annikath:

Can you roll your tongue like this? image
If you CAN, then please REBLOG.
This is for serious science! because I have an assignment in my biology class to do a survey on how many people can or cannot roll their tongues.
If you CANNOT roll your tongue like that, then please FAVOURITE this post!
you can de-favourite the post or delete it from your blog in about two weeks if you desire to do so, but I plead you to take part in this survey of serious sience! thank

(Source: norseidiots)

punkrockandspider-man:

katewillaert:

Marvel Heroes Height Comparison Chart - Illustrated for HalloweenCostumes.com.
I always thought Storm was taller, but I guess it’s because she always wears heels? Though that doesn’t explain why the Thing often appears taller.

I thought it was interesting that the movie version of Rocket was much much shorter than the comics (he’s roughly the size of an actual raccoon), in comparison to Wolverine, who is much taller in the movies (Hugh Jackman is 6’2”).

Wow, it’s really weird to me that The Thing is so short.
punkrockandspider-man:

katewillaert:

Marvel Heroes Height Comparison Chart - Illustrated for HalloweenCostumes.com.
I always thought Storm was taller, but I guess it’s because she always wears heels? Though that doesn’t explain why the Thing often appears taller.

I thought it was interesting that the movie version of Rocket was much much shorter than the comics (he’s roughly the size of an actual raccoon), in comparison to Wolverine, who is much taller in the movies (Hugh Jackman is 6’2”).

Wow, it’s really weird to me that The Thing is so short.
punkrockandspider-man:

katewillaert:

Marvel Heroes Height Comparison Chart - Illustrated for HalloweenCostumes.com.
I always thought Storm was taller, but I guess it’s because she always wears heels? Though that doesn’t explain why the Thing often appears taller.

I thought it was interesting that the movie version of Rocket was much much shorter than the comics (he’s roughly the size of an actual raccoon), in comparison to Wolverine, who is much taller in the movies (Hugh Jackman is 6’2”).

Wow, it’s really weird to me that The Thing is so short.
punkrockandspider-man:

katewillaert:

Marvel Heroes Height Comparison Chart - Illustrated for HalloweenCostumes.com.
I always thought Storm was taller, but I guess it’s because she always wears heels? Though that doesn’t explain why the Thing often appears taller.

I thought it was interesting that the movie version of Rocket was much much shorter than the comics (he’s roughly the size of an actual raccoon), in comparison to Wolverine, who is much taller in the movies (Hugh Jackman is 6’2”).

Wow, it’s really weird to me that The Thing is so short.

punkrockandspider-man:

katewillaert:

Marvel Heroes Height Comparison Chart - Illustrated for HalloweenCostumes.com.

I always thought Storm was taller, but I guess it’s because she always wears heels? Though that doesn’t explain why the Thing often appears taller.
I thought it was interesting that the movie version of Rocket was much much shorter than the comics (he’s roughly the size of an actual raccoon), in comparison to Wolverine, who is much taller in the movies (Hugh Jackman is 6’2”).

Wow, it’s really weird to me that The Thing is so short.

"When it was bad, you knew it could have been worse. When it got worse, you knew it could have been terrible. When it got terrible, you knew there was hope left, just a thread of it, but something to hold on to. You knew those things because he was there. If you watched the last two minutes in a heart-imploding frenzy, urging the U.S. to get forward and score the tying goal, the life you felt was the gift he gave you, because without him the match would have been over long before.

I don’t care that the U.S. lost. He goes into the lore. When the aged DeAndre Yedlin is hoisting the World Cup in 2026, Tim Howard is the background, in the same way that Brian McBride’s bloody face is the background and Landon Donovan’s goal against Algeria is the background. He matters to American soccer forever because of this match. We lost, but he still saved us."
— The great thing about Grantland’s sendoff for Tim Howard and the USMNT is how it manages to be both over the top and right on point at the same time. (via thepoliticalnotebook)

(Source: marvelmovies)


the kind you s a   v  e
the kind you s a   v  e

(Source: leidoscope)

(Source: sabacc)

"

I asked seven anthropologists, archaeologists, and historians if they would rather have been a typical Indian or a typical European in 1491. None was delighted by the question, because it required judging the past by the standards of today—a fallacy disparaged as “presentism” by social scientists. But every one chose to be an Indian. Some early colonists gave the same answer. Horrifying the leaders of Jamestown and Plymouth, scores of English ran off to live with the Indians. My ancestor shared their desire, which is what led to the trumped-up murder charges against him—or that’s what my grandfather told me, anyway.

