I am a bi Latinist Mainer.

24th juillet 2014

Question reblogué depuis Awesome French avec 32 notes

Anonyme a dit: I actually really hate general questions about like this, but almost every American I know that has been to France says that the French people really don't like American tourists. I can understand how obnoxious tourists can be, but is this true? Is it true for all Americans?

awesomefrench:

The fact is - and that’s a real fact - that American and French people don’t have the same idea of what being polite stands for. Each side takes the way the other behaves as a frontal personal aggression, which leads to a lot of misunderstanding. American politeness includes welcoming the visitors like they’re kings, French politeness is about not bothering or interrupting under any circumstances, and both hardly mix.

Honestly, any North American who has spent significant time in New England or even NYC should be fine taking that attitude to Paris.  Be polite; realize that you are a significant inconvenience: be apologetic; they are not as hearty as Bavarians, but the Parisians were always very nice to me.

Tags :: Franceparisawesomefrench

24th juillet 2014

Billet reblogué depuis Julius Caesar is my soulmate avec 6 notes

#personal pt.2

the-fault-in-marys-life:

chamberlian:

the-fault-in-marys-life:

I’m mad and done with humanity, can I have a time machine and go to live with Romans, pleassssse ?

Emotions: 1    Logic: 0

I know right, but sometimes I’m just done with this world, and sometimes being irrational is the only escape I have

I feel you.  es bene amica.

Tags :: OMG someone spoke to mei hope i didn't misgender yougendered languages are so tough

24th juillet 2014

Billet reblogué depuis Ramblings of an Impatient Mystic avec 94 637 notes

teal-deer:

I’m glad that Bilbo Baggins exists

Because in the book, the dude was pretty firmly middle aged when his crazy-ass adventure started

He was settled down in the house that belonged to his parents and had done precisely jack shit with his life

It gives me hope that maybe some nutcase wizard will eventually show up and be like yo

you’re a burglar now

don’t even care that you didn’t roll rogue homie we got dragons to slay and kingdoms to save 

RIGHT??? I WAS SO ANNOYED THAT BILBO WAS SO YOUNG IN THE FILM.  HIM BEING MIDDLE-AGED IS WHAT MAKES THAT BOOK.

Source : teal-deer

24th juillet 2014

Question reblogué depuis MedicKat avec 6 486 notes

Anonyme a dit: White people did build america though. They built the trains and railroads, blew up mountains in the way, basically everything. The only thing blacks did was pick cotton. Back then the couldnt be trusted with other jobs. Seriously, learn more about history before you start making false accusations.

thundercunt-kat:

onlyblackgirl:

thundercunt-kat:

skindeap:

saltiestmermaid:

onlyblackgirl:

LOL white people sat on their ass whipping brown people as they built america. 

Yeah

LOOK

AT

ALL

THOSE

WHITE

PEOPLE

BUILDING

RAILROADS

Seriously, all you have to do is google railroad workers and everything but white people come up. Just because white people OWNED the railroads doesn’t mean they did shit. Slaves did a hell of a lot more than pick cotton, and there were other brown people here other than black people who also built america. White people literally sailed to another continent to avoid doing work.

did anon really try that tho….

image

They did

They really did

"To avoid doing work"
Yes you’re right. Establishing a government, overthrowing another government, building a democracy based on freedom of choice…so fucking lazy.

Not exactly a lot of work when there’s only 200 people there to vote for you. Overthrowing governments? WHAT GOVERNMENT WAS IN AMERICA WHEN THEY ARRIVED??? If you mean genocide of native Americans and sailing to Africa to get slaves to work an build all their shit then, yes.

Um. England. The revolutionary war.
Seriously, do they teach history in schools anymore?

Tumblr.  Break out the popcorn.

Source : onlyblackgirl

24th juillet 2014

Billet reblogué depuis "You don't need this junk. You need a cat." avec 233 notes

youneedacat:

madeofpatterns:

pervocracy:

Life Goal: To have a Wikipedia page.

Secondary Life Goal: …With a “controversies” section.

that does not sound enjoyable to me

It sounds horrible to me.  I already didn’t want a Wikipedia page and if there’s going to be a controversies section (which many, many of my stalkers and bullies have desperately tried to create) I don’t want that either.  But I have no choice.  My bullies have been trying for ages to get a reporter to listen to them, so that they could get mentioned on my Wikipedia page.  It’s horrible.  You don’t want any of that.

that got real awfully quickly.

