Rayna #lion (at Carolina Tiger Rescue)

Rayna #lion (at Carolina Tiger Rescue)

Tags: lion

Raja and Kayla #tigers (at Carolina Tiger Rescue)

Raja and Kayla #tigers (at Carolina Tiger Rescue)

Tags: tigers


"It’s not done until one of us dies"
David Duchovny on possibly reopening The X-Files.


"It’s not done until one of us dies"

David Duchovny on possibly reopening The X-Files.


Cake, cake, cake, cake, cake, cake by WORLDSTARHIPHOP®





Kenyan High School High Jump



i just laughed so obnoxiously 

(via dutchster)


someone telling me to calm down when I was already calm unleashes a fury that not even hell can contain

(via letsmakeloaf)

"My mission, should I choose to accept it, is to find peace with exactly who and what I am. To take pride in my thoughts, my appearance, my talents, my flaws and to stop this incessant worrying that I can’t be loved as I am."

Anais Nin

(via an-anachronism)

Amen and hallelujah!

(went to my first couple’s therapy session with my ex-husband today, so this is very timely for us both)

(Source: 7thcircleofpeace, via foulmouthedliberty)



Lloyd Blankfein is CEO of Goldman Sachs, one of the most largest and most notorious investment banks, with $915 billion in assets.

During his appearance on CBS “This Morning,” Blankfein argued that massive income inequality is “a very destabilizing thing.”

Not only does income inequality slow growth, Blankfein said, it also contributes to political divisiveness:

Income inequality is a very destabilizing thing in the country, a very polarizing thing in the country. In other words, it’s responsible for the divisions in the country. Those divisions could get wider. If you can’t legislate, you can’t deal with problems. If you can’t deal with problems, you can’t drive growth, and you can’t drive the success of the country.

But he also said something else. When the show’s host pointed out that many people are speaking out against income inequality but fewer are taking action, the bank CEO agreed. “Yes, full stop. If there was a lever to pull and a button to push, we would pull it and push it.”

Technically he is correct. There is not a lever or a button. But there are very clear policy solutions that would go a long way toward alleviating the destabilizing force of income inequality:

The financial transaction tax. Also called the “Robin Hood tax,” the FTT is a small fee on stock and bond trades, derivative contracts, and swaps of other complex Wall Street instruments. It would amount to about $0.0003 per dollar, or $18 a year for the median 401(k) holder, but would produce an estimated $352 billion in revenue over 10 years. That extra revenue could be used to pay for things Congress claims we can’t afford: renewing unemployment insurance, restoring cuts to SNAP, investments in infrastructure, and assistance to state and local governments who have been forced to layoff thousands. To folks like Blankfein, who has a $2 million salary and tens of millions more in bonuses, the FTT would feel like a blip.

Raise the minimum wage. This is one you’re familiar with. Raising the minimum wage to $10.10, as proposed in the Harkin-Miller bill filibustered by Senate Republicans, would raise the wages of 27.8 million workers, grow GDP by about $22 billion, and create roughly 85,000 net new jobs. As one of the world’s most powerful bankers, Blankfein support for raising the minimum wage–and his refusal to support politicians who oppose it–would have a huge impact.

Stop attacking the CFPB. The banking lobby, of which Goldman Sachs is a large part, viciously opposed the creation of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau in 2010 (as detailed by author and Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren in her bestselling book). But since its creation, the CFPB has recouped millions of dollars for consumers from mortgage, credit card, and banking companies that were skirting or outright breaking the law. Oftentimes, the offending companies are directly scams at the most vulnerable Americans: debtors, students, veterans, low-income families and families of color. Forget outright support–if Blankfein called off his lobbying team from attacking and attempting to weaken the CFPB, the Bureau’s future and its ability to recoup losses for consumers would be more secure.

Don’t hold your breath

(via truth-has-a-liberal-bias)


Paul Krugman investigates one of the great mysteries of our day in his Monday column. Why, in the face of devastating consequences that are already upon us, is it so hard to take action to curb man-made global warming?

The venerable economist considers the usual suspects, and pretty much discounts them. Instituting emission controls will cause minimal economic harm. Even the anti-science U.S. Chamber of Commerce, try as they might, only found modest costs to carbon reductions. Is it the power of vested interests? he wonders.

I’ve been looking into that issue and have come to the somewhat surprising conclusion that it’s not mainly about the vested interests. They do, of course, exist and play an important role; funding from fossil-fuel interests has played a crucial role in sustaining the illusion that climate science is less settled than it is. But the monetary stakes aren’t nearly as big as you might think.

What about the coal workers? Won’t they be hurt? More like the coal owners.

Krugman points out that the truth is that there are very few coal-mining jobs left.

Once upon a time King Coal was indeed a major employer: At the end of the 1970s there were more than 250,000 coal miners in America. Since then, however, coal employment has fallen by two-thirds, not because output is down — it’s up, substantially — but because most coal now comes from strip mines that require very few workers. At this point, coal mining accounts for only one-sixteenth of 1 percent of overall U.S. employment; shutting down the whole industry would eliminate fewer jobs than America lost in an average week during the Great Recession of 2007-9.

Or put it this way: The real war on coal, or at least on coal workers, took place a generation ago, waged not by liberal environmentalists but by the coal industry itself. And coal workers lost.

Having dispensed with some of the usual suspects, Krugman wonders if the ideology of Ayn Rand libertarianism that is so popular amongst conservative politicians, policy makers and commenters could be at the core of the anger over environmental regulation.

Think about global warming from the point of view of someone who grew up taking Ayn Rand seriously, believing that the untrammeled pursuit of self-interest is always good and that government is always the problem, never the solution. Along come some scientists declaring that unrestricted pursuit of self-interest will destroy the world, and that government intervention is the only answer. It doesn’t matter how market-friendly you make the proposed intervention; this is a direct challenge to the libertarian worldview.

And the natural reaction is denial — angry denial. Read or watch any extended debate over climate policy and you’ll be struck by the venom, the sheer rage, of the denialists.

Then there is anti-intellectualism strain that runs through American life—especially on the right—the tendency to believe in conspiracy theories, like the one about how all the world’s scientists are in on the gigantic climate hoax, Krugman points out. Taken together, libertarianism plus anti-intellectualism equals toxic mix, or as Krugman concludes.

So the real obstacle, as we try to confront global warming, is economic ideology reinforced by hostility to science. In some ways this makes the task easier: we do not, in fact, have to force people to accept large monetary losses. But we do have to overcome pride and willful ignorance, which is hard indeed.

(via truth-has-a-liberal-bias)