Pyjama Party – Tofino Style!

Monday, May 20th, 2013 05:00 pm
[syndicated profile] did_you_make_that_feed

Posted by didyoumakethat

Tofino Sewing Pattern

A few readers have commented that another Pyjama Party might be nice, and who am I to refuse? How kind of Sewaholic to bring out the perfect beginner-friendly pattern just in time! Have you seen the fantastic Tofino pattern, released today?

Hundreds of us signed up to the Pyjama Party last year. To explain to new readers, we took part in a sewalong whereby people made their own set of pyjama bottoms and shared them on an agreed date in a worldwide big reveal. PJs are great for beginners and more experienced Sewists. We had the biggest laugh! I also did a series of tutorials on making pyjama bottoms, which I’ll be repeating this year starting 3 June, using the new pattern from Sewaholic.

tofino pants

I love this pattern, with its cute bow and wide (read comfortable) legs. Those side panels and piping details allow for some fun fabric combinations, too. So many great decisions to make!

There’s no obligation to work from this pattern. You can make any pyjama bottoms you like – for yourself, for the kids, for partners or friends. If you like, you can even sew pieces together in the wrong order, as Four Square Walls did last year.

four-square-walls

There ain’t no rules at a pyjama party! Well, maybe one rule…

The key date for your diary is 23 June. That’s when this year’s Pyjama Party will go live and we’ll party like our mom and dad let us stay up way past our bed time. There will, of course, be goodies to win – more on that later. There may also be an opportunity for us to Show And Tell 21st-century stylee – more on that later. And if I don’t see at least one blogger jumping up and down on their bed, I will be gravely disappointed. (Note – you don’t have to be a blogger to take part. Just email me a photo of your make.)

experiments-and-accidents

With thanks to Experiments and Accidents

So start dreaming about fabric, sourcing your pattern and stocking up on the popcorn. Guys, we are going to have FUN!


[syndicated profile] fullfact_feed

Posted by Federica Cocco

As well as legalising gay marriage, MPs are debating whether to extend civil partnerships to all couples. Ministers have said the amendement would cost taxpayers between £3-4 billion. Does this figure stack up?

"The Government has suggested that extending civil partnerships would hit the Treasury with an extra £4 billion in pension liabilities." The Telegraph, 20 May 2013

After the European referendum, the latest headache for the coalition has been brought about by the hoo-ha surrounding the new same sex marriage bill. In a time of economic instability and public sector cuts, can the country afford to extend the same right to all couples?

Recently, there have been talks to introduce civil partnerships for opposite-sex couples after an amendment was tabled by Conservative former families minister Tim Loughton, who opposes same-sex marriage.

The 2004 Civil Partnership Act created a union which is very similar, though not identical, to marriage. Civil partners have the same rights as married couples in many areas which include tax, social security, inheritance and workplace benefits.

Critics fear that passing an amendedment to introduce these benefits for all couples would delay the bill, and postpone the legalisation of gay marriage. They have also raised the issue of costs. 

Maria Miller, Secretary of State for Media, Culture and Sports, has suggested on the Today Programme this morning that amending the Same-Sex Marriage bill to include civil partnerships for straight couples would be too expensive. To the tune of £4 billion in occupational pensions and survivor benefits. However the Minister didn't give the source for the figure was or say how the sum was calculated.

What do the the balance sheets say?

We asked the Department for Culture, Media and Sport but they were unable to provide us with precise information or evidence that would back up the claim. Instead we were told the estimates relate to the cost of equalising survivor benefits for widowers and widows "across the public service schemes."

They also told us that the figure was first mentioned at a meeting last week of the Joint Committee on Human Rights by the Pensions Minister Steve Webb.

This is what he said:

Chair, just to think through the pensions space, if you allowed opposite-sex couples to form a civil partnership, the question then would be if their pension rights, in respect of each other, look like those of a married opposite-sex couple. There would be a strong argument for that. I do not know what the Government would decide but, if it decided that, you would have a whole set of people who at the moment have no survivors’ pension rights at all who would suddenly have survivors’ rights. It is pretty clear that, as soon as you have gone down that route, you might end up in a position of full equality, for example, for widowers expecting the same rights as widows. We have costed that of the order of £3 billion to £4 billion cost to public service pension schemes. Once you have opened that up that is one potential scale of impact. [Emphasis added]

Of course, this doesn't tell us anything more. Shiv Malik from the Guardian has also been chasing this story, and was told by the Treasury today that the £3-4 billion cost figure for the amendment is "illustrative". It's unclear whether this is a back-of the-envelope calculation or an estimate based on an in-depth level of detail and supported by extensive research.  

We are putting in an FOI request to both the Treasury and the DWP to find out how the calculation was made and whether it is sound. We will update this factcheck as soon as we hear back. 

---

Flickr image courtesy of Melody Kramer

Game of Thrones Recap: Second Sons

Monday, May 20th, 2013 04:32 pm
[syndicated profile] the_mary_sue_feed

Posted by Jill Pantozzi

Hey, everyone! It’s Jill filling in for Rebecca for this week’s Game of Thrones recap. So, have we picked up momentum after two so-so episodes?