Source : pervocracy

24th juillet 2014

Billet reblogué depuis felis corvus avec 19 notes

Ys (Joanna Newsom)

feliscorvus:

I like Ys best of all Joanna Newsom’s albums. Her voice isn’t to everyone’s taste (I think it works for what she sings; my SO can’t stand it; YMMV). But this album is amazing and I love that she was brave enough to actually make it. There are only 5 songs on it but they’re LONG, one of them being over 16 minutes (link below; the song is ‘Only Skin’):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6UUe3Q54qFg

Scrape your knee: it is only skin.
Makes the sound of violins.

And they’re not just long, but big and lush and multi-layered and full of poetry and lyrical wordplay of the kind I actually really do like.

It’s not 100% clear what she’s getting at in all cases, but overall the album seems to be “about” the process of growing up and coming to terms with the enormity of the world and of life and death and everything in between.

When this album came out I remember she got a lot of flak for it being “pretentious”. For whatever reason, a lot of people seem to have the attitude that musicians can ONLY sing about very basic romantic/sexual themes and they aren’t allowed to use obscure (but beautiful) vocabulary or anything like that, because oh my goodness, that’d be pretentious. I have yet to figure out why this attitude exists, but my guess is that it’s like…when I was growing up and “nerd” wasn’t a compliment, people would call you a nerd when they perceived you as having way too much unrestrained enthusiasm for something. 

And Ys is unrestrained everything. And I love it for that.

24th juillet 2014

Lien reblogué depuis Ramblings of an Impatient Mystic avec 19 notes

Massachusetts monks tap brewing tradition to support aging members →

faithinseeds:

discerningthecall:

wineandgnosis:

It is my design to die in the brew house; let ale be placed in my mouth when I am expiring, that when the choirs of angels come, they may say, “Be God propitious to this drinker.”

St. Columbanus, A.D. 612

During ESC this year, a parishioner taught us how to homebrew, and we thought about doing a series of beer based on the seven sacraments of the church: marriage would be a black and tan, for example. We’d call them: Love your Neigh-Beers! And remember: brew unto others as you would have them brew unto you.

I love the idea of beers based on the seven sacraments! As a side note, my grandpa taught those monks how to can jam back in the 1970s when they first started their preserve business…

Source : wineandgnosis

23rd juillet 2014

Billet

You deserve to be happy.

23rd juillet 2014

Billet reblogué depuis Julius Caesar is my soulmate avec 6 notes

#personal pt.2

the-fault-in-marys-life:

I’m mad and done with humanity, can I have a time machine and go to live with Romans, pleassssse ?

Emotions: 1    Logic: 0

Tags :: do you have any idea how humanity was under theromans

23rd juillet 2014

Lien reblogué depuis "You don't need this junk. You need a cat." avec 221 notes

San Francisco passes law allowing forced treatment of mentally disabled →

youneedacat:

nicocoer:

ukiahsheart:

sinidentidades:

San Francisco lawmakers approved a law allowing the forced treatment of mentally disabled patients under certain conditions, drawing swift criticism from patient advocacy groups who say the measure tramples civil rights.

The San Francisco Board of Supervisors, which passes legislation for the California city and county, adopted by a vote of 9-2 a measure known as Laura’s Law.

If given final approval it would allow court-ordered outpatient treatment for people with chronic and severe mental disability deemed a risk to themselves or others or who have been jailed or hospitalized more than once in the prior three years, among other conditions.

San Francisco legislator Mark Farrell, who proposed the legislation to the board, said the program would help vulnerable people “and provide the families the support they deserve”.

Modeled after a similar involuntary treatment law passed in New York in 1999, California lawmakers passed Laura’s Law in 2002 after 19-year-old Laura Wilcox was shot and killed by a mentally disabled patient at a Nevada County behavioral health clinic where she was an intern.

The state law allows family members, police officers or mental health professionals to file petitions requesting the court-mandated treatment of a mentally ill person.

Individual counties can opt out. Laura’s Law has only been fully adopted by three California counties: Nevada, Orange, and Yolo. It is expected to receive final approval from supervisors this week and then be signed into law by San Francisco Mayor Edwin Lee, who has expressed support for the program.

The law’s implementation has been slow and sparse due to the concerns about civil rights, resources and costs.

