ladyren:

vampireapologist:

finnglas:

missvisibleninja:

ophidiae:

the-hermit-in-her-cave:

destinyrush:

I just wanna talk to whoever thought this was a good idea

This is probably even more shady than it seems. They raise the rates and then less people go. Low attendance numbers leads to that park getting less attention and less money. This discourages new parks and devalues current parks. Then the government can be like “lol people don’t care about nature let’s drill” Parks and libraries should be free places for people to enrich themselves, but smart sheep aren’t worth anything 🐑

^^^This. It’s why they’re also slashing park funding. According to the linked article, the current budget proposal includes:

  • Cutting base operating funding by $132 million, affecting at least
    90 percent of parks. This includes cuts to law enforcement, health and
    safety, natural and cultural resource projects, and volunteer and youth
    programs.
  • Cutting 1,242 staff positions.
  • A 37 percent cut to the Historic Preservation Fund.
  • A drastic cut to federal Land and Water Conservation Fund, which
    helps parks purchase private lands within park boundaries from willing
    sellers that would otherwise be vulnerable to inappropriate commercial
    or residential development.
  • Elimination of the National Heritage Area program, which preserves
    large historic landscapes managed through innovative partnerships.

Combined with the drastic rate hike, it’s hard to see this as anything other than a ploy to force park closures. 

This proposal is currently open for public comments and will be open until November 23.

Click here to write a comment

Comments can be written by anyone. You don’t have to live in America.

Please write a comment saying how much you love the parks or a certain park or why you think this is a bad idea. If you don’t live in America write something about how you travel here to see the parks or how you wish that your country had a park service like America (the American government loves having its ego stroked)

Public comments are the only thing the park service is going to see. They aren’t going to see how many notes this post gets, they’re going to look at that comments page to see how many people they would tick off it they did this. So please, reblog this post but go comment, it’s the only way to let the parks service know how you feel.

PLEASE do this ^^^

PLEASE go comment!!!

Reblog and comment at the site to help save our national parks.

🚨🚨🚨

pilferingapples:

fullhalalalchemist:

fullhalalalchemist:

today is Nov. 15. the FCC, under chairman Ajit Pai, will not listen to the public despite millions of comments in support of net neutrality. They are going to try their hardest to kill net neutrality, which in turn will kill the internet, which in turn will help eradicate democracy. it won’t just affect Americans, it has the potential to affect the entire internet, something we ALL use daily. you can bet your ass other countries will see america doing this, and use it as an excuse to do it in their own countries.

this is what buying a plan without net neutrality looks like there:

you have to pay MORE for features you’re already guaranteed to have under net neutrality. and in america, you already know how expensive everything is.

democrats AND republicans both want net neutrality. advocacy groups in touch with congress have said that if your members of congress receive calls from you, they are more encouraged and more likely to take action to stop Pai’s plan to gut net neutrality. after Nov. 22, it will be MUCH HARDER to convince your member of congress.

please, call them. call them daily.

https://www.battleforthenet.com/

hey guys, please reblog this version and don’t forget to call!!! if you are nervous about calling, you can use resistbot to send faxes to your reps and the stance app to pre-record your message so you won’t have to speak to anyone. (available in both google play and app store)

Adding Faxzero and 5Calls for more ways to fax and call your reps if the above don’t work for you! Please do contact your reps!

I feel very strongly that if historical romance can give women a happy ending, it can give queer people a happy ending. M/f historical romance doesn’t tie itself in knots over the likelihood of the rake having syphilis, the terrible dentistry, the lice, the prolapsed uterus after multiple pregnancies, the prospect of death in childbed, or the horrifying legal discrimination against married women. We don’t close the book on the wedding scene reflecting that the heroine can now be legally raped, has just lost all her property to her husband…and would be vanishingly unlikely to obtain a divorce. Historical romance readers aren’t stupid; we know this stuff, but we choose to believe our heroine will be one of the lucky ones. And I don’t see why we can’t extend that happy glow to other stories, too. If women’s lives don’t have to be blighted by social oppression in romance, neither do those of people of color or queer people.
Moreover, human nature doesn’t change. A lot of what we read about LGBT people in history is appalling because the rec­ords we have are the legal documents, the newspaper reports, the accounts of people who were victimized. We don’t generally have the hidden stories of the people who lived under the radar…. But we know…people we’d now call gay, bi, trans have always existed and [that] as a matter of statistics plenty of them must have lived and died without ever coming to the law’s attention. Which is not to hand-wave the horrors of the past but only to say that horror isn’t the only story, and it’s not an acceptable reason to deny marginalized people their happy-ever-after.

