The Flying Cat

18,293 notes

lifeofkj:

rubyvroom:

bathsabbath:

oftaggrivated:

kavaeric:

je-suis-cocopuff:

micdotcom:

Your bottled water habit is sucking California dry

If you’re reading this, chances are very high that your home has at least one — and maybe more! — magic appliance that produces clean water suitable for drinking. That’s one reason to avoid paying for bottled water.

Another reason? There’s a good chance the water you’re buying at the supermarket was bottled in California, a state currently enduring a severe drought.

Turn on the tap instead Follow micdotcom

(Images via MotherJones)

EVERYONE PLEASE AT LEAST TAKE A QUICK SECOND TO LOOK AT THIS

BECAUSE IT IS EFFECTING THE EXACT AREA I LIVE IN

Lots of people believe bottled water is safer and cleaner than tap water, when in reality there’s no evidence proving such a thing.

http://kids.nationalgeographic.com/kids/stories/spacescience/water-bottle-pollution/

http://edition.cnn.com/2013/11/19/health/upwave-bottled-water/

http://abcnews.go.com/Business/study-bottled-water-safer-tap-water/story?id=87558

Penn & Teller’s Bullshit!: Bottled Water segment, gives a very good and thorough summary of the bottled water culture https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MHx6BX3HZJc

You want better water? Buy a Zero filter. SRSLY. Stop buying bottled if possible. You need water with you? Get reusable acrylic or glass water bottles (wrapped in a silicon sleeve) and fill it up from your filter pitcher. SAVE MONEY, SAVE MY STATE

This is all incredibly important, some cities have as little as 60 -120 days left.  Try using a refillable water container, and if you’re a California resident, make sure to report water waste in public spaces.

Also, maybe take a second and sign the petition to stop a giant Slip n’ slide from being built in Los Angeles. Priorities.

Municipalities are selling their water to companies like Coca-Cola at rock-bottom prices. And then when towns run out of water, what happens? Dasani sells people their own water back for a huge profit. When there’s no water in the tap, residents will have no choice but to pay for bottled water at a huge mark-up.

Seems like we should be yelling at the public utilities to stop selling municipal water to bottlers in the first place.

All of these issues are real, and serious (although that article about cities on the verge of running out of water is old — it’s from January. Since I haven’t heard anything more recently about cities having no water supply, I suspect those particular crises have been averted). But the fact is that only 20% of California’s water supply goes to municipal, residential, and commercial users. 80% of the state’s water is used in agriculture, and because agricultural users are charged far less for their water than everyone else, they have no incentive to conserve. Cities, businesses, and individual users do need to conserve, too, and many of us are doing what we can, but it’s literally a drop in a bucket in comparison. California’s water woes will not be fixed until we deal with agriculture. This Slate article provides a pretty good overview of the issue, and the reasons why it’s so hard to come up with good solutions.

(via x-cetra)

14,263 notes

relict-hominid asked: re: chromophobia... of course these chromophobes idolized a Greek/Roman past full of cool white marble.... which we've since discovered was actually a gaudily painted riot of color!

akycha:

medievalpoc:

OMG!!! I FORGET PEOPLE DON’T KNOW THIS!

Yes, all those aloof, “pure” white statues from Ancient Greece?

They actually looked like this:

image

Vinzenz Brinkmann, much to the apparent chagrin of Westerners everywhere, used ultraviolet light to reveal the original paint schemes of these statues that the millennia had washed away.

And to underscore the Chromophobia?

Check out this graphic that i09 made for their leading image for this story:

image

You can check out a video here to learn more about the methods used to discover the original paint schemes of these statues and reliefs.

image

image

YAY for painted Greek statues! I love being reminded of this; those old temple friezes must have been really lovely back in the day. I often wonder if other architectural details got painted as well.

Totally off-topic, but speaking of architecture, Victorian houses in the United States were also painted in really gaudy combinations in their original incarnations. The modern trend towards chaste yellow-and-white or pale blue was not for the Victorians, who loved shades of olive and purple that are truly “garish” to modern eyes (but have their own charm).