[SPOILERS]

All I could think at the start of the episode intro was, “Please no Theon torture scenes this week, please no Theon torture scenes this week.” Thankfully, Theon, and us, got a breather from that bit of nastiness. Instead, we opened on Arya and the Hound, brought together by a kidnapping last week. Arya attempts to kill him in his sleep but of course he already knows she’s there. After he goads her on, she contemplates how much she needs her hands and decides against it. They set off on what looks like a very uncomfortable horse ride with even more uncomfortable small talk. The Hound mentions Sansa which perks Arya’s ears but she is quickly distracted when she finds out where they’re headed. Not back to King’s Landing – “Fuck Joffrey, fuck the Queen,” says the Hound – he’s taking her to Riverrun to ransom her to her mother and brother. Finally, a family reunion!

Meanwhile, Daenerys & Co. are spying on the Second Sons, a group of sell swords near Yunkai. She decides to meet with them to see if they’ll join her cause. There’s Mero, who goes by “the Titan’s Bastard,” Prendahl na Ghezn, and Daario Naharis. Mero is incredibly cocky from the get-go. He’s not impressed with Daenerys at all and insists they can’t possibly fight for her considering they already have a contract with the Yunkai. It’s one insult after another, most of a sexual nature, and eventually the three leave with a barrel of wine as a show of her willingness to work with them. We can see the behavior is getting on Dany’s nerves throughout the scene but she keeps her cool until after they leave, telling Selmy to “Kill that one first,” when it comes to battle, meaning Mero.

Melisandre and Gendry arrive at Dragonstone and Stannis remains unconvinced a bastard will do anything to help their cause. He gives Melisandre a critical eye when he believes she means to treat Gendry with extremely good favor, only to ensure him it’s just like slaughtering a lamb, you have to keep them unafraid before the deed. Davos is still down in the dungeons learning to read when his king comes to visit. The two talk some sense about Melisandre and what Davos believes is a needless sacrifice when Stannis admits he’s come to free him. He just has to agree to never raises his hand to Melisandra again. While Stannis doesn’t open up often, he admits he had a vision he is convinced came from the Red God – a great battle in the snow. Well, winter is coming, after all.

We’re back near Yunkai where Daario strokes a sharp-looking knife with a woman’s body for a hilt and Mero and Prendahl discuss what to do with Dany. Mero goes on again about how Dany is basically just a piece of meat to him (while he gropes a prostitute sits on his lap) and  Daario insists he prefers women who actually want to have sex with him, and men who want to kill him. After a bit more discussion they decide Dany is to be assassinated and Daario winds up with the task.

In King’s Landing, it’s time for a wedding. But not Joffrey and Margaery’s, Sansa and Tyrion’s. Tyrion asks her if she drinks wine and suggests this might be the day to drink lots of it. At the Sept of Balor we get a fantastic scene between Margaery and Cersei. They discuss the song, the “Rains of Castamere,” a story about social climbing and people dying at Lannister hands. What seem like subtle threats to Margaery’s goals in life turn into not so subtle ones as Cersei tells her if she ever refers to her as a sister again, she’ll strangle her in her sleep.

Well then.

Awful King Joffrey shows up with his awful smirking face to walk Sansa down the aisle. Why? Oh, because your dad’s dead, remember?! Longest. Walk. Ever.

Once they’re both to the alter, Joffrey removes a step stool placed there for Tyrion. Part of the wedding ceremony is to cloak the bride as a proverbial protection but without the stool, Tyrion can’t reach Sansa’s shoulders. Laughter starts to spread through the small crowd until Tyrion finally asks her to bend down. They face the man set to marry them and I swear to god I though the Princess Bride priest voice was going to come out of the actor.

Gendry is getting awkwardly comfortable at Dragonstone. Melisandre plays to just about everything about him. She knows he’s wary so she tastes the wine offered to him to let him know it’s not poisoned (a moot point, we know). She also tries to sympathize with him, saying she also started low in life. And then he practically chugs a glass of wine. If anyone doubted he’s King Robert’s son, now’s your time to put those doubts away. And then Melisandre starts to seduce him. They wind up having intercourse but partway through she ties him up. Ok, he might not have had a lot of experience but he’s not too concerned. Yet. Then come the leeches. And not just randomly placed – she puts one on his junk. Poor guy. As if things weren’t bad enough, Stannis and Davos show up and she removes the leeches. Three of them – one for Robb, Balon Greyjoy, and Joffrey – are placed into the flames and named to the Red God, most likely in the hopes they’ll die. Will the King’s blood do the trick?

The wedding feast at King’s Landing is a big mess. Lady Olenna is making her children uncomfortable by talking about the terribly complicated family tree they now have, Tyrion is getting wasted, and Sansa is trying to disappear into her chair. Tywin attempts to give Tyrion a talking to, which doesn’t go all that well because…drunk. Loras attempts smalltalk with Cersei only to be shut down hard and fast.

