Link

explosives-b:

wecwecwec:

daemonophile:

explosives-b:

Because we spend so much time in these communities, it’s very easy to forget just how rare trans people actually are in this world. Trans people make up 0.03% of the population. Intersex conditions run between 0.1% and…

Probably a lot, to that last comment.  But that doesn’t make them gay or trans*.

Photo
this-is-cthulhu-privilege:

thencake:

ilovecharts:

A quick look at British and American spelling

yes except three things; so far as i know, in british english (which i speak), draught and draft are both used as they mean different things, ass is used to mean arse almost more often than arse is, and nobody says whilst unless you’re writing an essay or something. also dreamt/dreamed, learnt/learned and grey/gray are very flexible and you’ll probably see both used.

The word “freedom” only exist in American english (Or more commonly referred to as “the correct english”)

Fun fact: American English is actually an older dialect, comparatively unchanged from the 18th century compared to British English.

this-is-cthulhu-privilege:

thencake:

ilovecharts:

A quick look at British and American spelling

yes except three things; so far as i know, in british english (which i speak), draught and draft are both used as they mean different things, ass is used to mean arse almost more often than arse is, and nobody says whilst unless you’re writing an essay or something. also dreamt/dreamed, learnt/learned and grey/gray are very flexible and you’ll probably see both used.

The word “freedom” only exist in American english (Or more commonly referred to as “the correct english”)

Fun fact: American English is actually an older dialect, comparatively unchanged from the 18th century compared to British English.

Photoset

ramjet94:

Remember how Teen Titans had a lesson about Racism without blatantly bringing Cyborg’s Race into it?

Remember how every children’s show ever did this?

(Source: attackoncat, via this-is-cthulhu-privilege)

Link

thalensis:

People like Clinton Gode are challenging state laws that deny Americans with disabilities the right to vote.

"…Arizona is one of 14 states that categorically bar people who are under guardianship or are judged to be mentally "incompetent" or "incapacitated" from voting, according to the Bazelon Center for Mental Health Law. Although all but 11 states have disability-related voting restrictions, laws that impose uniform bans on people who are under guardianship or judged to be incompetent disproportionately target adults with disabilities or mental illness, including veterans with traumatic brain injury, seniors with dementia, and people with autism.

And yet I never hear ableism being brought up in conversations about voter suppression. Funny how that works.

Well… uh, yes?  People deemed legally incompetent shouldn’t vote.  That’s why they’ve been deemed incompetent.  Of course it disproportionately targets adults with mental disabilities/illnesses, that’s what gets you declared incompetent.  There are lots of people with mental disabilities who are responsible enough to vote, but there are also people with mental disabilities who can’t understand.  Is there some specific aspect of this that’s overreaching or something?

(via reagan-was-a-horrible-president)

Photo
progressive-politics:

Image via Coalition to Stop Gun Violence
Ex-Sheriff Wanted ‘Women In Front’ In Case Of Shootout With Feds

“We were actually strategizing to put all the women up at the front,” he said on Fox News, according to TheBlaze.com. “If they are going to start shooting, it’s going to be women that are going to be televised all across the world getting shot by these rogue federal officers.”
Mack was one of nearly 1,000 people, many of them armed, who showed up and supported Bundy’s battle with the BLM.
The BLM contends that the Bundys have used federally managed public lands for their cattle and have refused to pay the appropriate grazing fees for the past 20 years. The family allegedly owes more than $1 million.
The bureau also says the family has ignored repeated warnings to remove the cattle. Bundy and his wife, Carol, contend their water and livestock rights were recognized by the state of Nevada long before the federal government took over management of the land in the 1940s.

Read more

Well, that’s a change.
You’re still an asshole, though.

progressive-politics:

Image via Coalition to Stop Gun Violence

Ex-Sheriff Wanted ‘Women In Front’ In Case Of Shootout With Feds

“We were actually strategizing to put all the women up at the front,” he said on Fox News, according to TheBlaze.com. “If they are going to start shooting, it’s going to be women that are going to be televised all across the world getting shot by these rogue federal officers.”