75,137 notes

x-cetra:

remassi:

nativefemboy:

thartist72:

“In 2002, having spent more than three years in one residence for the first time in my life, I got called for jury duty. I show up on time, ready to serve. When we get to the voir dire, the lawyer says to me, “I see you’re an astrophysicist. What’s that?” I answer, “Astrophysics is the laws of physics, applied to the universe—the Big Bang, black holes, that sort of thing.” Then he asks, “What do you teach at Princeton?” and I say, “I teach a class on the evaluation of evidence and the relative unreliability of eyewitness testimony.” Five minutes later, I’m on the street. A few years later, jury duty again. The judge states that the defendant is charged with possession of 1,700 milligrams of cocaine. It was found on his body, he was arrested, and he is now on trial. This time, after the Q&A is over, the judge asks us whether there are any questions we’d like to ask the court, and I say, “Yes, Your Honor. Why did you say he was in possession of 1,700 milligrams of cocaine? That equals 1.7 grams. The ‘thousand’ cancels with the ‘milli-’ and you get 1.7 grams, which is less than the weight of a dime.” Again I’m out on the street.”

powerful Black Science Man

I feel like this shows just how much our justice system wants us to be deaf and dumb about what they’re actually doing. It saddens me.

Yes, if you display critical thinking or college-level knowledge, they don’t want you. My Mom ran into this as well, since she was a scientist. 
As far as I can tell, both prosecution and defense lawyers prefer to be able to sway the jury with rhetoric and force of personality, plus whatever evidence their hand-picked witnesses present, and nothing else.
 They don’t want a jury with enough expert knowledge and/or critical thinking skills to be able to judge whether they or their witnesses are lying, mistaken, cherrypicking facts, withholding or undermining sound science, or misrepresenting what the evidence actually proves.
E.G. If a defense lawyer wants to call DNA evidence into question, she’ll bring in an “expert” who is extremely doubtful of DNA evidence and who can cherrypick all the examples where it seems most doubtful. Never mind if the cases being cited had irregularities not present in the current case. Never mind if there are other studies showing that DNA evidence is more reliable than many other forms of evidence. The jury will only hear from studies that cast DNA evidence into doubt.
If there were a geneticist on the jury who could give fellow jurors an informed opinion on just how much one can or can’t rely on DNA evidence, then it would undermine the defense lawyer’s hand-picked expert.

x-cetra:

remassi:

nativefemboy:

thartist72:

“In 2002, having spent more than three years in one residence for the first time in my life, I got called for jury duty. I show up on time, ready to serve. When we get to the voir dire, the lawyer says to me, “I see you’re an astrophysicist. What’s that?” I answer, “Astrophysics is the laws of physics, applied to the universe—the Big Bang, black holes, that sort of thing.” Then he asks, “What do you teach at Princeton?” and I say, “I teach a class on the evaluation of evidence and the relative unreliability of eyewitness testimony.” Five minutes later, I’m on the street.

A few years later, jury duty again. The judge states that the defendant is charged with possession of 1,700 milligrams of cocaine. It was found on his body, he was arrested, and he is now on trial. This time, after the Q&A is over, the judge asks us whether there are any questions we’d like to ask the court, and I say, “Yes, Your Honor. Why did you say he was in possession of 1,700 milligrams of cocaine? That equals 1.7 grams. The ‘thousand’ cancels with the ‘milli-’ and you get 1.7 grams, which is less than the weight of a dime.” Again I’m out on the street.”

powerful Black Science Man

I feel like this shows just how much our justice system wants us to be deaf and dumb about what they’re actually doing. It saddens me.

Yes, if you display critical thinking or college-level knowledge, they don’t want you. My Mom ran into this as well, since she was a scientist. 

As far as I can tell, both prosecution and defense lawyers prefer to be able to sway the jury with rhetoric and force of personality, plus whatever evidence their hand-picked witnesses present, and nothing else.

 They don’t want a jury with enough expert knowledge and/or critical thinking skills to be able to judge whether they or their witnesses are lying, mistaken, cherrypicking facts, withholding or undermining sound science, or misrepresenting what the evidence actually proves.

E.G. If a defense lawyer wants to call DNA evidence into question, she’ll bring in an “expert” who is extremely doubtful of DNA evidence and who can cherrypick all the examples where it seems most doubtful. Never mind if the cases being cited had irregularities not present in the current case. Never mind if there are other studies showing that DNA evidence is more reliable than many other forms of evidence. The jury will only hear from studies that cast DNA evidence into doubt.