And then Joffrey threatens to rape Sansa. Well, more like promises. When he sees Sansa’s reaction to his suggestion of bedding her after Tyrion, he lets her know his guards will hold her down for him. Just when she thought she was out, right? To make matters worse, a drunk-on-power Joffrey announces the bedding ceremony, when the guests are meant to help disrobe the bride and groom and take them to bed. Tyrion, having enough of this farse, threatens Joffrey publicly. Yup, alcohol will make you do stupid things. Back in the happy couple’s wedding chambers Sansa reminds her new husband she’s just 14 and goes straight for some wine when Tyrion reminds her he’s been ordered to consumate their marriage. But as we’ve seen from Tyrion before, he doesn’t want any part of this and stops Sansa from undressing. He says he will only bed her when she wants him to, to which she replies, “What if I never want you to?” Well then, says Tyrion, “And so my watch begins.”

In Daenerys’ camp, Missandei is talking some serious shit about Dany’s Dothraki. The language, not the people. It’s a pretty cute scene cut short by Daario revealing himself. Sitting naked in a bath, with no guards, Dany is pretty vulnerable but Daario insists he’s not there to hurt her. Instead he drops the heads of Mero and Prendahl on the floor in front of her. Ok, that’s a pretty good way to prove your loyalty. Dany asks him to swear an oath to her anyway. “My heart is yours,” says Daario. Interesting…

One more quick stop back at King’s Landing where Shae wakes up a severely hungover Tyrion and untouched Sansa. How does she know she’s untouched? She finds clean bedsheets.

We unexpectedly meet back up with Sam and Gilly who need to stop for the night and just happen to do so by a weirwood tree. And some crows seem to be gathering. How odd. The two seem to be getting along quite well and Sam is certainly better at talking to her now that they’ve spent so much time together. He jokes about the baby winking at him and she asks if he talks fancy to confuse her. There’s more of a ruckus going on outside as tons more crows have landed in the area. “I’ll be back…” says Sam. Oh, Sam. Don’t say, “you’ll be right back,” because you won’t be back. Or at least that’s how it seems. Out in the darkness comes one single White Walker. Actually, it’s that White Walker that seemingly led the attack on the Night’s Watch early in the season, the one that passed Sam by as he sat shivering and scared in the snow. Without any hesitation, Sam raises his sword to the creature. And the creature shatters it with his bare hands.

Crap.

The While Walker heads toward Gilly and the baby when Sam remembers he has one more weapon on him, the black dagger he picked up on his travels. He sinks it deep into the White Walkers back and…the White Walker shatters.

THREE CHEERS FOR SAM!!

General Thoughts:

While there wasn’t a terrible amount of action in this episode, at least all of these scenes furthered the story. At no point did I feel like we were wasting time. And I’m pretty sure Peter Dinklage’s drunken acting might have just earned him another Emmy. Just two more episodes left in the season but guess what? We have to wait two weeks for the next episode, HBO is premiering Behind the Candelabra next Sunday. Dammit, Liberace.

Book-related notes:

Daario was not a Second Son but a Stormcrow in the books, a group of mercenaries. Mero is not killed by Daario but by a mob of freedmen after an attempt on Dany’s life, and Daario kills Prendahl and Sallor the Bald, a character seemingly deleted from the story here, in order to show his devotion to Dany.

The Tyrion/Sansa wedding played out pretty much exactly like in the books and they captured the absolute mortified experience of both the husband and wife very well.

Arya doesn’t actually have her run-in/kidnapping by the Hound until both of them arrive at Riverrun separately but this doesn’t really change anything.

Gendry is no where near Dragonstone in the books, it’s another of Robert’s bastards, Edric Storm, Melisadre intends to sacrifice. I wonder if Gendry’s role will play out as Edric’s does or if they’ll continue on in another direction with him?

Are you following The Mary Sue on Twitter, Facebook, Tumblr, Pinterest, & Google +?

[syndicated profile] the_mary_sue_feed

Posted by Jill Pantozzi

If you love the Lauren Faust created DC Nation short, Super Best Friends Forever, you’re in luck. Although we won’t be seeing any more animated shorts (at least anytime soon), DC has made the wise decision to create a San Diego Comic-Con exclusive statue set. USA Today has the rest of the DC con exclusives but we have tunnel vision right now. Take our money. Take it now. The three together will run $49.95 and of course, you’ll have to physically be at SDCC or know someone going to get one. Or risk scary Ebay prices after the fact.

(via DC Women Kicking Ass)

Are you following The Mary Sue on Twitter, Facebook, Tumblr, Pinterest, & Google +?