Mack was one of nearly 1,000 people, many of them armed, who showed up and supported Bundy’s battle with the BLM.

The BLM contends that the Bundys have used federally managed public lands for their cattle and have refused to pay the appropriate grazing fees for the past 20 years. The family allegedly owes more than $1 million.

The bureau also says the family has ignored repeated warnings to remove the cattle. Bundy and his wife, Carol, contend their water and livestock rights were recognized by the state of Nevada long before the federal government took over management of the land in the 1940s.

Read more

Well, that’s a change.

You’re still an asshole, though.

(via reagan-was-a-horrible-president)

Photo
ultrafacts:

Source For more posts like this, follow Ultrafacts

Apparently it was just the model registry that got deleted.  Which makes a lot more sense, because it’d be… odd, even for a developer to have multi-terabyte drives on a home computer in 1999…

ultrafacts:

Source For more posts like this, follow Ultrafacts

Apparently it was just the model registry that got deleted.  Which makes a lot more sense, because it’d be… odd, even for a developer to have multi-terabyte drives on a home computer in 1999…

Photo
rockets:

sketched some satsuki and ryuko in modern fashion <3

Looks kinda… 1920s ish?

rockets:

sketched some satsuki and ryuko in modern fashion <3

Looks kinda… 1920s ish?

(via a-lesbillion)

Text

itscherryamber:

amurrrka:

peace-love-sex-music:

STOP SAYING A VAGINA IS LOOSE BECAUSE OF A LOT OF SEX.

VAGINAS ALWAYS SHRINK TO THEIR USUAL TIGHTNESS AFTER SEX.

PENISES DO NOT STRETCH THEM OUT OF SHAPE AT ALL

THE VAGINA IS A REALLY STRONG MUSCLE NOT A FLABBY PIECE OF SKIN

WHEN A DUDE BRAGS ABOUT HOW TIGHT A VAGINA WAS

HE’S LITERALLY BRAGGING ABOUT HOW HE COULDN’T GET HIS PARTNER AROUSED.

WOW 4 FOR YOU, BOY.

Spread the word! Maybe one or two boys might actually get it.

My understanding, which, admittedly, is mainly from reading a lot of articles, is that there’s different kinds of tightness.  If the vagina is ‘stiff’, that’s bad, indeed pretty much because the woman in question isn’t aroused.  However, it loosens elastically, it doesn’t just dilate.  The vagina is, after all, a fairly strong muscle, it’ll tend to squeeze anything inside it, especially during orgasm, and especially if the woman in question does kegels or is generally strong.

So it shouldn’t really present *resistance*, but generally will have *pressure*.

As for the first, yeah, pretty much the only way the vagina would lose elasticity in that way is if scars… which pretty much no amount of normal sex is going to achieve, given even childbirth doesn’t have that much of an effect.

(via starrypawz)

Photo
oh-snap-pro-choice:

the-evil-conservative:

oh-snap-pro-choice:

[*snip*]
The USA already uses a market system. Do you know what your global ranking is for health care? 37th. Your health care system is worse than Saudi Arabia’s. So no, using markets for a basic necessity like health care has not been ‘proven’ more effective, certainly not when you have people dying because their insurance won’t pay for their cancer treatments because it’s a ‘pre-existing condition’
Also, giving people free education, food and health care, AKA meeting their basic necessities of life is VERY good for the economy. Or would you like me to point out that in countries they do this, like Canada and Japan are economically much better off and weather economic recessions much better than the USA does or is?
The best way to promote an environment where society can improve is by focusing on the HUMAN BEINGS and making sure PEOPLE do not suffer. The USA has 57.7 million people suffering from a mood disorder. Does THAT sound like a great improvement to society?
And when your ‘economic growth’ is at the cost of human lives, the planet, human suffering, people starving to death… is that realy the society you think is great? How can you call your nation great if you’re willing to encourage the suffering of the poor? If you think CHILDREN should suffer and starve for a few million dollars? I mean if you spent less than a third of what you did on the war in Iraq the USA could have eradicated poverty so tell me, how is it you can support war funding for the ‘economy’ that costs $757.8 billion but not support feeding actual human beings for $500 million?
Please explain what is so great about the USA’s society when you’re willing to sacrifice the health and well being of literally millions of people for a few extra dollars in revenue because I’m definitely not seeing it.
-Lemon

