thepeoplesrecord:

Iceland grieves after police kill a man for the first time in its historyDecember 5, 2013
It was an unprecedented headline in Iceland this week — a man shot to death by police.
"The nation was in shock. This does not happen in our country," said Thora Arnorsdottir, news editor at RUV, the Icelandic National Broadcasting Service. 
She was referring to a 59-year old man who was shot by police on Monday. The man, who started shooting at police when they entered his building, had a history of mental illness. 
It’s the first time someone has been killed by armed police in Iceland since it became an independent republic in 1944. Police don’t even carry weapons, usually. Violent crime in Iceland is almost non-existent.
"The nation does not want its police force to carry weapons because it’s dangerous, it’s threatening," Arnorsdottir says. "It’s a part of the culture. Guns are used to go hunting as a sport, but you never see a gun."
In fact, Iceland isn’t anti-gun. In terms of per-capita gun ownership, Iceland ranks 15th in the world. Still, this incident was so rare that neighbors of the man shot were comparing the shooting to a scene from an American film. 
The Icelandic police department said officers involved will go through grief counseling. And the police department has already apologized to the family of the man who died — though not necessarily because they did anything wrong.
"I think it’s respectful," Arnorsdottir says, “because no one wants to take another person’s life. “
There are still a number of questions to be answered, including why police didn’t first try to negotiate with man before entering his building.
"A part of the great thing of living in this country is that you can enter parliament and the only thing they ask you to do is to turn off your cellphone, so you don’t disturb the parliamentarians while they’re talking. We do not have armed guards following our prime minister or president. That’s a part of the great thing of living in a peaceful society. We do not want to change that. " 
Source

thepeoplesrecord:

Iceland grieves after police kill a man for the first time in its history
December 5, 2013

It was an unprecedented headline in Iceland this week — a man shot to death by police.

"The nation was in shock. This does not happen in our country," said Thora Arnorsdottir, news editor at RUV, the Icelandic National Broadcasting Service. 

She was referring to a 59-year old man who was shot by police on Monday. The man, who started shooting at police when they entered his building, had a history of mental illness. 

It’s the first time someone has been killed by armed police in Iceland since it became an independent republic in 1944. Police don’t even carry weapons, usually. Violent crime in Iceland is almost non-existent.

"The nation does not want its police force to carry weapons because it’s dangerous, it’s threatening," Arnorsdottir says. "It’s a part of the culture. Guns are used to go hunting as a sport, but you never see a gun."

In fact, Iceland isn’t anti-gun. In terms of per-capita gun ownership, Iceland ranks 15th in the world. Still, this incident was so rare that neighbors of the man shot were comparing the shooting to a scene from an American film. 

The Icelandic police department said officers involved will go through grief counseling. And the police department has already apologized to the family of the man who died — though not necessarily because they did anything wrong.

"I think it’s respectful," Arnorsdottir says, “because no one wants to take another person’s life. “

There are still a number of questions to be answered, including why police didn’t first try to negotiate with man before entering his building.

"A part of the great thing of living in this country is that you can enter parliament and the only thing they ask you to do is to turn off your cellphone, so you don’t disturb the parliamentarians while they’re talking. We do not have armed guards following our prime minister or president. That’s a part of the great thing of living in a peaceful society. We do not want to change that. " 

Source

asutori:

Happy Independence Day, Finland!

asutori:

Happy Independence Day, Finland!

international-relations:

■そして結局税金上げられない■

image

image

image

ノルウェーもすごい頑張ってるよねっていうのを色々考えた結果、
税金かなり長い間上げるの保留になったらしいです。

[Nordics Comic Update]

shire-or-not-to-sherlock:

luhans:

lyukai:

niktheawesome:

forzabarca:

sweetheartcrisis:


Eins, zwei, drei, vier, fünf, sechs, sieben, acht …

um, dois, três, quatro …

Un, Deux, Trois, Quatre

Un, dau…

It’s not a very good one.
uno, dos, tres, cuatro…

yksi, kaksi…

один, два…

một, hai…

I’m not sure how this works.
isa-

一、二,三、四。。。

ett två tre fyra

philippines and japan stop omg

Üks, kaks


Satu Dua Tiga Empat

Wowzers

один, двА 

one AMERICA, two AMERICA, three AMERICA…
i don’t get it either


THE LAST ONE KILLED ME

shire-or-not-to-sherlock:

luhans:

lyukai:

niktheawesome:

forzabarca:

sweetheartcrisis:

