dailyotter:

Rub My Feet?
Photo by Mark Medcalf, who won the portrait prize in the 2013 Scottish Nature Photography Awards for this photo, called “Will You Rub My Feet?”
Via the BBC (scroll through the slideshow) and submitted by Ian!

On the lighter side!

dailyotter:

Rub My Feet?

Photo by Mark Medcalf, who won the portrait prize in the 2013 Scottish Nature Photography Awards for this photo, called “Will You Rub My Feet?”

Via the BBC (scroll through the slideshow) and submitted by Ian!

On the lighter side!

thepeoplesrecord:

The 1% wants to ban sleeping in cars - it hurts their ‘quality of life’April 16, 2014
Across the United States, many local governments are responding to skyrocketing levels of inequality and the now decades-long crisis of homelessness among the very poor … by passing laws making it a crime to sleep in a parked car.
This happened most recently in Palo Alto, in California’s Silicon Valley, where new billionaires are seemingly minted every month – and where 92% of homeless people lack shelter of any kind. Dozens of cities have passed similar anti-homeless laws. The largest of them is Los Angeles, the longtime unofficial “homeless capital of America”, where lawyers are currently defending a similar vehicle-sleeping law before a skeptical federal appellate court. Laws against sleeping on sidewalks or in cars are called “quality of life” laws. But they certainly don’t protect the quality of life of the poor.
To be sure, people living in cars cannot be the best neighbors. Some people are able to acquire old and ugly – but still functioning – recreational vehicles with bathrooms; others do the best they can. These same cities have resisted efforts to provide more public toilet facilities, often on the grounds that this will make their city a “magnet” for homeless people from other cities. As a result, anti-homeless ordinances often spread to adjacent cities, leaving entire regions without public facilities of any kind.
Their hope, of course, is that homeless people will go elsewhere, despite the fact that the great majority of homeless people are trying to survive in the same communities in which they were last housed – and where they still maintain connections. Americans sleeping in their own cars literally have nowhere to go.
Indeed, nearly all homelessness in the US begins with a loss of income and an eviction for nonpayment of rent – a rent set entirely by market forces. The waiting lists are years long for the tiny fraction of housing with government subsidies. And rents have risen dramatically in the past two years, in part because long-time tenants must now compete with the millions of former homeowners who lost their homes in the Great Recession.
The paths from eviction to homelessness follow familiar patterns. For the completely destitute without family or friends able to help, that path leads more or less directly to the streets. For those slightly better off, unemployment and the exhaustion of meager savings – along with the good graces of family and friends – eventually leaves people with only two alternatives: a shelter cot or their old automobile.
However, in places like Los Angeles, the shelters are pretty much always full. Between 2011 and 2013, the number of unsheltered homeless people increased by 67%. In Palo Alto last year, there were 12 shelter beds for 157 homeless individuals. Homeless people in these cities do have choices: they can choose to sleep in a doorway, on a sidewalk, in a park, under a bridge or overpass, or – if they are relatively lucky – in a car. But these cities have ordinances that make all of those choices a criminal offense. The car is the best of bad options, now common enough that local bureaucrats have devised a new, if oxymoronic, term – the “vehicularly housed”.
People sleeping in cars try to find legal, nighttime parking places, where they will be less apparent and arouse the least hostility. But cities like Palo Alto and Los Angeles often forbid parking between 2am and 5am in commercial areas, where police write expensive tickets and arrest and impound the vehicles of repeat offenders. That leaves residential areas, where overnight street parking cannot, as a practical matter, be prohibited.
One finds the “vehicularly housed” in virtually every neighborhood, including my own. But the animus that drives anti-homeless laws seems to be greatest in the wealthiest cities, like Palo Alto, which has probably spawned more per-capita fortunes than any city on Earth, and in the more recently gentrified areas like Los Angeles’ Venice. These places are ruled by majorities of “liberals” who decry, with increasing fervor, the rapid rise in economic inequality. Nationally, 90% of Democrats (and 45% of Republicans) believe the government should act to reduce the rich-poor gap.
It is easy to be opposed to inequality in the abstract. So why are Los Angeles and Palo Alto spending virtually none of their budgets on efforts to provide housing for the very poor and homeless? When the most obvious evidence of inequality parks on their street, it appears, even liberals would rather just call the police. The word from the car: if you’re not going to do anything to help, please don’t make things worse.
Source

thepeoplesrecord:

The 1% wants to ban sleeping in cars - it hurts their ‘quality of life’
April 16, 2014

Across the United States, many local governments are responding to skyrocketing levels of inequality and the now decades-long crisis of homelessness among the very poor … by passing laws making it a crime to sleep in a parked car.

