mar

🔥 | Latest

Children, Comfortable, and Family: Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez @AOC Following If by 'the Latina thing,' she means I actually do the work instead of just talk about it, then yeah, I'm doing 'the Latina thing. Unless of course she's talking about being multilingual, which we know isn't a 'Latina thing It's a '21st century' thing Laura Ingraham And Guest Mock 'Anastasio' Ocasio-Cortez For Doi... Laura Ingraham and a guest on her prime-time Fox News show mocked Rep yahoo.com Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez O @AOC Following "How dare they refuse to say their name in a wrong accent & not mangle their own family name so that I can feel more comfortable instead of look inside myself & examine why something as small as *a person's name* makes me uncomfortable in the first place?? This is an outrage!" Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez* Following @AOC By the way: Fox News likes to say my name (incorrectly) as "Cortez," which lI can only imagine is bc that sounds more 'stereotypically' Hispanic probably incites more anxiety' for them Pro Tip: My last name is not "Cortez," just as theirs isn't "Inara" or "Carl" or "Hann ." 5:51 PM -20 Mar 2019 Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Following @AOC My last name is Ocasio-Cortez. Full stop. That's my name. No, you can't say "Cortez." l've never used that in my life. "Cortez" is referring to someone else Even if they're trying to be rude + wrong, my dad's last name was Ocasio anyway. (His name was hyphenated too, though.) 6:01 PM 20 Mar 2019 Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez @AOC Following For the curious, in Latinx culture children take *both* their parents' names. It's not a "progressive, new thing." It's just how some names work. PR hyphenates, others mark differently. Your last name: the families that came together to make you. AOC is also fine though :) 6:19 PM-20 Mar 2019 imfemalewarrior: endangered-justice-seeker: Some pundits dislike it when people of color pronounce their own names correctly Getting someone’s name correct is a sign of Respect.  -FemaleWarrior, She/They 
Children, Comfortable, and Family: Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez
 @AOC
 Following
 If by 'the Latina thing,' she means I
 actually do the work instead of just talk
 about it, then yeah, I'm doing 'the
 Latina thing.
 Unless of course she's talking about
 being multilingual, which we know isn't
 a 'Latina thing
 It's a '21st century' thing
 Laura Ingraham And Guest Mock 'Anastasio' Ocasio-Cortez For Doi...
 Laura Ingraham and a guest on her prime-time Fox News show mocked Rep
 yahoo.com

 Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez O
 @AOC
 Following
 "How dare they refuse to say their name
 in a wrong accent & not mangle their
 own family name so that I can feel more
 comfortable instead of look inside
 myself & examine why something as
 small as *a person's name* makes me
 uncomfortable in the first place?? This is
 an outrage!"

 Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez*
 Following
 @AOC
 By the way: Fox News likes to say my
 name (incorrectly) as "Cortez," which lI
 can only imagine is bc that sounds more
 'stereotypically' Hispanic probably
 incites more anxiety' for them
 Pro Tip:
 My last name is not "Cortez," just as
 theirs isn't "Inara" or "Carl" or "Hann
 ."
 5:51 PM -20 Mar 2019

 Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez
 Following
 @AOC
 My last name is Ocasio-Cortez. Full stop.
 That's my name.
 No, you can't say "Cortez." l've never
 used that in my life. "Cortez" is referring
 to someone else
 Even if they're trying to be rude +
 wrong, my dad's last name was Ocasio
 anyway.
 (His name was hyphenated too, though.)
 6:01 PM 20 Mar 2019

 Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez
 @AOC
 Following
 For the curious, in Latinx culture
 children take *both* their parents'
 names.
 It's not a "progressive, new thing." It's
 just how some names work. PR
 hyphenates, others mark differently.
 Your last name: the families that came
 together to make you.
 AOC is also fine though :)
 6:19 PM-20 Mar 2019
imfemalewarrior:

endangered-justice-seeker:

Some pundits dislike it when people of color pronounce their own names correctly


Getting someone’s name correct is a sign of Respect. 
-FemaleWarrior, She/They 

imfemalewarrior: endangered-justice-seeker: Some pundits dislike it when people of color pronounce their own names correctly Getting som...