Beginning with one of your tags, I’m not a Christian, so no I don’t need any sort of Jesus. My views aren’t motivated by religion.
Second, if markets cannot efficiently allocate health care, then markets do not work and they cannot allocate anything, and we should nationalize and collectivize our society. In reality our health care system is a dysfunctional one because of poor public policy rather than market forces. There is a lot of literature on the subject you should become familiar with.
Now you’ve made two wrong implications. One, that liberal government giveaways are better for the economy than conservative policies. That’s an easy one. The Reagan economy was the best performing post-war economy. There was a measurable improvement in the health and growth of the American economy as a direct result of Reagan’s pro-growth policies.
The second implication is that economic progress comes at a human cost, and we should prefer government dependency as a solution to problems to avoid such costs. For one, economic growth positively impacts human beings. It’s not the other way around. Human beings depend on a good economy for their future.
Second, public policy is the result of various opposing forces, taking place in the context of numerous limitations, including practical, social, political, and Constitutional. This means that the ability of public policy to actually solve problems is limited. Markets aren’t subjected to any such limitations.
More importantly, a life of government dependency for an able-bodied person is incompatible with a meaningful, virtuous, and productive life. The focus of government in this context should be the promotion of a sort of living that is compatible with those values.
Fundamentally practically trumps good intentions for a reason.

The tags weren’t serious, I was making a joke, so, that aside…
"There was a measurable improvement in the health and growth of the American economy as a direct result of Reagan’s pro-growth policies."
Funny you should say that. Reagan tripled the national debt, national debt was $900 billion when he came to office, by the time he left the national debt had tripled to $2.8 trillion.
He spent billions of dollars funding the Islamist mujahidin Freedom Fighters which are now known as the Taliban, Al Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood.
He cut taxes for the wealthiest 1% -AKA the people with more than enough money to pay taxes- and raised them for the middle and lower classes -the people least able to pay them for seven of the eight years he was in office for a total of eleven tax raises for the people least able to handle these raises.
When he came to office, unemployment was at 7.5%, when he left office it was at 11%.
Please explain how higher deficits, unemployment rates and raising taxes for the people least able to survive and manage those increases was ‘economic growth’? I threw in the fact that he’s the reason Al Qeada exists because he spent billions making Osama Bin Laden instead of, idk, feeding people in his country.
Please site a source for human beings requiring a good economy to be happy, hale and healthy? I believe humans were actually quite well off in North America before there was an economy. Afterwards, not so much, but you may wish to speak to Native American’s for more info on that.
Now finally, I haven’t said anything about ‘government dependancy’. And why do you assume all homeless people are abled? Homeless people are very likely to be suffering from mental illness or addiction, which gets in the way of getting off the street. And if they can’t afford treatment you insist on charging them for the cycle can never be broken. I’m not advocating for people to just be fed by the government, I’m advocating for helping to break the cycle of poverty all together. Which is very doable with actually surprisingly little money.
Money invested in people who can’t even afford to eat because of Reagan’s shitty policies (Sorry but he’s the one who decided trickle-down economics would work and frankly that’s a proven failure), will help. And yes, government regulation is absolutely necessary in a market setting. It’s government regulation that means seven year olds aren’t in sweat shops in working conditions so poor that their life expectancy is to 25. It’s government regulations that mandate pay must be more than just five cents an hour.
-Lemon

