One week into Trump’s America, and all the staff-curated images on tumblr radar are telling me to support #NoDAPL, check my privilege, and listen to marginalized folks
meanwhile the ads have started highlighting southern college blondes in tube tops
You have to take screenshots.
I’m stuck with fancy watches.
these are more crop tops, but still, ask and ye shall recieve
When Uma Thurman (talented professional actress behind Kill Bill’s “The Bride”) delivered an aggressive red carpet “no comment” about Harvey Weinstein and all these outlets praised her for her righteous authentic barely-contained fierceness
I couldn’t help but recall when Gawker was covering the Hulk Hogan trial that took them down, and he tearfully testified to the pain they’d caused him by mockingly showing the world a private recording of him having sex, they dismissively (, accurately) pointed out he makes a living by pretending to be hurt by things that do not actually hurt
“I’ve never thought about songwriting as a weapon,” Taylor Swift said with a straight face to an interviewer from Vanity Fair while the magazine was profiling her in 2013.
No, not Taylor Swift. Not the author of songs like “Forever and Always,”
written in the wake of her relationship with former boyfriend Joe
Jonas, the better-looking Jonas brother, and featuring this lyric: “Did I
say something way too honest, made you run and hide like a scared
little boy?” Not her, who wrote/sang about her relationship with the
actor Jake Gyllenhaal, “Fighting with him was like trying to solve a crossword/and realizing there’s no right answer.”
Not
Taylor, who leaves the impossible-to-crack clues in her liner notes for
each song by capitalizing a variety of letters that spell out the
subjects in a very essential way: “TAY” for a song about ex-boyfriend
Taylor Lautner; “SAG” for the Gyllenhaal one (as in Swift And
Gyllenhaal, or that they’re both Sagittarius. I don’t know).
For
Taylor Swift to pretend that her entire music career is not a tool of
passive aggression toward those who had wronged her is like me
pretending I’m not carbon-based: too easy to disprove, laughable at its
very suggestion.
Don’t get me wrong—I say all this with utter
admiration. Taylor’s career is, in fact, the perfected realization of
every writer’s narrowest dream: To get back at those who had wronged us,
sharply and loudly, and then to be able to cry innocent that our
intentions were anything other than poetic and pure. Most of us can only
achieve this with small asides. Taylor not only publicly dates and
publicly breaks up, but she then releases an achingly specific song
about the relationship—and that song has an unforgettable hook—all the
while swearing she won’t talk about relationships that are over. Yes,
date Taylor Swift, and not only will she shit on you on her album, but
the song will become a single, then a hit, and then you will hear
yourself shat upon by an army of young women at Staples Center. And then
she’ll deny that she was ever doing anything other than righteously
manifesting her art. It’s diabolical, and for a lifelong
passive-aggressive like me, it’s made her my hero.
Yo people talk about the Twenty-Fifth Amendment more and more these days but the real sleeping time bomb in the U.S. Constitution is Amendment 14 Section 3
like, it allows a bare congressional majority (or perhaps just the absence of a bicameral vetoproof majority against, that doesn’t trigger Section 5) to purge the entire federal government
I don’t think it does, at all. A bare vote is allowed to let an oathbreaker in, but to keep people out it’s just “The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.”
Which does not imply they could kick out everyone by declaring them oathbreakers spuriously.
I don’t get it at all. Here’s the text of Amendment XIV Section 3 as given on Wikipedia:
Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may, by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
It seems to require a two-thirds vote to do anything under this section. Maybe the claim is it only takes a bare majority to declare the rest of the government to be providing aid and comfort to the enemy? But I don’t see that here.
“You have these far-right elements among the hippies and the new-agers.
Then sometimes they fuse together and we suddenly have this Nazi weed
situation.“
theres something… indescribable about seeing a multinational corporation be referred to as “OP” in a callout post about the tendrils it spreads across the planet