[syndicated profile] the_mary_sue_feed

Posted by Susana Polo

I say “in case,” because there were rumors of this last week, and Yahoo announced that they’d be announcing the purchase of Tumblr yesterday, and even when I turned on the radio this morning, it to hear legitimate news outlets attempting to talk about the ball of bizarre that is the Tumblr blogging platform. I also say “in case,” because Tumblrers have been understandably flipping their wigs about it, so I should say up front, “in case,” that the above image isn’t an officially changed logo, it’s just something that the internet whipped up in the past few days. Other things the internet has whipped up in the past few days? The idea that Yahoo is going to eradicate fandom blogs from Tumblr.

Yeah. That’s not a real thing, gullible underbelly of Tumblr. Lets talk about real things.

Yahoo!, a company without a lot of youth appeal in the current internet age, nor a lot of experience in social networks or mobile technologies; has purchased Tumblr, a company that needs money, for somewhere around $1.1 billion.

[Tumblr] burned through an estimated $25 million in cash last year, and struggled to raise additional money at an acceptable valuation, according to people briefed on the matter who were not authorized to speak publicly about it. That prompted [founder David Karp] to begin deal discussions with a number of companies, including Facebook, Microsoft and Google, though nothing came of those talks.

Karp allayed concerns that the acquisition would mean sweeping changes in Tumblr headquarters this morning “We’re not turning purple. Our headquarters isn’t moving. Our team isn’t changing. Our roadmap isn’t changing.” In his words, Yahoo! is going to allow them to do more to improve Tumblr, faster, and he maintains that the two companies have convergent goals for Tumblr’s future.

So you can relax: Yahoo! isn’t going to take your meticulously curated blog full of gifsets of Dummy from the Iron Man series. In fact, they just paid $1.1 billion for it.

(via The New York Times.)

[syndicated profile] the_mary_sue_feed

Posted by Susana Polo

The BBC promised, and have delivered: in thanks for the spoiler-filled silence of two hundred and ten fans who were accidentally shipped their Series 7 DVDs, containing this weekend’s season finale, quite a bit early, we get to see this brief video of David Tennant and Matt Smith chatting about being the Doctor and what it’s like to be on the set of the 50th Anniversary special.

[syndicated profile] the_mary_sue_feed

Posted by Zoe Chevat

Into Darkness, that colon-less second installment of New Trek kicking off the summer season is a lot of things, including plentifully humorous, bombastic, well-designed, and confused about its purpose. Like the villain that menaced us from all those teaser posters, Into Darkness makes us wonder what, ultimately, it’s up to. Identity is a key factor to wonder about as, two movies in, even casual Trekkie patience is worn thin by a stream of visual and idealistic incursions that belong to other films. Make no mistake; Into Darkness is a good popcorn-crunching experience, swift on its feet and full of action and jokes. It’s just not, like its predecessor, much of a Star Trek film.

Ensign, take us to SPOILERS.

Our fresh-faced Kirk (Chris Pine), Spock (Zachary Quinto), Uhura (Zöe Saldana), and the rest of the crew are back, getting into their customary trouble and not a few anthropological disasters. But fun, games, and meaningless demotions are brought to an abrupt halt when first an archive, and then a meeting of Starfleet command, are viciously attacked by one of their own. The impression that this first bombing will lead to a series of terrorist-like attacks city-, and, even, world-wide, is a terrifying prospect. The initial threat, however, loses its sting as Kirk volunteers to give chase to the fugitive, and the action moves far, far away into space, picking up plot debris as it goes.

A not-insignificant amount of this debris is carried by the central villain, played with many a snarl and a sneer by Benedict Cumberbatch. Super smart, superhuman, and bloody determined, the figure known only as ‘John Harrison’ alternately fights, then helps save, then surrenders to our intrepid heroes. Why the manipulative behavior? As he goes on to explain, he is not John Harrison at all, but part of a group of genetic experiment test subjects from 300 years ago. Unfrozen from cryostasis, he’s first out to avenge the crew he believes is dead, then out to retrieve them from their clever hiding place; inside 72 fresh photon torpedoes handed to Kirk by Admiral Marcus to blow Harrison to kingdom come. Clever indeed, but that’s to be expected from the worthy and deadly adversary whose real name is Khan Noonien Singh.

Surprised? Didn’t think so. No one is really, as rumors that Cumberbatch was portraying a whitewashed Khan have circulated from the start of film production. As our chief editor rightfully pointed out, Abrams’ delight in unnecessary secrecy (it’s not as if, after all, the presence of Khan in the movie hinged on some kind of grand reveal, twist, huge surprise, or meaningful fakeout) kept him inadvertently safe from the criticism the casting might have garnered. It’s less a testament to any direct racism, than it is emblematic of his general carelessness with the material at hand. But, the fact remains, it is a slap in the face to not only an audience seeking representation by having more persons of color inhabit the main cast, but to Gene Roddenberry’s central beliefs. In creating Star Trek, Roddenberry sought to show a future where people from all over the world (and beings from all over the galaxy) were brought together by a mission of exploration and diplomacy. And for those who wonder why a villain would be a preferable slot to fill with a non-white casting, we hasten to remind readers of all the attractive, intelligent, and memorable villains that have inhabited the screen. Either we love to hate them, or love to love them straight up, but villainy often gets its own fanclub. Additionally, the intelligent, charismatic villain whose cause the audience nearly sympathizes with is a facet of villainy rarely offered to actors of color. In Batman Begins and The Dark Knight Returns, the production at least humored us with alternate versions of the characters to explain why the masterminds Ra’s al Ghul and Bane were not played by, respectively, Arab and Latino actors. Into Darkness, on the other hand, firmly establishes its Khan as the same entity from the previous timeline, but quietly fails to mention that the experiment that created him created test subjects from a variety of ethnic groups, and that his has been established as Indian (if not specifically Sikh).