@swordfern and I just had a revelation while watching s2 of The Man From UNCLE: Julian Bashir, massive spy fiction nerd, would definitely have watched tmfu, and would definitely have wanted to be Napoleon Solo when he grows up, but is, in fact, the innocent of the week, while Garak is some mix of Napoleon and Illya and just…

imagine them watching it together and Garak going from ‘what fresh federation hell is this’ to ‘oh god now I understand where he gets it’ (and then teasing Bashir forever)… we are both fucking losing it over this

Well, here’s the thing that I try to explain to people. As a life-long Star Trek fan, when Star Trek: The Motion Picture came out, one of the revelatory things for me – as a twelve-year-old who watched the show for almost a decade, who’d poured all over the blueprints, read all the novels; I lived and breathed in my imagination the Star Trek universe – when Star Trek: The Motion Picture came out and I saw the design of the new Enterprise, which you could tell was bad-ass, it was souped up, but it all made sense. When you looked at it, you were all like, “Oh, okay, that’s an extrapolation of the design, it looks cooler. Faster. More powerful. And very, very sexy…”

But when you saw the interior – this is what blew my mind the most – when you saw the interior of the refit Enterprise, with the blue-and-red impulse dome, and the impulse engines you knew so well, and how they related to the rest of the Engineering section, how the intermix chamber came down from that impulse dome, went into the Engineering deck that was below the impulse engines, and how you saw that same intermix chamber snake back through the length of the secondary hull to where it went into the different warp nacelle struts… when you saw that, you realized that the entire internal makeup, the internal design of the Enterprise had been incredibly well thought out. You looked and that and just thought, “Oh my god!”  One could never understand the relationship between the warp drive and the impulse engines in The Original Series, because the Engineering set in The Original Series was located behind the impulse engines. So…how did that work with the warp drive? It never made sense to me; you never really got it. But with Star Trek: The Motion Picture, you finally saw how everything related, and the Star Trek universe was extrapolated upon in such a gorgeous way across the board – from Starfleet Headquarters to the Epsilon IX station to the Klingon battle cruisers; That first glimpse inside of the [Klingon] bridge, with the moving tactical displays, I nearly lost my mind. We’d never seen that before, other than the brief glimpse behind Subcommander Tal in “The Enterprise Incident.”  But we finally saw this with The Motion Picture. For me, as a Star Trek fan, the imagination and the thought that was on display in that movie – of the Star Trek universe itself – was wondrous.

One of the things about the Abrams Star Trek that irked me to no end is how they just haphazardly put into that movie whatever they particularly wanted. Like, J.J. Abrams wanted the image of a young James Kirk driving up on the ground, seeing the Starfleet shipyards as the Enterprise was being built, and then seeing his future. He wanted that image, and you know what? As a director myself, I get that. I think that’s great, J.J. – however, the actual design of the Starship Enterprise, from its very inception back into the Sixties, came from the very real scientific idea a ship the size of the Enterprise COULD ONLY BE BUILT IN ORBIT, because of its sheer size. That’s a very scientific, real world concept based on the laws of physics. Components would be built on Earth, then assembled in orbit. You would not build a starship that looked like the Enterprise, with that configuration, with small struts holding up massive warp nacelles, if you had to build it on the ground and figure out a way to put it in orbit. You wouldn’t do it! The energy expenditure it would take to lift up something like a starship from the surface of the Earth and put it in orbit, into space, you couldn’t do it. It wouldn’t make sense, even if you had the technology to do it, because the ship would not be configured that way – so when they put the Enterprise on the Earth simply for that “classic” image, to me, what it said was the filmmakers were throwing out 45 years of all of the imaginative Star Trek design work for one single image. In the theater, I felt I was seeing someone say to me personally, “Fuck all that. I want an image of this starship on Earth so somebody can ride up on a motorcycle and see it and look at his future.”