&lt;/BLOCKQUOTE&gt;That’s an easy one. The Reagan economy was the best performing post-war economy. There was a measurable improvement in the health and growth of the American economy as a direct result of Reagan’s pro-growth policies.&lt;/BLOCKQUOTE&gt;
No it wasn&#8217;t.  More &#8216;trickle-down&#8217; economies, such as that under Reagan&#8217;s policies, have pretty much consistently been worse overall than under more liberal economic policy&#8230; though, admittedly, large corporations and the richest individuals do really well, so if your economic yardstick is &#8216;how rich are the richest people&#8217;, then yeah, Reagannomics is great.  Admittedlly overall GDP per capita only dipped slightly during the Reagan administration - the graph of America&#8217;s GDP/C can be basically summarized as &#8216;up&#8217;.
http://aneconomicsense.files.wordpress.com/2012/07/long-run-us-gdp-per-capita-growth-1870-2011-levels.png
The thing is, that growth, which has been pretty constant, has become concentrated solely on the top quintiles of the economy.  The rich are getting a lot richer, but the poor are getting precious little.
http://aneconomicsense.files.wordpress.com/2012/07/distributional-shifts-1917-2010.png
&lt;BLOCKQUOTE&gt;The second implication is that economic progress comes at a human cost, and we should prefer government dependency as a solution to problems to avoid such costs. For one, economic growth positively impacts human beings. It’s not the other way around. Human beings depend on a good economy for their future.&lt;/BLOCKQUOTE&gt;
Yes, economic growth positively impacts human beings&#8230; provided that economic growth actually means more resources for the people, rather than a bigger treasury for Megacorporation X&#8230; which tends to be the case in unregulated economies.  Second, it *is* also the other way around.  An populace that is healthy, educated, and happy will be not only be more productive, they&#8217;ll also spend more&#8230; improving the economy.  Do you really think money just springs up out of holes in the ground?  The UAE is a pretty good example of both of these.
Economic growth doesn&#8217;t necessarily come at a human cost, and, indeed, it *is* usually beneficial, but given the choice between &#8216;more economic growth&#8217; and improved quality of life&#8230; quality of life.
&lt;BLOCKQUOTE&gt; Second, public policy is the result of various opposing forces, taking place in the context of numerous limitations, including practical, social, political, and Constitutional. This means that the ability of public policy to actually solve problems is limited. Markets aren’t subjected to any such limitations.&lt;/BLOCKQUOTE&gt;
Um&#8230; what?  Are you seriously suggesting the market has no limitations, practical, social, or legal?  I suppose you *could* say the &#8216;free market&#8217; should be completely unregulated, if you really like dying horribly, but even so, there will still be practical considerations - no amount of money will make possible what is impossible, and social considerations - if no one wants your solution, it won&#8217;t be around for very long.
Second, the market isn&#8217;t *interested* in solving social problems.  It&#8217;s interested in making money.  That&#8217;s what markets are for.    If there&#8217;s no money in solving the problem, it won&#8217;t be solved.

