employeeno5

employeeno5

blondesnotbombs:

YES. 

sostark:

Sneak peak of the Comedy Bang! Bang! TV show on IFC

via earwolf

Reblogged from earwolf March 12th, 2012 148 notes

jakefogelnest:

Dave Markey recently released the lost Black Flag documentary REALITY 86’d to the Internet. Greg Ginn is being pretty uncool about it and keeps taking it down. Everyone else (including Rollins and Dukowski) wants to see this important historical document released. But you know, Greg Ginn is being extra Greg Ginn-y about it.

Anyway, it’s online again. I’ve saved it to my harddrive. I am posting it here to share with you because Dave Markey has graciously put it out there for us. If you reblogged it and pass it around, I would be delighted to entertain any angry e-mail’s that Greg Ginn wants to send me.

(via michaeltfournier)

Reblogged from jakefogelnest March 2nd, 2012 108 notes

How the pressure cooker fell out of favor, and why it's time to bring it back. Link post

Oh man, if I can make my short ribs any faster than the typical 3-hour bare minimum, then I’m totally getting one of these. 

March 1st, 2012 1 note

ohryankelley:

The Art of Reuse is a group who open up pop-up thrift shops in different locations every six months or so, selling merchandise — many items one-of-a-kind — they’ve handpicked (or “curated,” as they say) from thrift stores around metro Toronto.

The group aims to “re-invent thrift shopping and the connotation it comes with, whether that be negative or positive,” by creating “well-branded, aesthetically pleasing” shopping environments with merchandise priced at $50 or less.

The temporary stores are “meant to cater to both the fashion conscious and the frugal customer alike.”

More: Pop-up thrift shop draws a stylish crowd - The Globe and Mail

(via: unconsumption)

Reblogged from theartofreuse.ca March 1st, 2012 150 notes

So, you’re opposed to same-sex marriages, eh?

- A couple of weeks ago, someone pissed me off particularly well on this issue, which resulted in the following rant. If I’m using tumblr again, I may as well post it here.

What’s that? You’re opposed to gay marriage? Here’s a summary of every reason I’ve heard from people as to why they’re opposed to this, and why said reasons are completely ridiculous.


"Homosexuality is unnatural and/or damaging to society, and therefore by extension so is same-sex marriage."

Every proper study ever conducted on the issue demonstrates homosexuals, and homosexual couples, to be no different than the heterosexual population in any matter of behavior other than their personal sexual preference. This covers everything from psychological issues, to parenting, to intellect, to well; everything. Homosexuality has no tie to any specific kind of trauma or environment nor does it have any tie to any specific kind of crime or disorder. There is no difference between a homosexual and heterosexual other than whom they’d like to make-out with.

Anything about homosexuality being “perverse” or damaging to society/children/etc. is either fullbore ignorance or deliberate misinformation (AKA lies). And in this day, with near limitless access to information, you are 100% responsible for your own ignorance. 

"My religious beliefs say that it’s wrong."

We aim to not legislate based on religious doctrine in this country. It’s a lovely thing called the separation of church and state. You can go visit Saudi Arabia if that’s your thing.

Aside from that though, this argument really exposes you as a hypocrite and a bigot. Why is that?

Because there are a hundreds, if not thousands of pronouncements in the Bible (or your religious book of choice if you want me to play that game) that you do not expect there to be laws promoting or banning. Yet you’ve chosen to insist on this issue, while not others. Why is that? Why not insist we ban the sale of shellfish? Or make stoning the punishment for adultery? Or any number of batshit-crazy, contradictory, arbitrary things that your religious texts insist upon as truth? 

You are not insisting that homosexuality is wrong because it’s in the Bible/part of your religion. You’re using your faith as a flimsy shield that is very easy to see through. If faith were genuinely why you’re so opposed, there would be whole lot else you’d need to be insisting on being wrong, but aren’t. For another example, the Bible clearly states touching the skin of a dead pig to be an abomination (Lev. 11:7) but you’re not trying to ban football, are you? Or less humorously, you’re not trying to remove all human rights for women, or perhaps reinstate slavery, on the basis of an Old Testament passage. If I’m “taking things out of context” please inform me of the context other than that you don’t like those passages but do like the one that you think gives you a free pass to hate on gay people.

You’ve cherry-picked this issue (among others) because you don’t like gay people, for plain ol’, run of the mill, hateful, personal, bigoted reasons. And even if you weren’t a cherry-picking hypocrite (which you demonstrably are), the fact that your religion has bigoted beliefs that you’ve chosen to share with it, doesn’t make you any less of a bigot nor, again, mean that we should legislate based upon that. 