As for the Indians, evidence suggests that they often viewed Europeans with disdain. The Hurons, a chagrined missionary reported, thought the French possessed “little intelligence in comparison to themselves.” Europeans, Indians said, were physically weak, sexually untrustworthy, atrociously ugly, and just plain dirty. (Spaniards, who seldom if ever bathed, were amazed by the Aztec desire for personal cleanliness.) A Jesuit reported that the “Savages” were disgusted by handkerchiefs: “They say, we place what is unclean in a fine white piece of linen, and put it away in our pockets as something very precious, while they throw it upon the ground.” The Micmac scoffed at the notion of French superiority. If Christian civilization was so wonderful, why were its inhabitants leaving?

Like people everywhere, Indians survived by cleverly exploiting their environment. Europeans tended to manage land by breaking it into fragments for farmers and herders. Indians often worked on such a grand scale that the scope of their ambition can be hard to grasp. They created small plots, as Europeans did (about 1.5 million acres of terraces still exist in the Peruvian Andes), but they also reshaped entire landscapes to suit their purposes. A principal tool was fire, used to keep down underbrush and create the open, grassy conditions favorable for game. Rather than domesticating animals for meat, Indians retooled whole ecosystems to grow bumper crops of elk, deer, and bison. The first white settlers in Ohio found forests as open as English parks—they could drive carriages through the woods. Along the Hudson River the annual fall burning lit up the banks for miles on end; so flashy was the show that the Dutch in New Amsterdam boated upriver to goggle at the blaze like children at fireworks. In North America, Indian torches had their biggest impact on the Midwestern prairie, much or most of which was created and maintained by fire. Millennia of exuberant burning shaped the plains into vast buffalo farms. When Indian societies disintegrated, forest invaded savannah in Wisconsin, Illinois, Kansas, Nebraska, and the Texas Hill Country. Is it possible that the Indians changed the Americas more than the invading Europeans did? “The answer is probably yes for most regions for the next 250 years or so” after Columbus, William Denevan wrote, “and for some regions right up to the present time.”

"

Quoted from the essay "1941" written by Charles C. Mann, about the major impact that Native Americans had on the Americas (ecologically and culturally) before white people invaded, bringing their diseases and shoving Christianity down the Indians’ throats and murdering them and banning their cultures.

Check out the whole piece (which is rather long). (P.S thanks to @cazalis for sending me this great link)

another excerpt:

Human history, in Crosby’s interpretation, is marked by two world-altering centers of invention: the Middle East and central Mexico, where Indian groups independently created nearly all of the Neolithic innovations, writing included. The Neolithic Revolution began in the Middle East about 10,000 years ago. In the next few millennia humankind invented the wheel, the metal tool, and agriculture. The Sumerians eventually put these inventions together, added writing, and became the world’s first civilization. Afterward Sumeria’s heirs in Europe and Asia frantically copied one another’s happiest discoveries; innovations ricocheted from one corner of Eurasia to another, stimulating technological progress. Native Americans, who had crossed to Alaska before Sumeria, missed out on the bounty. “They had to do everything on their own,” Crosby says. Remarkably, they succeeded.

When Columbus appeared in the Caribbean, the descendants of the world’s two Neolithic civilizations collided, with overwhelming consequences for both. American Neolithic development occurred later than that of the Middle East, possibly because the Indians needed more time to build up the requisite population density. Without beasts of burden they could not capitalize on the wheel (for individual workers on uneven terrain skids are nearly as effective as carts for hauling), and they never developed steel. But in agriculture they handily outstripped the children of Sumeria. Every tomato in Italy, every potato in Ireland, and every hot pepper in Thailand came from this hemisphere. Worldwide, more than half the crops grown today were initially developed in the Americas.

Maize, as corn is called in the rest of the world, was a triumph with global implications. Indians developed an extraordinary number of maize varieties for different growing conditions, which meant that the crop could and did spread throughout the planet. Central and Southern Europeans became particularly dependent on it; maize was the staple of Serbia, Romania, and Moldavia by the nineteenth century. Indian crops dramatically reduced hunger, Crosby says, which led to an Old World population boom.

Along with peanuts and manioc, maize came to Africa and transformed agriculture there, too. “The probability is that the population of Africa was greatly increased because of maize and other American Indian crops,” Crosby says. “Those extra people helped make the slave trade possible.” Maize conquered Africa at the time when introduced diseases were leveling Indian societies. The Spanish, the Portuguese, and the British were alarmed by the death rate among Indians, because they wanted to exploit them as workers. Faced with a labor shortage, the Europeans turned their eyes to Africa. The continent’s quarrelsome societies helped slave traders to siphon off millions of people. The maize-fed population boom, Crosby believes, let the awful trade continue without pumping the well dry.