Eins, zwei, drei, vier, fünf, sechs, sieben, acht …

image

um, dois, três, quatro …

image

Un, Deux, Trois, Quatre

image

Un, dau…

image

It’s not a very good one.

uno, dos, tres, cuatro…

image

yksi, kaksi…

image

один, два…

image

một, hai

image

I’m not sure how this works.

isa-

image

一、二,三、四。。。

image

ett två tre fyraimage

philippines and japan stop omg

Üks, kaks

image

Satu Dua Tiga Empat

image

Wowzers

один, двА
image 

one AMERICA, two AMERICA, three AMERICA…

i don’t get it either

image

THE LAST ONE KILLED ME

ysmni:

moralpanicsfolkdevils:

atlasobscura:

The Truth About Krampus

Thanks to the internet, popular American understanding of European Christmas traditions has grown by leaps and bounds over the last decades. There’s also confusion too, some of it swirling around that wily old devil, Krampus.

Accompanying St. Nicholas on his gift-giving rounds to direct a little switch-swinging intimidation toward the naughtier kids, the Krampus has become the most well-known of other Central European characters playing a similar role. Originally appearing under that name in Austria and Southern Germany, his distinctive devilish appearance is not easily confused with Northern Germany’s hooded Knecht Ruprecht or Holland’s “Moorish” Zwarte Piet (“Black Peter”).

It was in 2004, that collector Monte Beauchamp launched a series of books that did much to familiarize Americans with Krampus via reprinted collection of turn-of-the-century Krampus postcards. Thanks to these images, most Atlas Obscura readers will probably be able to describe Krampus: a distinctly satyr-like devil with dark fur, and incessantly slithering tongue.

For more of his modern incarnations, keep reading The Truth About Krampus on Atlas Obscura!

Merry Christmas, you little shits.

fuckyeahchubbyfinland:


\Hyvää joulua!/
Pixiv ID: 7826597Member: ゆ(lazzik)

fuckyeahchubbyfinland:

\Hyvää joulua!/
Pixiv ID: 7826597
Member: ゆ(lazzik)

coolchicksfromhistory:

nbcnews:

60 years in an iron lung: US polio survivor worries about new global threat

(Photos courtesy Martha Ann Lillard)

It’s a long way from central Oklahoma to Syria, but one of America’s last iron lung survivors says she’s a living reminder that an outbreak of polio anywhere in the world is a danger everywhere.

Continue reading

Worth clicking through to read the full story.

“The night before I was paralyzed, the neighbor children ate out of the same bowl of pancake batter that I did,” Lillard recalls. “They just had to pray that nobody got it.”

mylordshesacactus:

rickyproctor:

Poor Hufflepuff. Everyone who wasn’t cunning, intelligent, or brave got sent to Hufflepuff

Ding-dong, you are wrong.
Everyone who had immense amounts of courage but, when given the choice, would decide that fighting is not as important as staying put to care for the people a war leaves in its wake ended up in Hufflepuff.
Everyone who was extremely intelligent but simply considered it a much more defining characteristic to be loyal and faithful to people they love, rather than taking pride in their intelligence*, ended up in Hufflepuff.
Everyone who wanted to do something important and had enough cunning to manipulate others and wind their way to the top, but never would because they considered it more important to be honest and earn their success fairly and through hard work ended up in Hufflepuff
Everyone who was brave, and smart, and cunning, but did not consider those traits to be the most important and defining aspects of their personality ended up in Hufflepuff.
Helga Hufflepuff made a conscious decision to accept only those students who were honest and loyal and true enough to themselves to say “No. Courage and intelligence and cunning are all valuable traits, but I will not define myself by them because I believe there are things more important than that.”
We are not your fucking leftovers.

mylordshesacactus:

rickyproctor:

Poor Hufflepuff. Everyone who wasn’t cunning, intelligent, or brave got sent to Hufflepuff

Ding-dong, you are wrong.

Everyone who had immense amounts of courage but, when given the choice, would decide that fighting is not as important as staying put to care for the people a war leaves in its wake ended up in Hufflepuff.

Everyone who was extremely intelligent but simply considered it a much more defining characteristic to be loyal and faithful to people they love, rather than taking pride in their intelligence*, ended up in Hufflepuff.

Everyone who wanted to do something important and had enough cunning to manipulate others and wind their way to the top, but never would because they considered it more important to be honest and earn their success fairly and through hard work ended up in Hufflepuff

Everyone who was brave, and smart, and cunning, but did not consider those traits to be the most important and defining aspects of their personality ended up in Hufflepuff.