&lt;BLOCKQUOTE&gt;More importantly, a life of government dependency for an able-bodied person is incompatible with a meaningful, virtuous, and productive life. The focus of government in this context should be the promotion of a sort of living that is compatible with those values.&lt;/BLOCKQUOTE&gt;
What does &#8216;government dependency&#8217; mean in this context?  Because no (sane) person actually wants PERPETUAL WELFARE FOR ALL.  All humans are innately dependent on each other - the life of a true &#8216;self-made man&#8217; is, nasty, brutish, and short - likely very short.  You aren&#8217;t made any freer by being dependent on a *private* institution rather than a public one.  Indeed, the entire purpose of welfare is to promote independence, by providing the necessities, and thus, allowing individuals to focus on self-actualization rather than survival - and hopefully then become productive.
&lt;BLOCKQUOTE&gt;Second, if markets cannot efficiently allocate health care, then markets do not work and they cannot allocate anything, and we should nationalize and collectivize our society.&lt;/BLOCKQUOTE&gt;
Way to false dichotomy there.  &#8217;Markets aren&#8217;t good at this one thing, therefore they are worthless!&#8217;
The fact of the matter is that markets work very well at distributing consumer goods and luxuries.  For neccessities, well, it&#8217;s pretty good at getting them to people who are able to pay whatever the supplier desires.  For actually keeping people alive, not so great.
&lt;BLOCKQUOTE&gt;In reality our health care system is a dysfunctional one because of poor public policy rather than market forces.&lt;/BLOCKQUOTE&gt;
Poor public policy such as having health care dependent on the open market.  Every other developed nation has some kind of public-funded healthcare.  And every other developed nation has been healthcare outcomes than the United States.

Now, as for the next bit.
&lt;BLOCKQUOTE&gt;Please site a source for human beings requiring a good economy to be happy, hale and healthy? I believe humans were actually quite well off in North America before there was an economy. Afterwards, not so much, but you may wish to speak to Native American’s for more info on that.&lt;/BLOCKQUOTE&gt;
Oh fer chrissakes&#8230;
First of all, Native Americans did have an economy.  It may not have been a modern corporate economy, but anytime you have a person and some resources, you have an economy.  Even a perfect communist society would have an economy, and the Natives weren&#8217;t perfectly communist.  Different societies differed, but they generally had, at the very least, barter economies within the tribe, and widespread trade, often with informal currencies, between tribes.
Second, genocide has precious little to do with economics.  Mostly

oh-snap-pro-choice:

the-evil-conservative:

oh-snap-pro-choice:

[*snip*]

The USA already uses a market system. Do you know what your global ranking is for health care? 37th. Your health care system is worse than Saudi Arabia’s. So no, using markets for a basic necessity like health care has not been ‘proven’ more effective, certainly not when you have people dying because their insurance won’t pay for their cancer treatments because it’s a ‘pre-existing condition’

Also, giving people free education, food and health care, AKA meeting their basic necessities of life is VERY good for the economy. Or would you like me to point out that in countries they do this, like Canada and Japan are economically much better off and weather economic recessions much better than the USA does or is?

The best way to promote an environment where society can improve is by focusing on the HUMAN BEINGS and making sure PEOPLE do not suffer. The USA has 57.7 million people suffering from a mood disorder. Does THAT sound like a great improvement to society?

And when your ‘economic growth’ is at the cost of human lives, the planet, human suffering, people starving to death… is that realy the society you think is great? How can you call your nation great if you’re willing to encourage the suffering of the poor? If you think CHILDREN should suffer and starve for a few million dollars? I mean if you spent less than a third of what you did on the war in Iraq the USA could have eradicated poverty so tell me, how is it you can support war funding for the ‘economy’ that costs $757.8 billion but not support feeding actual human beings for $500 million?

Please explain what is so great about the USA’s society when you’re willing to sacrifice the health and well being of literally millions of people for a few extra dollars in revenue because I’m definitely not seeing it.

-Lemon

Beginning with one of your tags, I’m not a Christian, so no I don’t need any sort of Jesus. My views aren’t motivated by religion.

Second, if markets cannot efficiently allocate health care, then markets do not work and they cannot allocate anything, and we should nationalize and collectivize our society. In reality our health care system is a dysfunctional one because of poor public policy rather than market forces. There is a lot of literature on the subject you should become familiar with.

Now you’ve made two wrong implications. One, that liberal government giveaways are better for the economy than conservative policies. That’s an easy one. The Reagan economy was the best performing post-war economy. There was a measurable improvement in the health and growth of the American economy as a direct result of Reagan’s pro-growth policies.