Back home in the Americas, Indian agriculture long sustained some of the world’s largest cities. The Aztec capital of Tenochtitlán dazzled Hernán Cortés in 1519; it was bigger than Paris, Europe’s greatest metropolis. The Spaniards gawped like hayseeds at the wide streets, ornately carved buildings, and markets bright with goods from hundreds of miles away. They had never before seen a city with botanical gardens, for the excellent reason that none existed in Europe. The same novelty attended the force of a thousand men that kept the crowded streets immaculate. (Streets that weren’t ankle-deep in sewage! The conquistadors had never heard of such a thing.) Central America was not the only locus of prosperity. Thousands of miles north, John Smith, of Pocahontas fame, visited Massachusetts in 1614, before it was emptied by disease, and declared that the land was “so planted with Gardens and Corne fields, and so well inhabited with a goodly, strong and well proportioned people … [that] I would rather live here than any where.”

and another excerpt:

In as yet unpublished research the archaeologists Eduardo Neves, of the University of São Paulo; Michael Heckenberger, of the University of Florida; and their colleagues examined terra preta in the upper Xingu, a huge southern tributary of the Amazon. Not all Xingu cultures left behind this living earth, they discovered. But the ones that did generated it rapidly—suggesting to Woods that terra preta was created deliberately. In a process reminiscent of dropping microorganism-rich starter into plain dough to create sourdough bread, Amazonian peoples, he believes, inoculated bad soil with a transforming bacterial charge. Not every group of Indians there did this, but quite a few did, and over an extended period of time.

When Woods told me this, I was so amazed that I almost dropped the phone. I ceased to be articulate for a moment and said things like “wow” and “gosh.” Woods chuckled at my reaction, probably because he understood what was passing through my mind. Faced with an ecological problem, I was thinking, the Indians fixed it. They were in the process of terraforming the Amazon when Columbus showed up and ruined everything.

(via badass-bharat-deafmuslim-artista)

desiderii Asked
QuestionOh, oh, that is definitely not nearly enough Prohibition history. I've never before run across those analysis/critiques you mentioned, which is wild because it's one of my favorite eras to read about. You wouldn't happen to know whereabouts I could find more info on the historical context bits? Answer

copperbadge:

I can give you some starting places, but the opinions expressed in that post were an amalgam of a lot of different study, not all of which I have right to hand at this point :D

For the interactions between feminism and Prohibition, the Ken Burns documentary Prohibition is probably your best bet. It is very Ken Burns — lots of still images and soulful Appalachian Guitar — but it traces what we think of as Prohibition back to its roots in 19th century feminism, where women campaigned against alcohol not because it was “a sin” or “bad” but because they wanted to defend their sisters from men who would go straight from work to the bar and straight from the bar to assaulting their wives. When we’re taught about Prohibition we’re given these images of super-conservative middle-class hatchet-faced old broads trying to dictate morality to the rest of the country, but what was actually happening was a bunch of freethinking social rebels were desperate to stop men from constantly attacking and murdering their wives.  

An examination of class and the way Prohibition interacted with it is harder to pin down because noooooooobody wants to talk about it, since it is deeply uncomfortably echoed in modern society. The modern war on drugs is a very thinly veiled War On People Of Color, just as Prohibition in the early 20th century was really Prohibition For The Working Class. (Boy did that backfire; booze lords were the noveau riche by the time Prohibition was repealed, and were of course one reason it was repealed: segments of the working class, including oh my god immigrants, were gaining too much power.)

The prohibition of marijuana in America, just to use the most talked-about example, was literally just a justification to attack a high-use population: blue-collar Mexican immigrants. (For more on this, see the excellent documentary “Grass: The History of Marijuana”.) There are statistics that go something like 14% of African-Americans are drug users, but they make up 37% of all individuals arrested for drug possession or use. Just recently, in Tennessee, they decided to drug test everyone receiving state aid, assuming they’d be able to cut a lot of aid by refusing to provide it for drug users. One person in 800 testees was positive. Oops. (Also, why the eff would we refuse aid to people who clearly need it the most, Jesus this country is so dysfunctional.)

Anyway the point is, we are living in an era of Prohibition in a social sense; our government is using the ban on drugs to attack a specific population, just like they did then. (They never stopped, really; it was communism for most of the mid-century, and when that stopped working, it became cocaine/crack in the 80s, and “terrorism” in the 21st century, where the Patriot Act is mainly used in drug busts.)