Khan’s significance derives from his original appearances, one that Trek newcomers may be wholly unaware of. Yet, when Cumberbatch growls out his true identity, we’re supposed to gasp in recognition. New Trek continuously falls on its own sword by both denying the importance of anything from the original – thereby spitting in the faces of fans everywhere – while simultaneously relying on it for dramatic effect. You could call it “New 52 Syndrome”, because it’s essentially the same problem; a formula that manages to alienate both the die-hard devotees the franchise relies on for nostalgia sales, and the new audience it was hoping to draw in by disregarding the property’s heritage.

Speaking of race, here the wonder of an inter-planetary cooperative network is relegated to the background. Everything in Into Darkness, from the initial mission the Enterprise is sent on, to the lensflare slugfest that defines the final space battle, is personal, and lacking the scale the movie starts out by implying. Earth isn’t in danger, as the threat of setting off war with the Klingons is a plot bomb diffused early on, kept around by mention as further evidence of the chest-high betrayal pit Kirk & Co. have found themselves in. While there would be no problem with a personal vendetta outlining the film’s actions, the movie repeatedly goes out of its way to talk about the evils of seeking bloodthirsty revenge. Khan kills mercilessly to avenge (what he believes is) his dead crew, and he’s wrong for doing so. At the same time, the whole reason Kirk gets fired up to chase after Khan isn’t a noble sense of loyalty to Starfleet, or even to his home planet; it’s because his mentor/father figure was killed in one of Khan’s attacks.

This hand-wavy attitude applies to any moral constructs or rules established by the film, which are made only to be broken or subverted immediately. When a suspicious Spock, temporarily at the helm, hails his future self (Leonard Nimoy, making his contractual cameo appearance) on New Vulcan, he’s reminded that details of the alternative timeline cannot be shared, lest they irrevocably alter the course of history. Those details, though vague, are then shared within a sentence. It’s a small example, but one that echoes the film’s near continuous in-script self-sabotage. Here, the big problem is that the very principles the film, and the New Trek franchise, has set up as their internal moral compass are of no consequence once things start blowing up. The main thrust of the plot is the threat of a militarized Starfleet making ready to go to war with the non-Federation Klingons. Much is made of the evils of militarization, yet violent, militarized tactics are exactly how every problem is solved, by good guy and bad alike. Trek was always the place where shooting happened after questions, but maybe Abrams thinks a modern audience wouldn’t stand for anything as slow-paced as deliberate shows of diplomacy, so they’ve been nearly written right out.

Many of these complaints may sound familiar, and that’s because they’re near copies of complaints made by many (including yours truly) during the first reboot’s release in 2009. But I genuinely enjoyed the first New Trek, citing it as fun, light, and fresh, an exciting new venture where Star Trek had been transformed into Star Wars, but with no particularly ill effects to mar the transition. But when ignorance of what Trek represents is the central focus of the plot, it becomes impossible to ignore its incongruities any longer. New Trek doesn’t appear to appreciate or understand the basic philosophies that have made the franchise so appealing to millions of fans, nor does it particularly care. It isn’t about the broader questions that might unite a galaxy of individuals and races, questions that defined the original television runs, and left viewers enamored. Instead, it’s about keeping the action moving, more and bigger, at a pace that makes one wonder if Abrams fears we’ll get bored. Here, just the opposite proves true. We don’t get bored, exactly, but the lack of philosophy, not of dynamite effects, makes his blockbuster unable to win over hearts or minds.

T-Shirt Giveaway #1

Monday, May 20th, 2013 03:00 pm
[syndicated profile] stitchpunk_feed

Posted by Niamh

giveaway1

Woo birthdays!

In case you haven’t noticed, it’s our birthday month around here, and to celebrate turning the big 5 we’ve kicked off not only a storewide sale (OMG go shop now!), but 5 chances to win one of these limited edition Urban Threads tees!  Three this week with Monday (today) Wednesday and Friday, and two next week on Tuesday (our actual birthday!) and Thursday.

back_shirt

shirt1

This rocking tee features a grungy graphic print of our new coloring contest freebie design, with the Urban Threads URL on the back. It’s bold and crafty and just a little bit punk, kinda like Urban Threads. So, how do you enter to win a chance at your tee today?