The second implication is that economic progress comes at a human cost, and we should prefer government dependency as a solution to problems to avoid such costs. For one, economic growth positively impacts human beings. It’s not the other way around. Human beings depend on a good economy for their future.

Second, public policy is the result of various opposing forces, taking place in the context of numerous limitations, including practical, social, political, and Constitutional. This means that the ability of public policy to actually solve problems is limited. Markets aren’t subjected to any such limitations.

More importantly, a life of government dependency for an able-bodied person is incompatible with a meaningful, virtuous, and productive life. The focus of government in this context should be the promotion of a sort of living that is compatible with those values.

Fundamentally practically trumps good intentions for a reason.

The tags weren’t serious, I was making a joke, so, that aside…

"There was a measurable improvement in the health and growth of the American economy as a direct result of Reagan’s pro-growth policies."

Funny you should say that. Reagan tripled the national debt, national debt was $900 billion when he came to office, by the time he left the national debt had tripled to $2.8 trillion.

He spent billions of dollars funding the Islamist mujahidin Freedom Fighters which are now known as the Taliban, Al Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood.

He cut taxes for the wealthiest 1% -AKA the people with more than enough money to pay taxes- and raised them for the middle and lower classes -the people least able to pay them for seven of the eight years he was in office for a total of eleven tax raises for the people least able to handle these raises.

When he came to office, unemployment was at 7.5%, when he left office it was at 11%.

Please explain how higher deficits, unemployment rates and raising taxes for the people least able to survive and manage those increases was ‘economic growth’? I threw in the fact that he’s the reason Al Qeada exists because he spent billions making Osama Bin Laden instead of, idk, feeding people in his country.

Please site a source for human beings requiring a good economy to be happy, hale and healthy? I believe humans were actually quite well off in North America before there was an economy. Afterwards, not so much, but you may wish to speak to Native American’s for more info on that.

Now finally, I haven’t said anything about ‘government dependancy’. And why do you assume all homeless people are abled? Homeless people are very likely to be suffering from mental illness or addiction, which gets in the way of getting off the street. And if they can’t afford treatment you insist on charging them for the cycle can never be broken. I’m not advocating for people to just be fed by the government, I’m advocating for helping to break the cycle of poverty all together. Which is very doable with actually surprisingly little money.

Money invested in people who can’t even afford to eat because of Reagan’s shitty policies (Sorry but he’s the one who decided trickle-down economics would work and frankly that’s a proven failure), will help. And yes, government regulation is absolutely necessary in a market setting. It’s government regulation that means seven year olds aren’t in sweat shops in working conditions so poor that their life expectancy is to 25. It’s government regulations that mandate pay must be more than just five cents an hour.

-Lemon

</BLOCKQUOTE>That’s an easy one. The Reagan economy was the best performing post-war economy. There was a measurable improvement in the health and growth of the American economy as a direct result of Reagan’s pro-growth policies.</BLOCKQUOTE>

No it wasn’t.  More ‘trickle-down’ economies, such as that under Reagan’s policies, have pretty much consistently been worse overall than under more liberal economic policy… though, admittedly, large corporations and the richest individuals do really well, so if your economic yardstick is ‘how rich are the richest people’, then yeah, Reagannomics is great.  Admittedlly overall GDP per capita only dipped slightly during the Reagan administration - the graph of America’s GDP/C can be basically summarized as ‘up’.

http://aneconomicsense.files.wordpress.com/2012/07/long-run-us-gdp-per-capita-growth-1870-2011-levels.png

The thing is, that growth, which has been pretty constant, has become concentrated solely on the top quintiles of the economy.  The rich are getting a lot richer, but the poor are getting precious little.

http://aneconomicsense.files.wordpress.com/2012/07/distributional-shifts-1917-2010.png

<BLOCKQUOTE>The second implication is that economic progress comes at a human cost, and we should prefer government dependency as a solution to problems to avoid such costs. For one, economic growth positively impacts human beings. It’s not the other way around. Human beings depend on a good economy for their future.</BLOCKQUOTE>

Yes, economic growth positively impacts human beings… provided that economic growth actually means more resources for the people, rather than a bigger treasury for Megacorporation X… which tends to be the case in unregulated economies.  Second, it *is* also the other way around.  An populace that is healthy, educated, and happy will be not only be more productive, they’ll also spend more… improving the economy.  Do you really think money just springs up out of holes in the ground?  The UAE is a pretty good example of both of these.