Now, a clever person might point out, “Aren’t Christian supporters of same-sex marriage also cherry-picking by ignoring where the Bible does speak against homosexuality?” By my above logic, absolutely, yes, which is why I don’t think “my religion says so” is a good argument for any issue, practical or ethical. HOWEVER, it says heaps about one’s personal character when they’ve chosen to cherry-pick the self-righteous, hateful passages for themselves, over ones about love, acceptance, and humility. 

"It’s not a religious issue for me, and I understand homosexuals are normal, good people (I have gay friends!), but I’m just uncomfortable with changing the parameters or definition of marriage!"

Ok, so you understand that homosexual couples are as loving and normal as any other, but you just don’t think they should get married. That things are fine as they are. Or maybe they should have something similar, or even identical to marriage, but we should give it another name, yeah? 

Let’s think about this for a second. If you acknowledge these things, than what’s the difference between a heterosexual coupling and a homosexual one? Pretty much all you’re left with is the kind of sex people are having. That’s it. As in the actual act of intercourse and how you’re doing it. Your argument boils the important, defining aspect of marriage, down to having vanilla, penis-in-the-vagina, sexual intercourse. That is more degrading to the institution of marriage than anything else I’ve ever heard. Are you going to tell me you got married just so you could have legal sanction to fuck your spouse? Should people with conditions that leave them sexually dysfunctional be banned from marrying? The thing you would miss the most if your spouse died is the sex? 

This idea is completely dishonest and completely inaccurate to the realities of marriage. Anyone with the “I’m just not comfortable with it,” argument is either hiding another reason, or clearly hasn’t thought about the issue beyond the tip of their own nose. 

Also, while you have a lot of rights in this country, the right to not be offended, or to not be uncomfortable, isn’t one of them. 

"We live in a democracy and the majority doesn’t support it."

First off, this is just plain inaccurate at this point. As of last year, polling consistently shows that opponents of marriage equality are now the minority in this country. 

Further more, majority support shouldn’t be required as a deciding factor in whether or not something is ok to be legal. 

When you rule by referendum of opinion alone, without any representation or checks on what is ok to potentially be law, then you have something called mob-rule, not American Democracy. If the basic rights of minorities are not protected and supported, then there’s nothing stopping a majority from legislating unspeakable evils towards whatever minority they please. 

This same principal of protecting minority rights from abusive legislation is the only reason that we don’t still have Jim Crow laws and segregation, that inter-racial marriage is possible, among a whole host of other staples of a free and open society. 

And again, disagreeing with something doesn’t necessarily mean it should be illegal, or that you should even support it being illegal if you really believe in a free society. The phrase comes to mind, “I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”

"It’s a slippery-slope!"

To what? Polyamorous marriages? Not necessarily, and so what if it were? Let’s first be clear that marriage equality is currently an issue of deciding if two consenting adult citizens can be married, regardless of gender. That is the matter being addressed. 

If people think that potentially opens up arguments for polygamous marriages down the road, they might be right; I’m not a lawyer or fortune teller. But that is a different argument to be made on its own merits at a different time.

As far as I’m concerned any number of consenting adults can do whatever they like so long as they’re not harming others. Polygamy has traditionally been illegal due to religious bias, and remains so largely for that reason, along with the fact that it has often been used to force women into abusive, non-consenting situations. If there is a real movement in this country though, for polyamorous families to have truly consenting polygamist marriages, then we can address that when the time comes, and quite frankly I’d support it.

But again, that is a completely different issue than what we’re currently addressing. Asking for marriage to be gender neutral and asking for it to encompass a larger number of partners are two completely different issues.

As far as concern about people marrying their dogs and such nonsense? Again, marriage equality is an issue of equal rights between consenting adult citizens. Dogs, other animals or inanimate objects are not adult, consenting, or citizens. Comparing same-sex marriage to the idea that anyone will be able to marry anything is a specious argument.

"I don’t think government should have anything to do with marriage."

Bravo! That’s not a bad view at all. Let’s get rid of marriages of any sort being sanctioned by the government. We can allow it to be a private social and/or religious matter, decided upon by one’s personal desires and beliefs. That’s a very sensible and liberty-oriented view in my opinion. However, for better or worse, the government is currently involved with marriage, and there is no strong movement in this country to abolish that. So if the government is and intends to remain involved in an institution, liberty dictates said institution must be equal in its allowances and responsibilities. 

"I don’t like gay people, because they’re gay."

Congratulations! You’re a bigot! But at least you’re not a self-deluded one with a make-believe pretense that there’s something more intellectually valid at the root of your opposition. The good news is that you’re free to hate others for who they are as much you like in this country. And we’re also free to call you out for what your beliefs amount to, and point and laugh at the frightened relic you are.

Well, That’s about it. Those, or some combination of those, are every argument I’ve ever heard on this subject. If you’ve got a new one, I’d love to hear it.

March 1st, 2012 0 notes