If there were a geneticist on the jury who could give fellow jurors an informed opinion on just how much one can or can’t rely on DNA evidence, then it would undermine the defense lawyer’s hand-picked expert.

1 note

UPDATED: Can Squidoo Do This? NO, only if you let them.

If you are on Squidoo, GO BACK EVERYTHING UP NOW and then think really really hard. And do some reading.

112,657 notes

If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also
Matt 5:39

This specifically refers to a hand striking the side of a person’s face, tells quite a different story when placed in it’s proper historical context. In Jesus’s time, striking someone of a lower class ( a servant) with the back of the hand was used to assert authority and dominance. If the persecuted person “turned the other cheek,” the discipliner was faced with a dilemma. The left hand was used for unclean purposes, so a back-hand strike on the opposite cheek would not be performed. Another alternative would be a slap with the open hand as a challenge or to punch the person, but this was seen as a statement of equality. Thus, by turning the other cheek the persecuted was in effect putting an end to the behavior or if the slapping continued the person would lawfully be deemed equal and have to be released as a servant/slave.   

(via thefullnessofthefaith)

THAT makes a lot more sense, now, thank you. 

(via guardianrock)

I can attest to the original poster’s comments. A few years back I took an intensive seminar on faith-based progressive activism, and we spent an entire unit discussing how many of Jesus’ instructions and stories were performative protests designed to shed light on and ridicule the oppressions of that time period as a way to emphasize the absurdity of the social hierarchy and give people the will and motivation to make changes for a more free and equal society.

For example, the next verse (Matthew 5:40) states “And if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well.” In that time period, men traditionally wore a shirt and a coat-like garment as their daily wear. To sue someone for their shirt was to put them in their place - suing was generally only performed to take care of outstanding debts, and to be sued for one’s shirt meant that the person was so destitute the only valuable thing they could repay with was their own clothing. However, many cultures at that time (including Hebrew peoples) had prohibitions bordering on taboo against public nudity, so for a sued man to surrender both his shirt and his coat was to turn the system on its head and symbolically state, in a very public forum, that “I have no money with which to repay this person, but they are so insistent on taking advantage of my poverty that I am leaving this hearing buck-ass naked. His greed is the cause of a shameful public spectacle.”

All of a sudden an action of power (suing someone for their shirt) becomes a powerful symbol of subversion and mockery, as the suing patron either accepts the coat (and therefore full responsibility as the cause of the other man’s shameful display) or desperately chases the protester around trying to return his clothes to him, making a fool of himself in front of his peers and the entire gathered community.

Additionally, the next verse (Matthew 5:41; “If anyone forces you to go one mile, go with them two miles.”) was a big middle finger to the Romans who had taken over Judea and were not seen as legitimate authority by the majority of the population there. Roman law stated that a centurion on the march could require a Jew (and possibly other civilians as well, although I don’t remember explicitly) to carry his pack at any time and for any reason for one mile along the road (and because of the importance of the Roman highway system in maintaining rule over the expansive empire, the roads tended to be very well ordered and marked), however hecould not require any service beyond the next mile marker. For a Jewish civilian to carry a centurion’s pack for an entire second mile was a way to subvert the authority of the occupying forces. If the civilian wouldn’t give the pack back at the end of the first mile, the centurion would either have to forcibly take it back or report the civilian to his commanding officer (both of which would result in discipline being taken against the soldier for breaking Roman law) or wait until the civilian volunteered to return the pack, giving the Judean native implicit power over the occupying Roman and completely subverting the power structure of the Empire. Can you imagine how demoralizing that must have been for the highly ordered Roman armies that patrolled the region?

Jesus was a pacifist, but his teachings were in no way passive. There’s a reason he was practically considered a terrorist by the reigning powers, and it wasn’t because he healed the sick and fed the hungry.

(via central-avenue)

(via claudiaboleyn)

56,754 notes

piddlebucket:

thisiswhiteprivilege:

softboycollective:

TUESDAY 8/19: Ferguson PD presented a table full of fabricated evidence at this morning’s press conference - allegedly seized from protestors and stopped cars. The Colt 45 Molotov with a white bandana was the crowning glory, turns out you can’t even buy glass 40’s in Missouri. Stay classy, FPD

I seriously think white supremacist are coming in the area to frame the protesters, but it could just be the cops

Nah I think that’s exactly what’s going on.

(via wilwheaton)

Filed under Ferguson