This happened most recently in Palo Alto, in California’s Silicon Valley, where new billionaires are seemingly minted every month – and where 92% of homeless people lack shelter of any kind. Dozens of cities have passed similar anti-homeless laws. The largest of them is Los Angeles, the longtime unofficial “homeless capital of America”, where lawyers are currently defending a similar vehicle-sleeping law before a skeptical federal appellate court. Laws against sleeping on sidewalks or in cars are called “quality of life” laws. But they certainly don’t protect the quality of life of the poor.

To be sure, people living in cars cannot be the best neighbors. Some people are able to acquire old and ugly – but still functioning – recreational vehicles with bathrooms; others do the best they can. These same cities have resisted efforts to provide more public toilet facilities, often on the grounds that this will make their city a “magnet” for homeless people from other cities. As a result, anti-homeless ordinances often spread to adjacent cities, leaving entire regions without public facilities of any kind.

Their hope, of course, is that homeless people will go elsewhere, despite the fact that the great majority of homeless people are trying to survive in the same communities in which they were last housed – and where they still maintain connections. Americans sleeping in their own cars literally have nowhere to go.

Indeed, nearly all homelessness in the US begins with a loss of income and an eviction for nonpayment of rent – a rent set entirely by market forces. The waiting lists are years long for the tiny fraction of housing with government subsidies. And rents have risen dramatically in the past two years, in part because long-time tenants must now compete with the millions of former homeowners who lost their homes in the Great Recession.

The paths from eviction to homelessness follow familiar patterns. For the completely destitute without family or friends able to help, that path leads more or less directly to the streets. For those slightly better off, unemployment and the exhaustion of meager savings – along with the good graces of family and friends – eventually leaves people with only two alternatives: a shelter cot or their old automobile.

However, in places like Los Angeles, the shelters are pretty much always full. Between 2011 and 2013, the number of unsheltered homeless people increased by 67%. In Palo Alto last year, there were 12 shelter beds for 157 homeless individuals. Homeless people in these cities do have choices: they can choose to sleep in a doorway, on a sidewalk, in a park, under a bridge or overpass, or – if they are relatively lucky – in a car. But these cities have ordinances that make all of those choices a criminal offense. The car is the best of bad options, now common enough that local bureaucrats have devised a new, if oxymoronic, term – the “vehicularly housed”.

People sleeping in cars try to find legal, nighttime parking places, where they will be less apparent and arouse the least hostility. But cities like Palo Alto and Los Angeles often forbid parking between 2am and 5am in commercial areas, where police write expensive tickets and arrest and impound the vehicles of repeat offenders. That leaves residential areas, where overnight street parking cannot, as a practical matter, be prohibited.

One finds the “vehicularly housed” in virtually every neighborhood, including my own. But the animus that drives anti-homeless laws seems to be greatest in the wealthiest cities, like Palo Alto, which has probably spawned more per-capita fortunes than any city on Earth, and in the more recently gentrified areas like Los Angeles’ Venice. These places are ruled by majorities of “liberals” who decry, with increasing fervor, the rapid rise in economic inequality. Nationally, 90% of Democrats (and 45% of Republicans) believe the government should act to reduce the rich-poor gap.

It is easy to be opposed to inequality in the abstract. So why are Los Angeles and Palo Alto spending virtually none of their budgets on efforts to provide housing for the very poor and homeless? When the most obvious evidence of inequality parks on their street, it appears, even liberals would rather just call the police. The word from the car: if you’re not going to do anything to help, please don’t make things worse.

Source

(via cognitivedissonance)

think-progress:

Add Ted Yoho to the list of climate deniers.

Add Ted Yoho to the list of fucking idiots. Another one of our law makers who have no sense.
I think we need to seriously think about who we are electing

think-progress:

Add Ted Yoho to the list of climate deniers.

Add Ted Yoho to the list of fucking idiots. Another one of our law makers who have no sense.