Today you can enter to win one of these rad shirts by leaving a comment on this post telling us what your favorite Category is on Urban Threads. This could be anything from a giant category like Art Styles, or something more specific like the Steampunk & Victorian section. What’s the place you find yourself visiting most? Leave it in the comments for this post by tonight at 11:59 p.m., Central time (that’s basically before midnight tonight) to enter for a chance to win your own UT shirt!

Ready? GO! And be sure to celebrate 5 awesome years of alternative embroidery by shopping the ENTIRE collection on SALE for a limited time!

Alright, let’s make this official

Monday, May 20th, 2013 11:29 am
innerbrat: (heart + stomach)
[personal profile] innerbrat

I’m going home.

This is not what I wanted, and it’s stressing me the fuck out.

But it’s okay in many ways. I miss Abby. And Charlie. I miss Izzy, and Sam and Lauren. And I hate uncertainty.

New York was the very best thing I could have done for myself. The reasons didn’t pan out, but I am a healthier, happier, more knowledgable person than I was three years ago. And New York, Bank Street, Gotham Girls, Ana and Becca made that happen.

The job I’m leaving is the very best job I could ever have had – the job and my boss and everything about it seemed so perfectly designed for me and my expertise and my personality that me not getting to do it for longer feels like concrete disproof of the existence of narrativium in our lives.

I don’t want to go.

But I can do it.

Now, who wants to buy my comics?

This post can also be found at Thagomizer.net. Feel free to join in the conversation wherever you feel most comfortable.

monsters at coolock library, dublin!

Monday, May 20th, 2013 02:39 pm
[syndicated profile] sarah_mcintyre_feed
So Dublin Writer's Festival has started off with a bang! Or should I say... a GROWL? Today I led a big pack of boys from Scoil Fhursa in reading Morris the Mankiest Monster and drawing their own awesome monsters.



To begin, here's the monster they helped me draw.



Then they were off! We had a huge roll of Fabriano paper, oil pastels and chunky crayons, and I encouraged them to draw big and bold. And they did!



Big thanks to the teachers, assistants and head librarian Mags Curley (far right), and Irma Grothius who escorted me there and back.



More monsters! If you want to get involved in the Get Drawn In programme this week, check out the programme here! More good news: Mountains to Sea Festival in Dún Laoghaire just announced their Schools Programme today! And special treat, my fabulous studio mate, Gary Northfield, will be doing a TEENYTINYSAURS event on Friday, 6 September. Find out about it on the Mountains to Sea website here!


















Discrimination and Marriage Inequality

Monday, May 20th, 2013 11:11 am
jimhines: (Snoopy Writing)
[personal profile] jimhines

I’m still waiting for someone — anyone — to present an argument against same-sex marriage that doesn’t boil down to, “My religion doesn’t approve” or “I think it’s icky.” Using the former as an excuse for discrimination is about as unAmerican as you can get, and the latter is just asinine.

While politicians and bigots continue to argue that “those people” don’t need “special rights or protections” under the law, here’s some of what’s been going on recently…

In Texas, a judge enforced a clause in Carolyn Compton’s divorce papers which states that, “someone who has a ‘dating or intimate relationship’ with the person or is not related ‘by blood or marriage’ is not allowed after 9 p.m. when the children are present.” Since Carolyn’s partner of three years is a woman and Texas has laws against same-sex marriage, the judge has essentially made it illegal for them to live together.

In New York, Elliot Morales shot Marc Carson, a gay man, in the face at point blank range, killing him. Elliot had followed Carson and his companion, and was heard yelling anti-gay slurs and asking, “You want to die tonight?”

In Chatham, Canada, an openly gay 13-year-old boy was attacked by four older teenagers, who called him “faggot” and “queer,” told him he was going to hell, and beat him. One of the boys pulled a knife and threatened to kill him.

Rep. Mark Pocan became the first member of Congress to obtain a congressional ID card identifying his same-sex partner as his spouse. However, his husband is still legally excluded from receiving health, pension, and other benefits.

In Washington state, lawmakers have proposed a bill that would provide an exception to anti-discrimination law and allow businesses to refuse service based on sexual orientation.

David and Jason married in New York in 2012, but Jason is a UK citizen. As a result, Jason is unable to stay in the country. In order to see his husband, Jason has to get a Tourist Visa, which allows them to be together for 90 days. Jason is now being warned that he’s used too many Tourist Visas, and has been advised to stay out of the U.S. for at least six months.

In New York, two gay men were pursued by a group that shouted anti-gay slurs and then beat them. Both victims were hospitalized. One required eye surgery.

So go ahead. Explain to me why we’re still denying people equal rights and protection under the law. Explain to me why any of this is okay. Explain how you sleep at night, knowing that these things are the direct result of our refusal to recognize “those people” as equal. Or even to recognize them as people.

Mirrored from Jim C. Hines.

[syndicated profile] political_betting_feed

Posted by Mike Smithson

What does this say about Dave’s current position

There’s definitely “something in the air” about the Conservatives at the moment and I’m one of many, I guess, who’ve had a punt on him facing a leadership challenge before GE2015.