"This is the wrong direction for any community but especially a progressive community like San Francisco," said Mental Health Association of San Francisco Executive Director Eduardo Vega.

"There’s no real doubt that this is a process that fosters stigma around mental illness," Vega told Reuters after the vote.

The law requires city health officials to offer a mental health patient voluntary treatment before being forced into an involuntary outpatient program.

It also appoints a three-person panel to each case, which includes a forensic psychiatrist who would review the case to determine if a court-mandate is necessary.

I’m not sure how I feel about this. I can see both sides of the argument. One the one, questioning and taking away the facility of a mental ill person to make decisions for themselves is stripping that person away of his/her rights. 

On the other, If someone with a mental illness refuses to get the help they need and is a danger to him/herself or others then there should be some sort of procedures put in place to make sure they get the help they need. 

I remember being about sixteen and watching as my Aunt’s family decided to try and intervene on the behalf of my cousin. He accepted their intervention begrudgingly and sought out treatment for his mental illness. He hated my Aunt the whole time. Wouldn’t speak to her. But he got treatment.

I’m not sure they had much recourse had he not gone through with it and this law might have been their only recourse. 

But don’t think I’m not aware of how this law might be abused. I see so many cases of neglect/abuse through my dashboard because of neuroatypicality/mental illness/disability and this law could just be another form of abuse if we’re not careful. I’m gonna be watchful. 

No this law is NOT needed, as there are ALREADY (over abused FYI) procedures in place to put someone who is deemed “A Danger to themselves or others” involuntarily in the psych hospital. All it takes is someone calling the cops and the cops deciding, with or without basis, that their course of action should be to drop them at the psych ward. (There have been people dropped in by family this way when they weren’t a danger because of convenience, because of care giver stress, and because of property conflicts.) Some cops just automatically assume if they are on a psych call to take you in. It begins a 72 hour “psych hold” where you are unable to be discharged or check yourself out until a judge reviews your case. You no longer have control about your treatment or much of your life until the judge hears from one of those doctors enough to discharge you.

And FYI: Danger to themselves or others? Already an EXTREMELY broadly interpreted category. There are people who WERE NOT an actual danger to themselves who were just visibly mentally disabled who have been picked up on that phrasing because someone saw them alone muttering to themselves and decided they, the abled person, felt unsafe and called 911. There are people who confessed suicidal ideation (thoughts about suicide) who didn’t have any INTENT or actual DESIRE to act on any of the ideas to friends who, because of cultural messages about what to do in that case, called the cops to “check” on them- and their friend got put on a 72 hour psych observation hold. 

I have lived my life in fear that someone would misinterpret my words or behaviors as “dangerous”- and let’s be frank, the way the media has treated people with Mental Health Disabilities, basically looking “crazy” in public can make some people feel threatened- and I would be picked up. I had about half my teen voluntary hospital stays been coerced because the threat of an involuntary stay where I would have less say about leaving and be taken less seriously by the doctors while I was in treatment. 

Oh, and you protesting that it was a mistake? Can be listed as a psych symptom depending on what staff you get. You not meeting their ideas about what you should act like as a psych patient? You obviously are benefiting from the structured environment/medications. You not basically laying back and complying with what they say to do, regardless of if you have serious concerns? You obviously need to stay longer. And it isn’t your perspective or your write up of the situation that the judge looks at to let you go- it’s the case notes with the above “observations”. You best be praying you have compassionate staff who get that forced and coercive treatment isn’t as effective. 

And all of these opportunities for misuse and abuse of the system? ARE UNDER THE OLD STANDARDS. These new standards are even worse. 

I’ve lived under the old standards in California and only rarely was I committed as a “danger to self or others or gravely disabled” when I actually was any of the three.  And don’t forget “gravely disabled” because that’s the third way you can get taken in.  They could finagle anything you did into evidence that you were a danger to yourself, a danger to others, or gravely disabled.  Anything.  I’m serious.  It’s really easy to get committed in California, it’s one reason I don’t live there anymore.  I have been committed for walking down the street looking “disoriented” (i.e. how I look most of the time).

Tags :: And evern another one

Source : sinidentidades

23rd juillet 2014

Photo reblogué depuis Boycott Autism Speaks avec 70 notes

I don’t usually reblog identity politics, but I feel like we need to strongly support the autistics from time to time.

I don’t usually reblog identity politics, but I feel like we need to strongly support the autistics from time to time.

