My name is Alex. I like jazz, health food, and liberation theology. Just kidding, fuck liberation theology. I'm working on becoming the world's first presidential jazz star astronaut. Trust me, it'll happen.

For fans of: various types of music, good things, and shiny stuff. I'm not sure what I'm writing anymore.

21st July 2014

Question

workin-on-leavin-the-livin said: do this is a long drive fo someone with nothing to think about

1. Talking Shit about a Pretty Sunset

2. Dramamine

3. Custom Concern

4. Edit the Sad Parts (bonus vinyl edition)

5. Ohio

6. Make Everyone Happy / Mechanical Birds

7. Beach Side Property

8. Space Travel is Boring

9. Head South

10. Tundra/Desert

11. Dog Paddle 

12. She Ionizes & Atomizes

13. Exit Does Not Exist

14. Might

15. Breakthrough

16. Novocain Stain

17. Lounge

18. A Manic Depressive Named Laughing Boy (bonus vinyl edition)

this was difficult because after the top four they’re all kind of the same for me. 

20th July 2014

Question with 2 notes

Anonymous said: lots of people you twit

ok but consider this 

it’s a website that is built around flashing images in the first place 

I realize that there are very many people with photosensitivity and Epilepsy that need all the help that they can get online, but blocking out the login page (and who sees that anyways amirite?) isn’t going to do much because the entire rest of the website is a mess of flashing colors. 

My friend has celiac disease, so she doesn’t go to the bakery. Sure they’ve got a gluten free choice, but the air is so rife with gluten molecules that it’s not worth the risk of cross contamination. Tumblr seems like the same thing. 

Reddit seems like the safer, text based alternative. 

20th July 2014

Post reblogged from tripping off constellations and stars with 2,742 notes

interquast:

send me an album and i will list the tracklist in order from fave to least fave

Yes please do this

Source: interquast

20th July 2014

Photo reblogged from Perhaps another time. with 34,925 notes

cougarmeat:

panther-caroso:

so for some ungodly reason tumblr staff decided it’d be a good idea to allow flashy gifs or incredibly bright images to be a background for the login screen. a lot of people i know are photosensitive and prone to headaches or other, worse things that can be caused by this. so naturally i wrote a small script to disable those completely. hopefully permanently.
you can find it here. you’ll need the browser extension/addon stylish for it to work, which you should be able to get from the website itself if i remember correctly. hope it helps someone o7

This is seriously so important. I suffer epilepsy and am extremly photosensitive, as I am sure a lot of other epileptics are. Please, spread this around, you could seriously save someone.


Wait hold how many photosensitive people are there really on this site which is predicated mainly on the sharing of gifs and videos and other photo media, in a brightly back lit endless scrolling environment? That just doesn’t make any sense.

cougarmeat:

panther-caroso:

so for some ungodly reason tumblr staff decided it’d be a good idea to allow flashy gifs or incredibly bright images to be a background for the login screen. a lot of people i know are photosensitive and prone to headaches or other, worse things that can be caused by this. so naturally i wrote a small script to disable those completely. hopefully permanently.

you can find it here. you’ll need the browser extension/addon stylish for it to work, which you should be able to get from the website itself if i remember correctly. hope it helps someone o7

This is seriously so important. I suffer epilepsy and am extremly photosensitive, as I am sure a lot of other epileptics are. Please, spread this around, you could seriously save someone.

Wait hold how many photosensitive people are there really on this site which is predicated mainly on the sharing of gifs and videos and other photo media, in a brightly back lit endless scrolling environment? That just doesn’t make any sense.

Source: panther-caroso

17th July 2014

Photo with 2 notes

America

America

Tagged: excessiveamerica

16th July 2014

Photo reblogged from some who wander are lost. with 188 notes

batmansymbol:

gamaongaku:

batmansymbol:

science (x)
interesting generalizations here but def. worth a read

Except that the wage gap isn’t a thing. You know why? Because it compares the total amount of money all men make combined to the total amount of money all women make combined. It doesn’t compare a man and women holding the same position.
More men are in positions of leadership (CEO’s and the sort) than women. More men are willing to take dangerous jobs than women. More men are willing to take dirty jobs than women. So men are willing to work the whole job market compared to women, and therein lies the issue. Not that men are paid more than their female counterparts, but that women aren’t willing to do the less desirable jobs.