Googling terms like “war on drugs racism” or “prohibition racism” will probably get you on the path, though tread carefully, some of the sites that pop up are a bit more legit than others. 

And all of this is the reason you can do a lot of reading about Prohibition in America and never hit this stuff — the narrative of Prohibition is carefully crafted to set it apart as a kind of fantasyland that has no bearing on modern prohibition. You get this weird situation where you’re not really taught why at that specific moment in time (two generations post-emancipation, ten years after a world war) the idea of a SUPER RESTRICTIVE FEDERAL LAW was so appealing. You’re not taught who the targets of the law were. 90% of what you get is the romanticised gangster: shootouts in Chicago, rum-running in New York’s harbors, funny stories about how sacramental wine imports (sacramental wine was exempt from Prohibition) shot up 200%.

And don’t get me wrong, I enjoy reading about that; the number of gangster documentaries I’ve read is high. But Prohibition’s like a section of a Disney park, isolated and floating in its own little mythology, because if kids were actually taught about the social ramifications of it, they’d start asking some super-uncomfortable questions. 

"Water does not resist. Water flows. When you plunge your hand into it, all you feel is a caress. Water is not a solid wall, it will not stop you. But water always goes where it wants to go, and nothing in the end can stand against it. Water is patient. Dripping water wears away a stone. Remember that, my child. Remember you are half water. If you can’t go through an obstacle, go around it. Water does."
— Margaret Atwood, The Penelopiad (via mrvonnegut)

(Source: fables-of-the-reconstruction)

"A good movie will let you suspend disbelief for the duration.
 
A bad one makes you angry that they think you are that stupid."

alexandraciervo:

bl-ossomed:

play-the-game:

bl-ossomed:

oaktreegirl:

I scrolled past this at first and then I thought about it and I realized what it means

what does it mean?

It means do you need someone for the sake of not feeling alone and or sad or do you want me because you actually love me, not solely on comfort and fear but you actually want me.

Thank you ^^^^

Do you ?

(Source: hqlines)

officialkia:

pennameverity:

This is Duolingo, a language-learning website/app that deserves some serious recognition. It offers over 10 languages for English speakers, as well as courses for non-English speakers around the world, and they’re in the process of adding more. 

But wait, I don’t want to do any more schoolwork! Not to worry little one, Duolingo is actually more like a game. You can compete with friends, and earn “lingots” (which are basically Duolingo money) to buy power-ups, extra activities, and bonus skills - like Flirting.

image

I’m already taking a language, what do I need this for? 

It’s not really a secret that most school language courses (in America, anyway) suck and only teach you to speak the language at about a third grader’s level. Which is why Duolingo is so freaking awesome.

Teachers can’t give every student individualized attention, but Duolingo can. If you’re not learning the way you want to or as much as you want to in the classroom, Duolingo is a really great resource. It’s easy, tailored to you, and really effective.

image

Duolingo tracks your progress and reminds you when you haven’t studied for a while or need a refresher on something. Already semi-fluent in a language? No problem, just take a shortcut to more advanced subjects or test out of the lesson. 

The lessons start with the basics (he, she, hello, thank you, etc) and move up to harder stuff. Duolingo focuses on vocabulary first, so you can learn the language and then the grammar that goes with it - much simpler than the system most schools use. It also tracks the number of words you’ve learned and how well you know them.

image

And you don’t even have to write out the flashcards!

Duolingo is perfect for reviewing everything you forgot over the summer or giving you the extra help you need. And if you’re trying to learn a language on your own, it’s fantastic - you don’t have to create your own lessons. Whether you’re trying to learn your second, third, or fifth language, I seriously recommend Duolingo.

Okay, what else?

Duolingo also has discussion boards, where you can ask for help with a hard lesson, make new friends, watch for updates, and share your achievements.

Even better is the Immersion feature. It won’t send you to Spain or France, but it’s pretty awesome. Duolingo takes real articles from the internet, which users translate. You can translate articles from your native language into the language you’re learning or vice versa, which gives you more experience and makes the Internet more universal.

You can suggest new languages and track Duolingo’s progress in creating new courses. Bilinguals (older than 13) can help to create these courses. Duolingo has a long list of courses that can be contributed to, like Punjabi, Hebrew, and Vietnamese. Oh, and Dothraki, Klingon, Sindarin, and Esperanto.

And the best part? IT’S COMPLETELY FREE. 

If you love languages or just want to pass French class this year, USE DUOLINGO. Download the app and practice a language while you wait for the bus instead of playing Angry Birds!

Coolest app I’ve ever downloaded.