23rd juillet 2014

Diaporama reblogué depuis "Spiritually Reflective Lesbian" avec 57 929 notes

Tags :: yes

Source : walkthroughthefire

23rd juillet 2014

Photo avec 3 notes

And today’s message to all the parents.

And today’s message to all the parents.

Tags :: classicsclassics fandomclassics weekhebdomadis antiquaelatin fandomlatinlatinelingua latina

23rd juillet 2014

Photo reblogué depuis pierre ollier ⎜ photographe(r) avec 30 notes

23rd juillet 2014

Question reblogué depuis "You don't need this junk. You need a cat." avec 6 notes

Anonyme a dit: Why are you ambivalent about ASAN? I am considering going through the vetting process to start an ASAN chapter, but I don't feel like I have the spoons necessary for the political side of things at the moment.

youneedacat:

I’m ambivalent about most of the autistic organizations I’ve seen out there.  With ASAN, I’ve seen a tendency to push their agenda onto self-advocacy groups that may not have similar agendas.  For instance, I remember them at one point proposing that anyone who worked with them on… something or other (can’t remember if they were trying to form a larger self-advocacy ally network or something else)… had to sign something that included that they had to agree to “support neurodiversity”.  

Which, didn’t make sense to me at the time, because neurodiversity is first off an abstraction that not everyone can understand (I barely understand it myself, even though I use the word sometimes), and second off, I didn’t think it was a good idea to force people to conform to an ideology in order to work with them or be part of their extended network or whatever it was at the time.

And it’s been little things, like that.  Little things that are signs of bigger things.  I work with ASAN members regularly, and may even join ASAN someday, but I will always be ambivalent about it, as an organization, at best.  I can’t even put into words my hesitations, unfortunately, but I know that for instance my friend shares them.  Ze backed out of a project once because ze was afraid that ze would be somehow outed as not supporting ASAN and that this would prove to be a problem.  (The project was not run by ASAN itself, but practically everyone but me and a couple others were ASAN members.)

There’s just… a feeling of ideology to it that I can’t put my finger on but I can’t shake it either.  I believe they do a lot of good work and I fully support them in that.  I can support an organization, and work with an organization, and even work inside of an organization, that I am ambivalent about, even one that I dislike more than I’ve ever disliked ASAN.  Hell, I’ve gone to FEAT meetings to educate parents, and FEAT is worse than anything ASAN could ever be — and I got along with them and was well-accepted by all but a tiny minority.

But there are things I just don’t trust about it.  And most of them are on the sensing level, so I can’t put my finger on them.

I really, really don’t want to influence you one way or the other, though.  If you feel that starting an ASAN chapter in your area is something you should do, then you should do it.  It could do a lot of good.  It could be that individual chapters have a lot of freedom to do whatever they want — which is what I found with FEAT, which is not an organization I’d support even on the chapter level, but was still way better in the chapter I worked with than, say, the one that involved Lenny Schafer.

I also get the sense that ASAN is… it… thinks it knows more than it knows, it thinks it is more than it is, it rapidly, too-rapidly, adapts itself to expectation and observation and criticism, it makes me really fucking nervous.

But there are amazing people in ASAN doing amazing work and I do not want to separate you from that if that is what you want to be involved in.  Please don’t take my word for any of this.  Make your own observations.  Make your own decisions.  Don’t put too much weight on me, because not only could I be wrong, but it could be dangerous to act on my words as if they have more meaning than they do.  Because these are decisions that could impact a lot more people than just me and you.  And I would hate for my offhand remarks and vague feelings about an organization to decide whether a chapter got started that may well be sorely needed and do a lot of good.

I can tell you I trust ASAN far more than I trust GRASP.  And about equally with ANI and AutCom, which I am also heavily ambivalent about, yet have participated in for years, often happily.  I’m not much of a joiner.  I prefer to do my own thing, and then work alongside or with an organization when we have goals in common.  And that comes out in my attitudes towards organizations — I tend to be more critical of them than most people are, even when I like them.  ASAN I do remain deeply ambivalent about though, meaning I see deeply good things about them and deeply disturbing things about them, and I can’t work out what I think overall.

Do what you think is best.  Do what YOU think is best.  Not me, not ASAN, not anyone else, YOU.

Tags :: our favorite Vermonterhas buckets more common sensethan anyone else on tumblrand I just have to reblog it