Yes hello. I’d like to direct you to a New York Times article that I found after Google-searching “wage gap for same job.” This article was the first result.
"Rearranging women into higher-paying occupations would erase just 15 percent of the pay gap for all workers and between 30 and 35 percent for college graduates, she found. The rest has to do with something happening inside the workplace.
Take doctors and surgeons. Women earn 71 percent of men’s wages — after controlling for age, race, hours and education. Women who are financial specialists make 66 percent of what men in the same occupation earn, and women who are lawyers and judges make 82 percent.”
— The Pay Gap is Because of Gender, Not Jobs
I’ll concede that the “77%” statistic so often touted about is not at all what people think it is, and is indeed affected by the factors you mention. “77%” is definitely skewed by the fields each gender gravitates toward: more on that here. However, even after correcting the wage gap up to those who have the same job, we still see an average 91% gap, which you’ll learn if you read that linked article, which I found through searching “wage gap is a lie” on Google. It was, again, the first result. (I don’t want to sass you, but come on, let’s all be a little less lazy here, yes?)
As for “more men [being] willing to take dirty jobs”? “Women [being] unwilling to do the less desirable jobs”? Firstly, not sure where you were going with those points, as they wouldn’t support a positive skew on overall male salaries. But sorry, bucko, women account for nearly two-thirds of minimum-wage workers. "Less desirable" and "dirty" are subjective terms; I’m talking plain-and-simple monetary compensation: two-thirds of workers who make the least possible amount of money are women.
But hey, you’re right! Populations of men absolutely do dwarf those of women in high-paying leadership positions. Let’s look at some stats (x):

In 2011, women ran only 12 of the Fortune 500 companies.
In 2010, women made up 31.5% of all lawyers but were only 19.5% of partners in U.S. law firms according to Catalyst. Additionally, 11% of the largest law firms in the U.S. had no women on their governing committees.
No state has ever achieved federal or state judgeships gender equality. Women held only 23% of all federal judgeships and only 27% of state judgeships in 2010. In its 220-year history, only four women justices have served on the Supreme Court although we currently have the all time high of three justices out of nine.
Today in the 112th Congress women hold 17 Senate seats out of 100 and hold 92 out of 435 House seats.
We have never had a woman President.
Men outnumber women at a rate of 73% vs. 27% in all sectors of employment for science and engineering as of 2009.

"Hang on, hang on!" you say. "You’re just proving my point. Obviously, women don’t gravitate toward high-powered/high-paying positions, which is why men fill them so much more often! It’s because women don’t want the jobs, not because they’re being excluded or underpaid.”
And if the evidence supported that, with no notes of discrimination built into the structures of our business world, I’d be on board with your point. But no. The evidence shows that those hiring, the very people whose job it is to judge the competence of prospective workers, discriminate against women again and again and again (I *always* point people to this study; it’s a very well-organized article).
But wait, there’s more! Despite actual women being perceived as equally effective in leadership roles, implicit associations still link ‘feminine’ to ‘unsuccessful,’ managerially. Women are also perceived as needing to temper their leadership force with niceness. Women are also less likely to negotiate their salaries. “Well, stand up for yourself!” you might say. “That’s not sexism, that’s just women not taking charge.” Ha ha, no, there are good reasons for women not to negotiate — them being assertive in negotiations is often perceived as aggression. Also, women’s negotiations start off on unequal footing to men’s negotiations, so that’s fun.
It’s such a delicate balancing act — and that’s before factoring in the fact that pregnancy still gets women fired, and that women are still widely subjected to a false choice between children and work. I’m not even bothering to cite those because they’re common knowledge. Turn on any damn talk show that interviews a woman in a position of power. “How do you juggle home and work?” Time after time.
Look: widely-perpetuated talk points such as “women aren’t willing to take such-and-such a job” or “women just don’t want leadership” are just ignoring the point. Even if you’re right! Even if women shy away from leadership! Let’s say fewer women want leadership. Have you stopped to ask yourself why that might be the case? You’re a thinking person! Don’t stop at the generalization — question it! Why on earth would a woman want a subordinate position? (A lower-paying position?) Do you think that’s inherent and biological? Or do you think that maybe, just maybe, there’s a chance that those repeated hiring barriers, ingrained ideas that femininity is passive, and an overwhelmingly male upper echelon has discouraged and even prevented the world’s women from breaking 2% representation in the Fortune 500?
Just think about it.

can we talk about how great this post is

batmansymbol:

gamaongaku:

batmansymbol:

science (x)

interesting generalizations here but def. worth a read

Except that the wage gap isn’t a thing. You know why? Because it compares the total amount of money all men make combined to the total amount of money all women make combined. It doesn’t compare a man and women holding the same position.

More men are in positions of leadership (CEO’s and the sort) than women. More men are willing to take dangerous jobs than women. More men are willing to take dirty jobs than women. So men are willing to work the whole job market compared to women, and therein lies the issue. Not that men are paid more than their female counterparts, but that women aren’t willing to do the less desirable jobs.

Yes hello. I’d like to direct you to a New York Times article that I found after Google-searching “wage gap for same job.” This article was the first result.

"Rearranging women into higher-paying occupations would erase just 15 percent of the pay gap for all workers and between 30 and 35 percent for college graduates, she found. The rest has to do with something happening inside the workplace.

Take doctors and surgeons. Women earn 71 percent of men’s wages — after controlling for age, race, hours and education. Women who are financial specialists make 66 percent of what men in the same occupation earn, and women who are lawyers and judges make 82 percent.”

