HELLO MAILMAN, THIS IS DOG. I AM HERE TO ASSIST MY HUMAN IN FETCHING THE MAIL. WOULD YOU BE SO KIND AND INSERT ALL ENVELOPES INTO MY MOUTH? THANK YOU, SIR. HAVE A LOVELY DAY. LOOK, HUMAN! I HAS MAIL!
I’m pretty sure I’ve reblogged this before and certain I should reblog it againHowgoodinthestacksgets mail
this is now my favorite photoset in the entire world.
i really like looking at google image searches for “firemen rescuing cats” or something because you get super cute pictures like
AND THEN THERE’S THIS ONE
"THAT’S RIGHT TWAS I that set the house ablaze!!!”
Lady Han Solo and Slave Prince Leia Photo shoot
Cosplayers: C&C Cosplay
Photographer: Zach Picard
I’d like to clear the air.
The past 96 hours have been some of the most stressful, anxious, and rewarding of my life.
Wednesday evening, following my first read of Rick Remender’s Captain America #22, I posted a series of entries to my blog reiterating my distaste for his work, and my renewed (and long-held) belief that he should no longer be writing it.
In my haste and anger, I asked other people who shared my opinion to tweet Marvel Comics, Rick Remender, and Captain America editor Tom Brevoort with their concerns, using the hashtag #FireRickRemender.
And I’m sorry.
I understand that the hashtag, and the arguments held under its banner, could have been (and were) seen as personal attacks. And for that, I apologize. I was coming from a place of upset, discomfort, disgust, and outrage, and I acted solely from that place.
I am genuinely sorry for any personal affront my actions may have caused.
What I am not sorry for is everything that came afterward.
We are always writing the other, we are always writing the self. We bump into this basic, impossible riddle every time we tell stories. When we create characters from backgrounds different than our own, we’re really telling the deeper story of our own perception. We muddle through these heated discussions at panels, in comments sections, on social media, in classrooms — the intersections of power and identity, privilege and resistance. How do we respectfully write from the perspectives of others? Below are 12 guidelines to get you started.
One of the best articles I’ve read on the subject. I want to hand this out at every art & diversity panel I speak on. Seriously.
I would like to consider the Hobby Lobby case currently under decision at the Supreme Court and the ways in which the issues at stake which will be decided as of Monday. For the plaintiffs (Hobby Lobby) the requirement to provide contraceptive coverage to women as mandated under the Affordable Care Act violates the tenets of their religious beliefs regarding contraception as well as their ability to perform their underlying religious duty to provide healthcare to their employees. In examining the merits of that claim, Justice Sonia Sotomayor made reference to a previous case under a different iteration of the Court in which she outlined that the corporate exercise of religion and religious exemption from certain employer workplace obligations cannot, if granted, impose an additional burden on non-religiously affiliated businesses. This is a particularly compelling and instructive principle from which to approach these and related issues because it protects both the government and those with businesses that are religiously affiliated from having to assess the sincerity of a religiously held objection. In short, by maintaining that all employers are subject to the various workplace regulations that may get passed during the time of their operations, this principle establishes a quality of burden such that all businesses are equally affected by legislative provisions.
However, the Hobby Lobby plaintiffs claim that if they chose not to provide any coverage to their employees whatsoever, the financial penalty they would suffer due to the guidelines of the Affordable Care Act, combined with the damage that such a reality would do to their competitive ability to attract and retain workers, creates an untenable situation. This damage, combined with their inability to provide health coverage as an outgrowth of their religious obligation, provides the foundation for their claim against the government. One of the hypothetical solutions proposed by the plaintiffs would be to have the government directly provide the desired contraception to employees of religiously affiliated corporations. An issue that arises if one considers the validity of such a solution is to simply imagine the extent to which all for-profit employers could potentially claim a religious objection to any sort of health coverage, in light of the fact that they could defer the cost of providing those benefits to the government itself. I think this would create the very situation that Sotomayor is trying to articulate and avoid, that is to say, it creates an undue burden on non-religiously affiliated, for-profit corporations. Additionally, it could also invite questions of sincerity of religious belief, which the government and courts have no standing to assess. Furthermore, it could create a scenario in which religious objections to all sorts of government policy could be actualized, even at the most basic level of taxes.
I think the Court would be best suited to follow the logic which would seek to protect the interests of non-religiously affiliated businesses and also shield the religious exemption from becoming a commodified good which can be adopted with the underlying aim of cutting costs and increasing profit. I am not persuaded that a corporate entity can collectively exercise religion, especially when those religious beliefs could run counter to the beliefs and desires of their employees. That the employees of Hobby Lobby itself are responsible for seeking the addition of contraceptive coverage undercuts Hobby Lobby’s ability to claim, as a collective corporate entity, a thoroughgoing, religiously-held belief. This is what separates Hobby Lobby from not for profit religious institutions, all of which have ways of seeking routine exemption from the Affordable Care Act. Finally, due to Hobby Lobby’s existence as a for-profit entity subject to nondiscrimination clauses for hiring practices, it is not the case that Hobby Lobby can simply hire those employees for whom contraceptive coverage would not be desired. Again, the nature of Hobby Lobby as a business, that is to say, a thing which exists primarily to make money, makes it subject to taxes that Congress enacts and the underlying obligation to consider all employees for hire, regardless of their religious affiliation.
To summarize my perspective on the case of Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby Inc., consider the following quotation that Justice Sotomayor referenced from a previous Supreme Court Decision (U.S. v. Lee (1982)): “When followers of a particular sect enter into a commercial activity as a matter of choice, the limits they accept on their own conduct as a matter of conscience and faith are not to be superimposed on the statutory schemes which are binding on others in that activity.” In short, to extend privilege to religious corporations at the expense of nonreligious corporations creates a whole host of potential issues and should be avoided for the sake of employees and the overall integrity of the regulations which govern all businesses and for those reasons I hope the Court finds in favor of the Department of Health and Human Services’ arguments.