Helga Hufflepuff made a conscious decision to accept only those students who were honest and loyal and true enough to themselves to say “No. Courage and intelligence and cunning are all valuable traits, but I will not define myself by them because I believe there are things more important than that.”

We are not your fucking leftovers.

rufflesnotdiets:

O’Reilly & O’Reilly

Avarice and Greed

We perpetuated dehumanizing stereotypes of the poor

and politically crucified the needy

We specializing in ignoring pain

Spreading fear and doubt

And if you could not pay your rent

We kicked you on the way out

iwillincendiotheheartoutofyou:

glitterswitch:

capaldiandfreeman:

Wednesday Addams is everything I love

I was looking in this tag for this exact photoset, and Tumblr delivered.

But seriously, humour aside, this scene is brilliant, because what good do those stork stories do? They teach children that sex is something dirty and private and disgusting, when really it’s one of the most natural things in the world. There is no way Wednesday would ever have had an unwanted pregnancy through her own lack of judgement, because Morticia and Gomez would have taught her how to be safe and sensible with something that could bring her pleasure. The Addams family are role models.

alexandraerin:

misc-c0splay:

dirkjaker:

freezepeachinspector:

feraldash:

alexandraerin:

So keep saying it. We need to know who to avoid.

Well… No.

She wrote him as a believable (albeit magical) character. Real life people generally don’t work like this: “blah blah blah oh yeah I’m gay blah blah blah…

Well… yes.

Do you know any straight couples? Did they have to tell you they were straight? No. But they introduce you to their significant others. They wear wedding rings. They have pictures of their families up at work (or on their computers/phones as wallpaper). They talk about their weekend plans, which include doing things with their partners (or looking for one).

The entire Harry Potter series is FULL of people who reveal that they’re straight (or at least in/looking for heterosexual relationships). Think about how weird and unrealistic it would be if Ron was still a character and his family was still there and Harry still stayed with them, but the book bent over backwards to hide everything that would make it explicitly clear that Molly is married to Arthur and they’ve had children together.

"Real people" who are straight have their orientations affirmed a thousand times a day. They reveal their own orientations casually without ever thinking about what they’re doing, because that’s what normalcy looks like to them. 

"Real people" don’t live their lives in a way that obliterates every external trace of their sexual/romantic orientation. 

Well, sometimes queer people do… when it’s not safe for us to do so. When we have to fear the consequences of being out. 

So maybe the lesson is that the Wizarding World is homophobic? But even when they’re alone—and Dumbledore is dead—and even when the subject of Dumbledore’s past with Grindelwald (the man Rowling says he was in love with) comes up and Harry is basically begging him to explain himself, to reconcile how he can be the good man that Harry knew and do all this bad stuff, and Dumbledore doesn’t even say, “I was in love.” 

Is that “realistic” to you?

They’re alone, Dumbledore can’t be hurt by anything any more, he’s unburdening himself of his last secrets, and he still holds back this last piece for no other reason except that this way there’s no canon gay in this book to alarm the kiddies’ parents.

Dumbledore’s youthful love was so critical to the plot, it’s part of the explanation for why Voldemort died in his last duel with Harry (because it explains how the elder wand’s chain of custody ran through Dumbledore). But it’s glossed over, not for story reasons or believability but because of a editorial/marketing decision rooted in homophobia. That’s not realism. That’s not believability. That’s not treating gay characters the same as everyone else. 

What you’re saying—whether you realize it or not—is that for a gay character to be “believable”, they have to be so deeply closeted that it never comes up. 

Try to defend that.

georgethecat:

therearecertainshadesoflimelight:

looktothenightxai:

hellacre13:

curlsandclockwork:

hellyeahsupermanandwonderwoman:

godstaff:

thehappysorceress:

georgethecat:

AND THAT’S THE END OF THAT RELATIONSHIP. 

Watching Liz (and her obvious glee) smash this abomination into pieces was pure joy.

And that, kids, is how you spread hate, intolerance and everything you said you are against. Remember, though, if anybody does one tenth of this to something you say you like you can insult them and call them misogynist, sexist and everything you like, because we are right, therefore they are wrong.

And what do we do with things that are wrong? WE SMASH THEM!!! BWAH-HA-HA!!!

This is just the right time of year to spread hate all over the World. JINGLE BELLS MY ASS!!!