The Pay Gap is Because of Gender, Not Jobs

I’ll concede that the “77%” statistic so often touted about is not at all what people think it is, and is indeed affected by the factors you mention. “77%” is definitely skewed by the fields each gender gravitates toward: more on that here. However, even after correcting the wage gap up to those who have the same job, we still see an average 91% gap, which you’ll learn if you read that linked article, which I found through searching “wage gap is a lie” on Google. It was, again, the first result. (I don’t want to sass you, but come on, let’s all be a little less lazy here, yes?)

As for “more men [being] willing to take dirty jobs”? “Women [being] unwilling to do the less desirable jobs”? Firstly, not sure where you were going with those points, as they wouldn’t support a positive skew on overall male salaries. But sorry, bucko, women account for nearly two-thirds of minimum-wage workers. "Less desirable" and "dirty" are subjective terms; I’m talking plain-and-simple monetary compensation: two-thirds of workers who make the least possible amount of money are women.

But hey, you’re right! Populations of men absolutely do dwarf those of women in high-paying leadership positions. Let’s look at some stats (x):

In 2011, women ran only 12 of the Fortune 500 companies.

In 2010, women made up 31.5% of all lawyers but were only 19.5% of partners in U.S. law firms according to Catalyst. Additionally, 11% of the largest law firms in the U.S. had no women on their governing committees.

No state has ever achieved federal or state judgeships gender equality. Women held only 23% of all federal judgeships and only 27% of state judgeships in 2010. In its 220-year history, only four women justices have served on the Supreme Court although we currently have the all time high of three justices out of nine.

Today in the 112th Congress women hold 17 Senate seats out of 100 and hold 92 out of 435 House seats.

We have never had a woman President.

Men outnumber women at a rate of 73% vs. 27% in all sectors of employment for science and engineering as of 2009.

"Hang on, hang on!" you say. "You’re just proving my point. Obviously, women don’t gravitate toward high-powered/high-paying positions, which is why men fill them so much more often! It’s because women don’t want the jobs, not because they’re being excluded or underpaid.”

And if the evidence supported that, with no notes of discrimination built into the structures of our business world, I’d be on board with your point. But no. The evidence shows that those hiring, the very people whose job it is to judge the competence of prospective workers, discriminate against women again and again and again (I *always* point people to this study; it’s a very well-organized article).

But wait, there’s more! Despite actual women being perceived as equally effective in leadership roles, implicit associations still link ‘feminine’ to ‘unsuccessful,’ managerially. Women are also perceived as needing to temper their leadership force with niceness. Women are also less likely to negotiate their salaries. “Well, stand up for yourself!” you might say. “That’s not sexism, that’s just women not taking charge.” Ha ha, no, there are good reasons for women not to negotiate — them being assertive in negotiations is often perceived as aggression. Also, women’s negotiations start off on unequal footing to men’s negotiations, so that’s fun.

It’s such a delicate balancing act — and that’s before factoring in the fact that pregnancy still gets women fired, and that women are still widely subjected to a false choice between children and work. I’m not even bothering to cite those because they’re common knowledge. Turn on any damn talk show that interviews a woman in a position of power. “How do you juggle home and work?” Time after time.

Look: widely-perpetuated talk points such as “women aren’t willing to take such-and-such a job” or “women just don’t want leadership” are just ignoring the point. Even if you’re right! Even if women shy away from leadership! Let’s say fewer women want leadership. Have you stopped to ask yourself why that might be the case? You’re a thinking person! Don’t stop at the generalization — question it! Why on earth would a woman want a subordinate position? (A lower-paying position?) Do you think that’s inherent and biological? Or do you think that maybe, just maybe, there’s a chance that those repeated hiring barriers, ingrained ideas that femininity is passive, and an overwhelmingly male upper echelon has discouraged and even prevented the world’s women from breaking 2% representation in the Fortune 500?

Just think about it.

can we talk about how great this post is

8th July 2014

Photoset with 9 notes

Look at this trash.

Tagged: <3IgotoseekmygreatperhapsgpoyGabi is a babe

7th July 2014

Link

Brett Domino teaches how to write a hit pop song →

Tagged: jason derulojennifer lawrencedystopiabrett dominomusic

5th July 2014

Photo with 1 note

Dweebs for days. Click through link, buy my shirt, and others like it!

Dweebs for days. Click through link, buy my shirt, and others like it!

Tagged: dweebshirtzazzlegeeknerdsorry rioghnach I stole your thingplease don't be mad at mei'd split the royalties but I'm not going to sell any anyways.

Source: zazzle.com

1st July 2014

Photo with 7 notes

Look I did a thing. You know you want it.

Look I did a thing. You know you want it.

Tagged: I came out to have a good time and honestly I'm feeling so attacked right nowbatmansymbolzazzleshirtfashion

Source: zazzle.com