I think we need to seriously think about who we are electing

Study shows gender bias in science is real. Here’s why it matters. | Scientific American

america-wakiewakie:

It’s tough to prove gender bias.

In a real-world setting, typically the most we can do is identify differences in outcome. A man is selected for hire over a woman; fewer women reach tenure track positions; there’s a gender gap in publications. Bias may be suspected in some cases, but the difficulty in using outcomes to prove it is that the differences could be due to many potential factors. We can speculate: perhaps women are less interested in the field. Perhaps women make lifestyle choices that lead them away from leadership positions. In a real-world setting, when any number of variables can contribute to an outcome, it’s essentially impossible to tease them apart and pinpoint what is causative.

The only way to do that would be by a randomized controlled experiment. This means creating a situation where all variables other than the one of interest are held equal, so that differences in outcome can indeed be attributed to the one factor that differs. If it’s gender bias we are interested in, that would mean comparing reactions toward two identical human beings – identical in intelligence, competence, lifestyle, goals, etc. – with the one difference between them that one is a man and one is a woman. Not exactly a situation that exists in the real world.

But in a groundbreaking study published in PNAS last week by Corinne Moss-Racusin and colleagues, that is exactly what was done. On Wednesday, Sean Carroll blogged about and brought to light the research from Yale that had scientists presented with application materials from a student applying for a lab manager position and who intended to go on to graduate school. Half the scientists were given the application with a male name attached, and half were given the exact same application with a female name attached. Results found that the “female” applicants were rated significantly lower than the “males” in competence, hireability, and whether the scientist would be willing to mentor the student.

(Read Full Text)

(via america-wakiewakie)

wilsoncenter:

What do Rwanda, Afghanistan, and Iraq beat America at? Having women in congress/parliament
Countries with better representation of women in government than the United States (hat tip to our Women in Public Service Project):
Rwanda - 56%
Andorra - 50%
Cuba - 45%
Sweden - 45%
Seychelles - 44%
Senegal - 43%
Finland - 43%
South Africa - 42%
Nicaragua - 40%
Iceland - 40%
Norway - 40%
Mozambique - 39%
Denmark - 39%
Netherlands - 39%
Costa Rica - 39%
Timor-Leste - 39%
Belgium - 38%
Argentina - 37%
Mexico - 37%
Tanzania - 36%
Spain - 36%
Uganda - 35%
Angola - 34%
Serbia - 33%
Nepal - 33%
Germany - 33%
Macedonia - 33%
Ecuador - 32%
Slovenia - 32%
New Zealand - 32%
Algeria - 32%
Guyana - 31%
Burundi - 31%
Switzerland - 29%
Portugal - 29%
Trinidad and Tobago - 29%
Austria - 28%
Ethiopia - 28%
Afghanistan - 28%
France - 27%
Lesotho - 27%
Tunisia - 27%
Belarus - 27%
South Sudan - 27%
El Salvador - 26%
Bolivia - 25%
Iraq - 25%
Laos - 25%
Canada - 25%
Australia - 25%
Sudan - 25%
Lithuania - 25%
Vietnam - 24%
Namibia - 24%
Kazakhstan - 24%
Singapore - 24%
Liechtenstein - 24%
Croatia - 24%
Poland - 24%
Kyrgyzstan - 23%
Latvia - 23%
Bulgaria - 23%
Philippines - 23%
Pakistan - 23%
United Kingdom - 23%
Malawi - 22%
Mauritania - 22%
Czech Republic - 22%
Eritrea - 22%
Uzbekistan - 22%
Luxembourg - 22%
Peru - 22%
Italy - 21%
Boznia and Herzegovina - 21%
China - 21%
Greece - 21%
Cape Verde - 21%
Estonia - 21%
Dominican Republic - 21%
Cambodia - 20%
Israel - 20%
Moldova - 20%
Bangladesh - 20%
Honduras - 20%
Monaco - 19%
Tajikistan - 19%
Mauritius - 19%
Slovak Republic - 19%
Indonesia - 19%
Sao Tome and Principe - 18%
United States - 18%
(source: World Bank)

wilsoncenter:

What do Rwanda, Afghanistan, and Iraq beat America at? Having women in congress/parliament

Countries with better representation of women in government than the United States (hat tip to our Women in Public Service Project):

