Lady Di

de profundis


24-year-old photographer Asher Svidensky recently traveled to west Mongolia with the intention of documenting the lives of traditional Kazakh eagle hunters, people who tame eagles for the purpose of hunting smaller animals.

With the traditions typically laying in the hands of the boys and the men, the biggest surprise throughout the journey was Svidensky’s discovery of a young eagle huntress, 13-year-old Ashol Pan, the daughter of an experienced eagle hunter. These stunning photographs symbolize the potential future of the eagle hunting tradition as it expands beyond a male-only practice.

(via howstuffworks)





fav person of the day

because actually helping people with cosplay emergencies!

literally the most important man at supanova this year

he gave me double sided tape

what a good human being

petition to have a designated Captain Patch-It at all cons from now on.

A real life hero :D

(via cosplaytutorial)


Did you get your Blu-Ray/DVD copy? We sure did!:D Anna: Yuuri-C / Elsa: Yuuri-K / Photograph: Our little sister, more photos and construction notes here.


Did you get your Blu-Ray/DVD copy? We sure did!:D
Anna: Yuuri-C / Elsa: Yuuri-K / Photograph: Our little sister, more photos and construction notes here.

(via fahrlight)


friendly reminder that there’s a cut scene in Thor that while the Destroyer is blowing shit up, Darcy runs into the pet store to save all the animals and give them to people leaving the town

as things are being set on fire around her, she talks to the dog, telling him I  won’t let the big scary monster step on you,  and names it Baker


(via bibi-theblackwidow-rufflebutt)

  • Satan: [appears]
  • Satan: You can have anything you wan--
  • Satan: What?
  • Satan: What the--?
  • Satan: Wouldn't you rather have love or money?


The only difference between a tax man and a taxidermist is that the taxidermist leaves the skin. — Mark Twain

Last year I shared the very first image in this post, the Heritage Foundation's chart for 2012 explaining where your tax dollar goes. It got almost 800 notes, because it's a great graphic way to demonstrate what our government does with our money. I noticed this morning that it was getting a few additional reblogs thanks to today being Tax Day, so I thought I'd share an updated chart.

As it turned out, I’d already found and saved the very similar chart for 2013 made by the National Priorities Project (NPP), the second to last graphic in this post. When I uploaded it to share, I took a minute to compare the two. Both Heritage’s image for 2012 and NPP’s image for 2013 use the same clever design, but I immediately noticed that the similarities stop there. And when I dug up Heritage’s chart for 2013 (the second graphic above) and NPP’s far more chaotic version from 2012 (the third graphic), the differences became even more telling.

See, all these charts are informative, but they’re made with different agendas in mind. Heritage is a conservative think tank, and as the ACA (Obamacare) has gone into effect since their 2012 graphic, their focus has shifted even more strongly to highlighting entitlement spending. Note that big bracket they’ve added, and how “Income security, Veterans’ benefits” was retitled “Income security and other benefits,” a subtle shift which will make that spending feel more wasteful to Heritage’s typically anti-welfare, pro-military audience. Military spending, meanwhile, is dubbed “National defense” — a label I’d say isn’t quite accurate in our age of endless war — and calculated in a way which makes it seem quite small compared to the social programs.

Then there’s the NPP, which is a nonpartisan transparency organization that leans left. In both of their charts, military spending is labeled as just that, and it’s also calculated in a way which makes it the largest portion of the budget. Veterans’ benefits, health care spending, unemployment benefits, housing benefits, and food benefits are all chopped up into different sections, making social welfare spending look like a smaller slice of the pie than it really is. (The interest on the national debt also plays a much larger role in NPP’s charts than Heritage’s, a difference which I presume comes from Heritage’s use of “net interest.”)

So what’s the takeaway here? Well, there are a few:

1. No matter which chart you use, one thing is clear: Our government spends a heck of a lot of money that we don’t have.

2. The vast bulk of it goes to military spending and entitlement programs. Within each of those categories, there is plenty of corporate welfare, crony capitalism, and corruption of all sorts.

3. While I don’t believe any of these charts were intentionally designed to be deceptive (there are multiple, legitimate ways to slice up these spending categories), each presents the information with a certain bias. Bias is NOT a bad thing (see more on that here), but it can be dangerous if we’re not aware of its presence. Last year, I posted Heritage’s chart uncritically. I don’t think anything too terrible happened as a result, but looking at their updated chart this year (especially compared to NPP’s differently-biased graphics) indicates that was not the best choice.

4. ALWAYS use multiple sources. Last year I didn’t look for other sources on this, because the proportions are generally correct. It’s typically fairly safe to think of Medicare/Medicaid, Social Security, and military spending each taking about 25% of our spending, with the rest going to other programs and interest on the debt. That’s a very rough estimate, but it’s a good guide to see if charts like these are anywhere close to reality. 

Beyond that general estimate, though, we need more sources. Unless you’re a math and budget genius, check multiple versions of these calculations, which inevitably simplify very complex information into a very small space.

Personally, I think the final graphic above is, though least visually interesting, probably the most valuable. It’s from the Tax Foundation, which is more interested in lowering taxes and spending overall than making any particular part of the spending look more ominous than it is (note: it’s all pretty ominous). This chart slices up $100 instead of $1, but the idea is the same. And here you’ll note something of a mediating position which lines up pretty closely with my 25% x 3 approximation.

The White House, the New York Times, CNBC, the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, and plenty of other organizations with widely varying agendas have put out their own versions of these charts. Being able to find and compare these different calculations is a huge advantage of the internet.

So, where do your tax dollars go? Well, you figure it out. Probably somewhere you don’t like. Happy Tax Day…or something like that.

Everybody’s doing it, so why the hell should I?

—Gin Wigmore






Who really benefits from the pink ribbon campaigns: the cause or the company? In showing the real story of breast cancer and the lives of those who fight it, this film reveals the co-opting of what marketing experts have labeled a “dream cause.”

If you’re a woman, take the time to watch the documentary Pink Ribbons, Inc.

Watch it on

Netflix (x)

Itunes (x)

Youtube (for now…)    (x)

NFB (x)


Glad to see this on Tumblr. I don’t Pink. I don’t Run for a Cure. Write a check to your favorite women’s health charity.

I want a cure, I want research and support services and free diagnosis and treatment, I want lives saved. I do not give a flying fuck about pink ribbons, when less than 25% of Komen’s budget goes into research, but they do litigiously pursue competing organizations for trademark infringement. 

Find an org that is all about research or care or free services or support and write a check, click a donate button, give to someone who calls you but stop supporting an org that doesn’t do the actual work. 

seriously, everyone should see this.

(via sorelatable)