Thank you, Hatefulsorceress, for showing us what’s right! By the way, lousy job: the pieces are still recognizable. Tell your violent and hideous friend to do a better smashing next time.

If these people are in the side of righteousness, I’m proud to be wrong for the rest of my life.

The Republican Party is proud of your methods, Kid.

It really saddens me to think this statue could have made happy some kid who can’t afford it and might have get it as a Christmas present. Because it’s almost Christmas, in case you didn’t notice. Yeah, the season of love and all that. Not that you care about it, I know.

Anyway, I’m glad you’re happy. Be proud of your achievement, girls.

This is pretty unfortunate anyone would do this. That’s all I have to say.

Wow, I wish I had enough money to waste 300 dollars on a statue of a pairing I didn’t like and then smash it with a brick.

Not impressed at all by the pictures. I can’t even. If you put this much hatred into a fictional work you really have problems.

But hey, on the bright side, the owner *did* spend the money to buy the statue, meaning they financially supported DC, meaning they inadvertently supported Superman and Wonder Woman as a couple because DC *will* look at their sales to decipher whether or not to continue the relationship down the road in the New 52.

So, hey, they’re a jackass, but you can thank them for ensuring SM/WW will keep going. We SM/WW fans appreciate it.

In some countries think what  nearly $300 US can do. Feed and clothe several families. And they celebrating it this with such glee. Wow. I really have seen the levels of hate but this is….They could have given the money to charity. People in the Philippines for starters. 

Yeah but 1st World Problems trump all y’know.

Its more important to smash a figurine of your nOTP than it is to do some actual good.

Although I don’t doubt that the creator of this.. photoset is a good person and can DO good works…

This just wasn’t the brightest idea in their box of Rose-Art crayons.

I wasn’t going to say a word about this but things have officially gone too far and the total and complete misappropriation of social justice and philanthropy concern about this is so ungodly inappropriate that I am legitimately embarassed for those of you that made it an argument.  (That being said, tumblr has created a problematic culture where so many people think they are educated on service and social justice when half the time the root of their “concern” is so intensely uneducated and self-serving and it makes my skin crawl.)  So let’s get a few things clear here:

1.) Liz has already stated several times over that she didn’t pay for this statue.   Liz works at a comic shop and it was already damaged.  In order for the store to get their money back on this statue, they had to prove that it was damaged and send evidence to that effect.  She did not purchase this statue for $250.   Liz doesn’t like Superman/Wonder Woman (for reasons she has explained many times over as a feminist) and she jokingly did the honors since the statue had to be sent back damaged to retain the store’s money. 

2.)  BUT—-and this is a huge but—-Even if Liz had purchased the statue and chosen to destroy it—-she would have had EVERY right to do so and the people here shaming her for it, implying she’s a bad person, implying she should have been out “doing good” and most egregiously and disgustingly, turning this into false concern for poor people are totally out of line and need to check themselves.  

Let’s talk for a second about money, charity, service and what $250 can buy.  Shall we?  Let’s talk about how ungodly insulting it is for any of you to assume that you EVER have the right to tell someone else how they are allowed to spend their own fucking money and then shame them if they do something with it that you deem wasteful.   Let’s talk about social justice.

You know, there are plenty of people who might argue that spending $250 on a statue in the first place—-even if you plan to KEEP it and adore it—-is a waste of money.  To turn this argument around on you,  how many poor people could that $250 help that you just HAD to spend on a statue of two people kissing?   Are you a bad person who doesn’t care about charity because you wanted this statute and were willing to save your money to spend on it?  No, you aren’t.   Because no one gets to dictate to you how you are allowed to spend your money.  I might think that $250 is a complete and total waste to spend on a figurine (especially of a ship that I loathe)  but if you wanted it?  That’s totally your right.  I would never shame you for spending your money on it because you have the absolute right to spend your money on WHATEVER you want without someone implying that you don’t care about poor people when you do it.  That is, without question, total and complete bullshit and a misappropriation of the REAL issue of poverty in this world to serve a personal agenda. 

What about the $100 you probably spent on comics this month?  What about the Starbucks you get a few times a week?  What about that new sweater you bought on Black Friday?  What about that time you went out to lunch last week?  That dress you bought?  Those shoes?  Couldn’t all that money hypothetically been given to typhoon victims?  Are there not some people who would think that spending money on comics AT ALL is a waste?  Where are all your receipts from all the money you have given to charity?  Who gets to decide what you are allowed to spend money on and still get to care about poor people and what gets to be deemed money that “could have gone to charity.?”  Are you the judge of that?   In general, the entire act of buying comics and talking about them and running tumblrs about couples we like is a pretty huge “first world problem.”  Don’t you dare attempt to pretend that it’s not and then get up on a high horse because someone doesn’t like what you like.