    My sense is that if it did get to this stage then he’d lose – but I’ve covered this eventiality with a smaller bet at the 5/1 that he’ll face a challenge and survive.

We are now just over 23 months from the GE2015 and, no doubt, many of those Tories who won seats in 2010 are starting to get a bit anxious, especially when they work out the implication in their individual seats of the growing Ukip shares.

If we look at the form book the Tories do bring down leaders they fear will be an electoral liability.

Mike Smithson

For the latest polling and political betting news


[syndicated profile] carl_minns_feed

Posted by Carl Minns

From The Telegraph

"And thus it is revealed: this is the Tory election masterplan for 2015. It’s based on getting out that vital 0.0000000000000001 per cent of the electorate that went to Eton, personally knows and likes David Cameron, lives in the nice bit of Notting Hill, is totally cool with gay marriage, and who isn't called "Jesse"."

Please Don’t Pop These Pop-Culture Balloons

Monday, May 20th, 2013 02:17 pm
[syndicated profile] the_mary_sue_feed

Posted by Jill Pantozzi


Enable JavaScript to check out our fancy slideshow.


  1. 1.
  2. 2.
  3. 3.
  4. 4.
  5. 5.
  6. 6.
  7. 7.
  8. 8.
  9. 9.
  10. 10.
  11. 11.
  12. 12.
  13. 13.

[View All on One Page]

I’m no expert but Michael Abrahamson seems to be pretty damn good when it comes to balloon art. And he’s always up for a challenge, in case you were wondering. Take a look at which Disney, video game, and comic book characters he’s created with little rubber and some air.

(via io9)

Are you following The Mary Sue on Twitter, Facebook, Tumblr, Pinterest, & Google +?

Glad I packed a lunch

Monday, May 20th, 2013 10:27 am
missdiane: (Sparkly boxes)
[personal profile] missdiane
Cook campus graduation going on as we speakCut for pic being a little larger than I'd anticipated )
See that building behind the sea of students? Yep, I'm in there on the first floor *waves*

Our building is the one that wandering lost parents and clueless now former students will wander into to use our potties which are only located in the basement or on the third floor. Good times. 

EDIT: I am soooo going to start schlepping to the third floor when my tiny bladder needs releived. Graduation is still going on and that basement bathroom is a disaster area. Makes me wonder if these people are just as sloppy at home. I know my personal bathroom sink isn't SOAKED with water.

IP Support Engineer

Friday, May 17th, 2013 03:29 pm
[syndicated profile] brighouse_jobs_today_feed
Magdalene are currently recruiting an IP Support Engineer to join a large Managed service team based in the UK. You will be providing back office support for a Mobile network IP infrastructure project into one of the UK's leading telecommunications companies. You will need to be available to start as soon as possible. This will be a 6 month rolling contract.

The Main Purpose of the Job:
As the IP Support Engineer you will take responsibility for:
* Operational control and maintenance of IP equ

Sky News blames Hillsborough on miners strike

Monday, May 20th, 2013 01:54 pm
[syndicated profile] newsarse_feed

Posted by waylandsmithy

A Sky News documentary will tonight make the astonishing claim that the Hillsborough disaster was the fault of Arthur Scargill.
[syndicated profile] love_and_liberty_feed

Posted by Alex Wilcock


Today’s Liberal Monday celebrates the 207th birthday of Liberal philosopher and politician John Stuart Mill. With Harriet Taylor, he wrote arguably Liberalism’s most influential text of all: On Liberty, the book that created the Harm Principle, from which I’ve picked two key quotations. For many Liberal Democrats, this crystallises the party’s essential belief, and I’ve already touched on it in both previous Liberal Mondays in freedom from conformity and from other restraints… But, though you can see On Liberty’s influence right through to today’s Equal Marriage bill, it still challenges Lib Dems – has it really influenced our policies enough?
“The only freedom which deserves the name, is that of pursuing our own good in our own way, so long as we do not attempt to deprive others of theirs, or impede their efforts to obtain it.”

“The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilised community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not a sufficient warrant.”
This principle is so widely known and debated that this time I won’t analyse it at length. However, even if not every Liberal reads On Liberty once a year (as former Leader Jo Grimond suggested), and if you only read those two points from it, in campaigning Lib Dem style I’d suggest three things to remember – and one thing to think about.


Three Things To Remember
  • Between them, these two statements for me sum up the heart of On Liberty, and start off modern Liberalism. I treasure the first, because it’s a positive statement that’s a simple principle to understand but with enormous consequences. It’s greatly influenced a great many Liberals and me, too, not least in my own What the Lib Dems Stand For.
  • And I always remember the second, because this time it expresses the same rallying cry as a warning: ordering people about ‘For your own good’ is the most superficially tempting, the most difficult to stand against and the most widely practised by every government of all threats to liberty. It’s greatly influenced the Lib Dems, not least in the Preamble that sets our party’s creed uniquely as “No-one shall be enslaved by poverty, ignorance or conformity.”
  • Though John Stuart Mill wrote a great many books and essays, this is his most famous, his most lasting and still his most controversial (or influential). And he wrote it with his friend and later wife Harriet Taylor, who never gets the credit – except every time Mr Mill himself talked about who wrote it. So when you think about “Mill’s Harm Principle,” remember that it’s not just about the Great Victorian Man. His publishers may not have given Ms Taylor credit, but you can. So try to ignore the Victorian language that only says “he”; unlike many politicians of the age, Mr Mill was an early advocate of equality.

