U.S. Followers - If you have a sec, please quickly visit this website to voice your defense of The Roadless Rule—a 2001 piece of legislation that protects 45 million acres of national forest—which Trump’s administration is in the process of rescinding.
You have until Friday to leave your comments—the government is required to record and address every single one. It doesn’t have to be long, just unique: tell them why nature and biodiversity is worth more than lumber and concrete roads.
Thank you!
Deadline is Friday the 19th! Tell congress that we want our wilderness to remain that way!
This is so fascinating to me. This is a homeless encampment on private property, and usually the argument is that “well they don’t have a right to be there, so we have to remove them”. But apparently the property owner actually resists attempts to remove the homeless presence on their property… so the narrative shifts to “well, it’s dangerous for the community and for the homeless for this encampment to exist”.
Note that they do not offer alternative places to go for the homeless people currently living on - let me state again - a private property that the property owner seems entirely happy for them to live in and resists attempts to remove them. They just shouldn’t be there, according to the mayor.
How are they dangerous to the community again? Lack of sanitation, mental health concerns, drug abuse? Are you planning to do anything to address those problems or just get rid of the human evidence of those problems? Certainly it’s dangerous for the people living in tents and makeshift structures in an encampment… but it’s a lot more dangerous for them to live alone on the street without any kind of community, and no one is concerned about that when they break up a homeless encampment.
People will do anything to fix the homelessness problem in their cities except for actually helping the people affected by it.
So I just saw the most incredible production of Macbeth that wove parental grief into the whole regicide plot in such a fascinating way.
So at the very beginning of the play there was a scene where Macbeth and Lady Macbeth are at a funeral as the primary mourners. A stretcher is carried on with a covered body. The body was notably very small. They laid flowers on it and Macbeth immediately left for battle.
Now *I* studied Shakespeare in college so I immediately knew there is one single line that implies that the Macbeths lost a child at some point. Most of the time this isn’t utilized in productions; it’s just a throwaway line, intended to paint just how determined Lady M is for this regicide thing to work and how furious she is that her husband has cold feet. In this production she delivers “I have given suck, and know how tender tis to love the babe that milks me” nearly in tears. She takes a moment to steel herself before saying, “I would while it was smiling in my face, have plucked my nipple from his boneless gums and dashed the brains pit, had I so sworn” and she very nearly SCREAMED this in Macbeth’s face.
Also noted was how the Macbeths looked at Macduff’s children. Lady M was clutching her heart, nearly breaking watching them embrace their parents. Macbeth could not even look at them.
At the end of Lady Macbeth’s plot, when she is sleepwalking and sleeptalking, she is typically portrayed as speaking to no one or to her husband. However, at a certain point of her monologue she got on her knees, raised her voice to a comforting octave, and began miming tear wiping, hand holding, hair and face stroking, around a child-sized figure. “Wash your hands, put on your nightgown, look not so pale. I tell you yet again, Banquo’s buried; he cannot come out on’s grave.” Then she stands and appears to take the child’s hand. “Go to bed, go to bed. I can hear knocking at the gate-” then she looks down and realizes that no one is there, followed be the most heartbreaking shriek I’ve ever heard followed by a full minute of her just weeping while curled up on the floor before she stood up, finished her monologue and left the stage.
Most of the time when the loss of a child is utilized in a performance or adaptation, it is assumed that the child was an infant and lost some time ago. To imply that the child died IMMEDIATELY prior to the events of the play and had been cared for and loved by their parents for a few years adds such a fascinating layer to the desperation to ascend to the throne, Lady M’s madness, and Macbeth’s initial hesitation into “in for a penny, in for a pound” attitude, Macbeth’s fury that Banquo’s, not his, children will take the throne, and even Macbeth’s eventual demise following a frenzied final battle.
How far will grief push you to fill a hole? How far will grief push you to desperation? And what happens when none of your new pursuits are filling the void left by the one you lost? And what happens when you realize you have nothing left to lose?
The Department of Justice has removed a study showing that white supremacist and far-right violence “continues to outpace all other types of terrorism and domestic violent extremism” in the United States.
It’s just fucking insane how if there had been a shooter on that Utah campus who had open fired and shot one or multiple students it would just be business as usual with every right-wing dick rider saying shit like “thoughts and prayers but there’s nothing we can do” but because it was one of their own piece of shit neonazis, we have to sit through every republican and their dog sobbing on social media and rewarding this fucker with medals of honour and shit. like this has nothing to do with the shooter at all they’re just terrified that their guns are being turned on them now instead of on children and minorities
Beautiful gorgeous creature of the day is a friendly squid
So, listen, I’m not usually the “did a squid write this” guy, but this article is about how these massive predators aren’t dangerous and also aren’t very nutritious, so I really gotta wonder about this one