There are people on Welfare who would rather spend the little money they have on fast food or televisions or cell phones.  And they are allowed to do that.   It’s a really shitty and condescending problem when politicians and the public attempt to regulate what people are allowed to spend their money on.   You know why?   Because deciding that you are the judge of what is “worthy” and what is “wasteful” for people to spend their money on—-no matter what it is—-is a really shitty, entitled thing to do.  

3.) Elizabeth Pfeiffer is a woman who cares deeply about journalism and law.  She’s worked in both the legal arena and as a journalist.  She’s experienced sexism in both arenas because of her gender.   She’s gone out of her way to provide “women in comics nights” for women who enjoy comics at the store where she works and she’s gone out of her way to help women both in her career and in her personal life.  How many of YOU have done that?  How DARE you attempt to regulate the way this woman spends her time and SHAME her for spending 30 seconds busting up a statute of a relationship that she disapproves of? (And btw?  Liz, like many women, has legitimate gender issues with this pairing.)  How DARE you imply that this 30 seconds was time that she “could be out doing good” and make any kind of judgement on the kind of person she is.   Again, I ask for your receipts.  What did you do yesterday?  Were you out serving people 24 hours of the day?   Because unless all of you were at soup kitchens the entire day yesterday and unless every last dime you have is going to help poor people then you are misappropriating actual concern for community service and charity in a way that is wholly and entirely inappropriate, self-serving and frankly embarassing.   You have no idea what this woman does in her life to help people just as I have no idea what YOU do to help people.   

I got news for you:  I spend a significant portion of my time advocating for women of domestic abuse and children who have been sexually abused and harmed.  I’m not required to post the service I do like a resume and frankly, I’d be a pretty big asshole if I did so since the point of helping people isn’t supposed to be to put it on tumblr so people can pat you on the back about how much “good” you are doing.  And I thought the video was funny.   The entire act of tumblr is a first world problem despite many of us fighting fights in our personal lives to do whatever we can to help people.  

4.)  There are several children in my life that I love dearly and I would never in a million years give this statue to any of them.  I would never give this statue to any child period. You know why?  Because it’s not a child’s toy.  At all.  It wasn’t designed for children.  It’s breakable and full of sharp edges if it drops.  I also wouldn’t give it to a child, particularly a little girl, because I believe, like Liz does, that this relationship and DC’s entire rollout of it has undertones of sexism, ableism and makes me extremely uncomfortable as a woman and as a feminist.  Since it’s important to me to send the right messages to young women about media, I would never give this statue to ANYONE because I don’t believe it sends the right message.   And by the way?  That would be my right.  Just as it would be your right to spend the $250 and buy it if you felt so inclined and give it to whoever you pleased.

What this really comes down to is that some of you are angry because someone didn’t like what you like.  Let’s put aside the reality that two of the people who replied on this thread have been guilty of such much sexism and damaging behavior towards other women and have been called out on it multiple times over.   I'm not gonna embarass either of you with THOSE receipts.  I'm sorry that this relationship has sparked this kind of frustration between fans.  I'm sorry that sometimes we like things that other people think are problematic or just flat out don't fucking like.  This is the reality of life and it's certainly the reality of fandom.  But misappropriating arguments about money for poor people to condemn this woman because she took pleasure in busting up a statue of something she didn't like is, at best, self-serving and, at worst, totally and wholly insulting, immature and problematic towards the actual plight of poverty in this country and the number of people both here and elsewhere who are going out of there way to fight it in ways that you and I will probably NEVER see because the majority of service and charity is done quietly, privately and not broadcast on a forum like tumblr.  You do not get to dictate how someone spends their money or their time just as they do not get to dictate what you do.   That's playing the victim because someone doesn't like something you like.  You aren't “showing” anyone here.  You aren't making some powerful statement about poverty and justice and intolerance.  You are showing your ass.  Stop it. 

Reblogging for CertainShades’ commentary :)

orangemuses:

modernmethadone:

i got 99 problems and 97 of them are due by the end of the week

The other two were due last week

spit-storm:

Haru’s done with your shit Ariel