywren)

wehaveallgotknives:

blue-author:

projectivepenteract:

theuppitynegras:

projectivepenteract:

theuppitynegras:

I’m about 90% sure the economy is never gonna “improve” 

this is capitalism in it’s final form

this is it honey 

except, you know, those companies that do a charitable thing for every thing they sell

that’s kinda new and interesting. benevolent capitalism

lmao

Pay attention, class: This is what it looks like when one is unwilling to consider new information.

It’s not new information, though. It’s misinformation.

First, it’s not that new.

Did you know that there was a time in U.S. history—which is by definition recent history—when a corporation was generally intended to have some sort of public interest that they served? I mean, that’s the whole point of allowing corporations to form. Corporations are recognized by the commonwealth or state, and this recognition is not a right but a privilege, in exchange for which the state (representing the people) is allowed to ask, “So what does this do for everyone else?”

The way the economy is now is a direct result of a shift away from this thinking and to one where a corporation is an entity unto itself whose first, last, and only concern is an ever-increasing stream of profits. What you’re calling “benevolent capitalism” isn’t benevolent at all. It’s a pure profit/loss calculation designed to distract from—not even paper over or stick a band-aid on—the problems capitalism creates. And the fact that you’re here championing it as “benevolent capitalism” is a sign of how ell it’s working.

Let’s take Toms, as one example. The shoe that’s a cause. Buy a pair of trendy shoes, and a pair of trendy shoes will be given away to someone somewhere in the world who can’t afford them.

That’s not genuine benevolence. That’s selling you, the consumer, on the idea that you can be benevolent by buying shoes, that the act of purchasing these shoes is an act of charity. The reality is that their model is an inefficient means of addressing the problems on the ground that shoelessness represents, and severely disrupts the local economies of the locations selected for benevolence.

(Imagine what it does to the local shoemakers, for instance.)

The supposed act of charity is just a value add to convince you to spend your money on these shoes instead of some other shoes. It’s no different than putting a prize in a box of cereal.

Heck, you want to see how malevolent this is?

Go ask a multinational corporation that makes shoes or other garments to double the wages of their workers. They’ll tell you they can’t afford it, that it’s not possible, that consumers won’t stand for it, that you’ll drive them out of business and then no one will have wages.

But the fact that a company can give away one item for every item sold shows you what a lie this is. A one-for-one giving model represents double the cost of labor and materials for each unit that is sold for revenue. Doubling wages would only double the labor.

So why are companies willing to give their products away (and throw them away, destroy unused industry with bleach and razors to render them unsalvageable, et cetera) but they’re not willing to pay their workers more?

Because capitalism is the opposite of benevolence.

"Charity" is by definition exemplary, above and beyond, extraordinary, extra. "Charity" is not something that people are entitled to. You give people a shirt or shoes or some food and call it charity, and you’re setting up an expectation that you can and will control the stream of largesse in the future, and anything and everything you give should be considered a boon from on high.

On the other hand, once you start paying your workers a higher wage, you’re creating an expectation. You’re admitting that their labor is more valuable to you than you were previously willing to admit, and it’s hard to walk that back.

Plus, when people have enough money for their basic needs, they’re smarter and stronger and warier and more comfortable with pushing back instead of being steamrolled over. They have time and money to pursue education. They can save money up and maybe move away. They can escape from the system that depends on a steady flow of forced or near-forced labor.

So companies will do charitable “buy one, give one” and marketing “buy one, get one” even though these things by definition double the overhead per unit, but they won’t do anything that makes a lasting difference in the standard of living for the people.

Capitalism has redefined the world so that the baseline of ethics is “How much money can we make?” and every little good deed over and above that is saintly.

But there’s nothing benevolent about throwing a scrap of bread to someone who’s starving in a ditch because you ran them out of their home in the first place.

"The majority of people spoil their lives by an unhealthy and exaggerated altruism – are forced, indeed, so to spoil them. They find themselves surrounded by hideous poverty, by hideous ugliness, by hideous starvation. It is inevitable that they should be strongly moved by all this. The emotions of man are stirred more quickly than man’s intelligence; and, as I pointed out some time ago in an article on the function of criticism, it is much more easy to have sympathy with suffering than it is to have sympathy with thought. Accordingly, with admirable, though misdirected intentions, they very seriously and very sentimentally set themselves to the task of remedying the evils that they see. But their remedies do not cure the disease: they merely prolong it. Indeed, their remedies are part of the disease.

They try to solve the problem of poverty, for instance, by keeping the poor alive; or, in the case of a very advanced school, by amusing the poor.

But this is not a solution: it is an aggravation of the difficulty. The proper aim is to try and reconstruct society on such a basis that poverty will be impossible.”

Oscar Wilde, 1891, The Soul Of Man Under Socialism

thehungryhungryemo:

squidsqueen:

dw:

when did we replace the word “said” with “was like”

When it occured to us that “said” implies a direct quote, while “was like” clarifies that you mean to communicate the person’s tone and general point without quoting them word for word.

Whoa

radicalmenofcolor:

leash-baby:

universalequalityisinevitable:

From the "Peter Joseph vs The Senate" segment of Culture In Decline | Episode #5 | “Baby Go Boom!”

BOOM 

"Economically Irrelevant."
Use that word.

-D

robot friend does not agree. 'failure' is inability to fulfill directive. human has no programmed directive. human evolutionary directive is to live. you are alive. everything else is bonus.

Anonymous

roboticdreams:

I’ve been saving this message in my inbox for a long time because it always makes me feel better. I needed it today. Thank you