One Thing To Think About

But for all that the Liberal Democrats think of ourselves as inspired by On Liberty – it’s even the book handed down to each Party President on their election – how much do we practise what it preaches?

I sometimes feel a strange kinship with Evelyn Waugh’s lament that:
“The Conservative Party have never put the clock back a single second.”
How many laws have the Liberal Democrats put back? And how many have we acquiesced in or cheer-led? After Labour’s smothering record more than 4,000 new laws when in power, we proposed a Great Repeal Bill, or Freedom Bill; we formed a Coalition with the Conservatives in part on a promise of enacting that Bill, with principles of freedom and personal responsibility. And yet when it came down to it, it was watered down in government to a Small Repeal Bill, or a Freedom That Won’t Frighten the Daily Mail Bill – putting authoritarianism back only a few seconds, and then it starts ticking forward again. That’s the trouble with legislation by shopping list rather than principle: it’s too easy to say you’ll take just the more difficult things out of the cart, and find you’ve got very little left in it.

I’m not even talking about the more egregious government-by-securocrat proposals that rang enough danger signals for Liberal Democrats to block – or ostentatiously fail to – such as the Snooper’s Charter or Secret Courts. It’s more the insidious danger of legislation and regulation in favour of nice things, because nice people could only ever want nice things, and so no right-thinking person could ever want nasty things, whether the wrong type of food or the wrong type of fun… And yet, if it’s so self-evident that everyone must agree, how come government needs to enforce it? Because people should be able to make their own choices, even if they’re not for their own good. Freedom means taking responsibility. And sometimes that means even insisting people have the freedom to do things that the Daily Mail does like and the Guardian doesn’t – let alone things that both scream against. Because making crimes of personal actions that other people or press puritans merely disagree means creating criminals to punish where there aren’t actually any victims. And to a Liberal, shouldn’t a “Victimless crime” be no crime at all?

So here’s something to think about, if the Liberal Democrats really are a party influenced by John Stuart Mill and Harriet Taylor. Of course we should look at the little things – removing some enforced conformities, resisting the temptation to ban things we don’t think are very nice but which are actually none of our business. Applying our Harm Principle consistently would be a revelation. But we shouldn’t get stuck in only reacting to every individual problem or proposal that comes our way. If we’re really a party of On Liberty-based Liberalism, how about thinking about where we’d actually start? How would we put that principle into practice? What if we get into government again – is it enough just to blunt the edges of government-as-it-always-is-by-authoritarian-inertia? Isn’t it time to start planning for something better? Even if it means challenging the whole legal system (and a potential coalition partner) to go back to first principles?

When are we going to stand up for freedom and personal responsibility by showing some responsibility ourselves – and freeing ourselves from the conformity of politicians who always take the safe route and order everyone else to do the same?

[syndicated profile] the_mary_sue_feed

Posted by Jill Pantozzi

The video autoplays so we’ve got it after the jump. It’s adorable. 

Spoiler warning for the end of Homeward Bound. (Oh yeah, I said it.)

I know that feel, bro.

(via The Chive)

Are you following The Mary Sue on Twitter, Facebook, Tumblr, Pinterest, & Google +?

About This Blog

picture of Jennie Rigg

Hello! I'm Jennie (known to many as SB, due to my handle, or The Yorksher Gob because of my old blog's name). This blog is my public face; click here for a list of all the other places you can find me on t'interwebs.

twitstamp.com



Ebuzzing - Top Blogs Ebuzzing - Top Blogs - Politics



==================
Awards & Endorsements:

Click for a list of awards won by this blog
Quotes about me and a list of people who have sponsored this blog can be found here.


==================
Charities I support:

The Survivors' Trust - donate here
DogsTrust - donate here
Lurcher Link - donate here
CAB - donate here

==================


Creative Commons License
Miss SB by Jennie Rigg is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Non-Commercial-No Derivative Works 2.0 UK: England & Wales License.
Based on a work at miss-s-b.dreamwidth.org.

Please note that any and all opinions expressed in this blog are subject to random change at whim my own, and not necessarily representative of my party, or any of the constituent parts thereof (except myself, obviously).

Printed by Dreamwidth Studios, Maryland USA. Promoted by Jennie Rigg, of Brighouse, West Yorkshire.

Style Credit

Style:
[personal profile] branchandroot
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios
Page generated Monday, May 20th, 2013 05:35 pm

May 2013

M T W T F S S
   1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20212223242526
2728293031  

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags

Most Popular Tags