Economic growth doesn’t necessarily come at a human cost, and, indeed, it *is* usually beneficial, but given the choice between ‘more economic growth’ and improved quality of life… quality of life.

<BLOCKQUOTE> Second, public policy is the result of various opposing forces, taking place in the context of numerous limitations, including practical, social, political, and Constitutional. This means that the ability of public policy to actually solve problems is limited. Markets aren’t subjected to any such limitations.</BLOCKQUOTE>

Um… what?  Are you seriously suggesting the market has no limitations, practical, social, or legal?  I suppose you *could* say the ‘free market’ should be completely unregulated, if you really like dying horribly, but even so, there will still be practical considerations - no amount of money will make possible what is impossible, and social considerations - if no one wants your solution, it won’t be around for very long.

Second, the market isn’t *interested* in solving social problems.  It’s interested in making money.  That’s what markets are for.    If there’s no money in solving the problem, it won’t be solved.

<BLOCKQUOTE>More importantly, a life of government dependency for an able-bodied person is incompatible with a meaningful, virtuous, and productive life. The focus of government in this context should be the promotion of a sort of living that is compatible with those values.</BLOCKQUOTE>

What does ‘government dependency’ mean in this context?  Because no (sane) person actually wants PERPETUAL WELFARE FOR ALL.  All humans are innately dependent on each other - the life of a true ‘self-made man’ is, nasty, brutish, and short - likely very short.  You aren’t made any freer by being dependent on a *private* institution rather than a public one.  Indeed, the entire purpose of welfare is to promote independence, by providing the necessities, and thus, allowing individuals to focus on self-actualization rather than survival - and hopefully then become productive.

<BLOCKQUOTE>Second, if markets cannot efficiently allocate health care, then markets do not work and they cannot allocate anything, and we should nationalize and collectivize our society.</BLOCKQUOTE>

Way to false dichotomy there.  ’Markets aren’t good at this one thing, therefore they are worthless!

The fact of the matter is that markets work very well at distributing consumer goods and luxuries.  For neccessities, well, it’s pretty good at getting them to people who are able to pay whatever the supplier desires.  For actually keeping people alive, not so great.

<BLOCKQUOTE>In reality our health care system is a dysfunctional one because of poor public policy rather than market forces.</BLOCKQUOTE>

Poor public policy such as having health care dependent on the open market.  Every other developed nation has some kind of public-funded healthcare.  And every other developed nation has been healthcare outcomes than the United States.

Now, as for the next bit.

<BLOCKQUOTE>Please site a source for human beings requiring a good economy to be happy, hale and healthy? I believe humans were actually quite well off in North America before there was an economy. Afterwards, not so much, but you may wish to speak to Native American’s for more info on that.</BLOCKQUOTE>

Oh fer chrissakes…

First of all, Native Americans did have an economy.  It may not have been a modern corporate economy, but anytime you have a person and some resources, you have an economy.  Even a perfect communist society would have an economy, and the Natives weren’t perfectly communist.  Different societies differed, but they generally had, at the very least, barter economies within the tribe, and widespread trade, often with informal currencies, between tribes.

Second, genocide has precious little to do with economics.  Mostly

(Source: prolife-ruinslives, via reagan-was-a-horrible-president)

Photoset

odinsblog:

#MyNYPD (Part I)

Moreover, Byzantium Security is a real company and that’s their real slogan.

(via reagan-was-a-horrible-president)