  1. Rwanda - 56%
  2. Andorra - 50%
  3. Cuba - 45%
  4. Sweden - 45%
  5. Seychelles - 44%
  6. Senegal - 43%
  7. Finland - 43%
  8. South Africa - 42%
  9. Nicaragua - 40%
  10. Iceland - 40%
  11. Norway - 40%
  12. Mozambique - 39%
  13. Denmark - 39%
  14. Netherlands - 39%
  15. Costa Rica - 39%
  16. Timor-Leste - 39%
  17. Belgium - 38%
  18. Argentina - 37%
  19. Mexico - 37%
  20. Tanzania - 36%
  21. Spain - 36%
  22. Uganda - 35%
  23. Angola - 34%
  24. Serbia - 33%
  25. Nepal - 33%
  26. Germany - 33%
  27. Macedonia - 33%
  28. Ecuador - 32%
  29. Slovenia - 32%
  30. New Zealand - 32%
  31. Algeria - 32%
  32. Guyana - 31%
  33. Burundi - 31%
  34. Switzerland - 29%
  35. Portugal - 29%
  36. Trinidad and Tobago - 29%
  37. Austria - 28%
  38. Ethiopia - 28%
  39. Afghanistan - 28%
  40. France - 27%
  41. Lesotho - 27%
  42. Tunisia - 27%
  43. Belarus - 27%
  44. South Sudan - 27%
  45. El Salvador - 26%
  46. Bolivia - 25%
  47. Iraq - 25%
  48. Laos - 25%
  49. Canada - 25%
  50. Australia - 25%
  51. Sudan - 25%
  52. Lithuania - 25%
  53. Vietnam - 24%
  54. Namibia - 24%
  55. Kazakhstan - 24%
  56. Singapore - 24%
  57. Liechtenstein - 24%
  58. Croatia - 24%
  59. Poland - 24%
  60. Kyrgyzstan - 23%
  61. Latvia - 23%
  62. Bulgaria - 23%
  63. Philippines - 23%
  64. Pakistan - 23%
  65. United Kingdom - 23%
  66. Malawi - 22%
  67. Mauritania - 22%
  68. Czech Republic - 22%
  69. Eritrea - 22%
  70. Uzbekistan - 22%
  71. Luxembourg - 22%
  72. Peru - 22%
  73. Italy - 21%
  74. Boznia and Herzegovina - 21%
  75. China - 21%
  76. Greece - 21%
  77. Cape Verde - 21%
  78. Estonia - 21%
  79. Dominican Republic - 21%
  80. Cambodia - 20%
  81. Israel - 20%
  82. Moldova - 20%
  83. Bangladesh - 20%
  84. Honduras - 20%
  85. Monaco - 19%
  86. Tajikistan - 19%
  87. Mauritius - 19%
  88. Slovak Republic - 19%
  89. Indonesia - 19%
  90. Sao Tome and Principe - 18%
  91. United States - 18%

(source: World Bank)

(via america-wakiewakie)

Monica Jones, AZ Transgender Woman convicted of Walking While Trans

projectqueer:


Just days after Monica Jones was shown in this video protesting the failed religious discriminatory law in Phoenix, she was offered a ride while walking to a bar. The driver turned out to be an undercover police officer who then arrested her for “manifestation of prostitution’. This law is a vague statue which enables officers to arrest woman for no other reason than asking if they are police. The law is used to feed people to “Project Rose” as the city conducts massive drag nets hauling in dozens of individuals at a time. This profiling of woman by police is contested by the Arizona ACLU which notes that,

“The difference between ‘innocent’ and ‘criminal’ behavior often comes down to how a person looks.”

A 2011 study  in NYC found that 59% of transgender respondents said that they had been stopped by police. So over half of our sisters in NYC had they lived in Phoenix would have faced the prospect of “Project Rose”.

Click the header link to read the full article.

(via cognitivedissonance)

cognitivedissonance:

milvertons:

itswalky:

out-there-on-the-maroon:

whiteboyfriend:

NPR posted an article with a title asking why people don’t read anymore, but the content was just an April Fools joke. Then people started to embarrass themselves.

(gawker)

Pictured: a proper April Fool’s joke.

INTERNETS

"I read every day, sometimes many times."

Reblogging again because I love this so hard.

Big smiles!!