I’m sorry, but the Starship Enterprise was simply not built on a planet. It just wasn’t. One of the constraints of the Star Trek universe is the Enterprise was built in space. That’s the design of that ship. It just was! Now, you can sit there and go, “Well, I didn’t want it to be that way.”  But that’s always been the design of that ship; it’s as much as Spock having pointed ears. By putting it on the planet Earth… I was just like, okay, the thought behind the design work – it was just people saying, “Well, the practicality of all this, we’re going to throw it out the window.”  My thinking would be…the screenwriters and Mr. Abrams should’ve figured out a really interesting 23rd CENTURY way to show that same image of Kirk seeing the ship for the first time. Riding up on a motorcycle and looking off into the future is just not very interesting.

To me, that same thinking permeated the rest of the film. They used narrative shortcuts and previously established cinematic imagery to convey information. So, why, exactly, is James Kirk a troubled young man in the J.J. Abrams movie? We never see a scene with the young James Kirk having something that happens to him directly that turns him into a troubled young man – sure, we’re given this shorthand scene where he steals a car, drives off a cliff, and that, inexplicably to me, the audience goes “Oh, he’s a rebel.” Well, is he? We don’t know; why is he a rebel? His father’s not around because he sacrificed his life so Kirk could live. That shouldn’t make you troubled. Then you have an obligatory scene inside a bar where the townies get into a fight with the Starfleet Academy boys. That is a generic scene from a hundred other movies. “But let’s put it in a Star Trek movie where it will be in the 23rd century!” There was nothing in that scene that was clever or had a 23rd Century twist; it was a bar fight scene that we’ve seen in movies back to the dawn of cinema. It is not a great Star Trek scene; it is not an interesting variation on the bar fight scene; it turns Starfleet Academy members, or young cadets, into ogres and oafs… “You’re talkin’ to my girl? Well, let’s get into a fight!” I mean, we’ve seen that scene in a hundred other movies; it is the most uncreative, shorthand bullshit storytelling method ever.

Throughout that entire movie… I will say this, to give them credit; I did enjoy the young Spock stuff on Vulcan, I thought that was great. The rest of the storytelling, to me, was – while the filmmaking was fine, there was some brilliant filmmaking on display; the acting was great, I love the characters and I thought the casting was impeccable – but to me, the storytelling was just generic and subpar. It did not create a believable ‘reality’ to me. The universe of J.J. Abrams’ Star Trek movie is not ‘real’ the way the original Star Trek and The Next Generation and Deep Space Nine and Voyager – and even Enterprise – were ‘real’. You cannot give a third-year cadet on academic probation the captaincy of a starship. In what universe would you ever do that? He’s had one mission – admittedly, he saved the Earth; of course, Vulcan was destroyed – I mean, what does he know about first contact missions? What does he know about interacting with an entire starship crew – I mean, the original Star Trek, when you met Captain Kirk, you got through various episode back stories he’d served for years and years before he became captain.

I understand what they were doing, and the movie made a lot of money, but to me, it did not create a believable universe – the way Star Wars created a believable universe, the way Alien created a believable universe – that new Star Trek movie was generic pablum that appealed to the masses. But, to be fair, that was exactly what it was designed to do. The greatest thing about it – I will say this – it made a lot of money, it brought the franchise back from the dead, and now new Star Trek is viable and lucrative; people are going back and rediscovering the original show, which is really the most important thing. I just wish it were a lot more intelligent.

Robert Meyer Burnett speaks about J. J. Abrams’ Star Trek (x)

do you need some ice for that burn

(via jacquez45)

reblogging for @medieisme

(via purplesneakerprincess)

HOLY FUCKBALLS that was AWESOME. Seriously, I don’t even smoke and I need a cigarette after reading that. *happy sigh*

(via greenbergsays)

any time I see house-made pico de gallo being sold in grocery stores I think of the time at my old job when I made an entire batch (about ten gallons) with parsley instead of cilantro because the case was mislabeled and I totally failed to notice how it smelled different than usual until my coworker tasted some and was like ‘mica what the FUCK’

we added actual cilantro and extra lime juice to cover the flavor and just sold it anyway