Being Alone, America, and Click: Jason Fuller, Contributor Working to bring about the best in America, both on-line and off. Impeachment Is No Longer Enough; Donald Trump Must Face Justice Impeachment and removal from office are only the first steps; for treason and-if convicted in a court of law-executed. 06/11/2017 10:39 pm ET for America to be redeemed, Donald Trump must be prosecuted Donald Trump has been President of the United States for just shy of six months now. I think that most of us among the electorate knew that his presidency would be a relative disaster, but I am not sure how many among us expected the catastrophe our nation now faces. friendly-neighborhood-patriarch: hominishostilis: abstractandedgyname: siryouarebeingmocked: mississpithy: bogleech: notyourmoderate: angrybell: thinksquad: http://archive.is/5VvI5 Huffpo, everybody. Can someone tell me what high crime or misdemeanor Trump has committed that merits this? Or is the HuffPo just publishing outright fantasies? God dammit, I’m now in the position of defending Huffington. I didn’t want to be here. Okay, @angrybell … actually, @ literally everyone who reblogged this uncritically as a tacit endorsement and agreement. Such as @the-critical-feminist that I reblog this from.My first question has to be: are you serious? Don’t read that with a tone, don’t read that as an attack. That’s my first question: Are you asking a serious question about what high crimes or misdemeanors Trump has perpetrated? Are you asking a sincere question or is this the sort of rhetoric that doesn’t translate well into text? And, if you are actually asking this question, are ou going to hear the answer or are you going to immediately start concocting your counter-argument because you just know in your heart that anyone who disagrees with you must be wrong, so you start formulating a plan to prove them wrong before you actually hear what they have to say?Next: did you read the article that was posted in the link you responded to? Because the author of that article does a reasonable job of explaining their thought process behind the headline. Or did you lash out before you read the article? Okay, presuming that you did read the article in good faith, evaluate its points, perform the follow-up research to understand context, and still disagree with the central tenets and simply believe that the author’s reasoning does not hold up for whatever reasons you have chosen not to state, and you believe their source information is falsified for whatever reason you have chosen not to state, I will move on. After I have given you and yours every conceivable benefit of the doubt and every charitable assumption. Because if the article itself doesn’t convince you, there’s the fact that Donald Trump has broken literally every federal law against corruption and conflict of interest. Not one or two, not most, not all but a few. Literally every single law we have against corruption, from the Constitution to the informal guidelines circulated as a memo from the White House ethics scholars. He’s broken literally every one of those rules. He’s openly traded favors for money and favors for months now. Hell, that Chinese influence-peddler that paid him off for sixteen million dollars should have been enough to get him convicted of treason. Sharing code-word level classified information with a government on the opposite side of an ongoing military conflict isn’t *necessarily* treason, unless the information was part of a share program with an allied nation and wasn’t his to distribute. That’s aiding a foreign aggressor at the expense of a military ally, and that’s treason. Giving aid and comfort to enemies of the nation. Obstruction of justice is pretty clear-cut, that’s an impeachment, except that the justice in question is also a matter of national security, so that’s treason. Again. Defaming the former president? Misdemeanor, impeachable. The way he drags his heels nominating posts in Justice and State could be prosecuted as dereliction of duty. If he has tapes of Comey, he’s on the hook for contempt, if he doesn’t then he’s on the hook for witness tampering. Hell, deleting the covfefe tweet is destroying federal records, which is a misdemeanor, and impeachable. The man doesn’t go a week without bringing on an impeachable offense. Strictly speaking, every time he goes to Mar-A-Lago he’s committing grand larceny by fraud, because he’s taking millions of dollars of American funds for his own benefit, after promising not to do that. There are dozens, hundreds maybe, of impeachable offenses already in this 140 days, “high crimes and misdemeanors”. Actual counts of treason, punishable by death by hanging, is probably only five or six counts. Only five or six counts of high treason by our sitting president. His job does not put him above reproach. His job is to *be* above reproach. And he’s failing that job. Trump’s supporters probably believe he’s done nothing impeachable or treasonous because they spent eight years claiming on no grounds whatsoever that Obama was impeachable and treasonous, just because they didn’t like him. They now probably convince themselves that these facts about Trump are as fake as their Obama theories and they’ve ruined the gravity of these terms for themselves. “ His job does not put him above reproach. His job is to *be* above reproach. And he’s failing that job. “ I like how Bogleech doesn’t know many Trump supporters are former Obama supporters. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/04/us/obama-trump-swing-voters.html https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/10/16/17980820/trump-obama-2016-race-racism-class-economy-2018-midterm https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obama-Trump_voters It’s not even a secret. But why am I not surprised bogleech - that intellectual titan - failed to do basic research? And last time I checked, no nation required their politicans to be perfect. Which is what NYM is asking for with that quote; perfection. That’s what ‘above reproach’ means. An impossible standard, considering people “reproach” Trump for feeding fish wrong, for his skin color, for any and every little thing, even if they have to twist reality into a pretzel to do it. In fact, I’ve seen people take pictures of kids in cages from 2014, and blame Trump for it. So this: Are you asking a serious question about what high crimes or misdemeanors Trump has perpetrated? Is a question of this: Can someone tell me what high crime or misdemeanor Trump has committed that merits this? Seems you missed the part that says “merits this”. Next: did you read the article that was posted in the link you responded to? Because the author of that article does a reasonable job of explaining their thought process behind the headline. Or did you lash out before you read the article? (The underlined is in the subtitle, not the headline.) Okay, presuming that you did read the article in good faith, evaluate its points, perform the follow-up research to understand context, and still disagree with the central tenets… Context? Central tenets? Do you not know how highlighting works? You don’t need to know the context, or any other point, when you’re indicating a specific, explicit, and isolated quality. The subtitle called for Trump’s execution, we’re 5 paragraphs in and you haven’t even acknowledged that part yet. Or at all, I’m guessing, because I’m not reading further. You keep talking around it. You accuse others, preemptively, of not hearing the answer and pre-”concocting” a response, and yet you’re waffling on about shit around the one, sole, isolated thing that was indicated in the first place. This isn’t about ignoring context, this is about criticising one thing. Which is a thing people are allowed to do, by the way, just because people criticise one thing, doesn’t mean they’re criticising everything about the everyone involved, and everything said before, adjacent to, and after that one thing, and therefore are required to include all of those things in their consideration and assessment of this one thing. The specific criticism of the indicated quality is the advocation of Trump’s execution. That’s it. No context is needed to understand that this is what was said, especially since that which was said, which is being criticised, is explicit. No amount of, “So, click-bait subtitle that you don’t see until you’ve already clicked on the article link out of the way, here’s what I actually meant when I said I wanted this person tried and executed,” could excuse the use of that language, let alone actually believing in it. It’s like… it’s like if someone makes a typo, someone else is like, “Oh, seems you made a typo,” you’d jump in like, “But what about they’re perfectly reasonable spelling everywhere else? Hm? Forced to ignore contextual perfect spelling I see. They’re lack of typos everywhere else explains this typo, and vindicates it”. You and what’s his face, James, fuckin ReasonAndEmpathy or whatever now, y’all keep saying “but what of the context?” when the criterion of criticism is isolated, atomic, specific, and/or explicit. No amount of context invalidates the very specific, singular words explicitly spoken. “Sure he called for Trump to be executed, but he explains himself.” Fucking and? When did the death sentence become ok? When did that happen? Moderates are ok with the death sentence now? Aight, weird. Man this fucking post aged like fine wine, take a SIP Delicious This was quite a ride
Being Alone, America, and Click: Jason Fuller, Contributor
 Working to bring about the best in America, both on-line and off.
 Impeachment Is No Longer Enough;
 Donald Trump Must Face Justice
 Impeachment and removal from office are only the first steps;
 for treason and-if convicted in a court of law-executed.
 06/11/2017 10:39 pm ET
 for America to be redeemed, Donald Trump must be prosecuted
 Donald Trump has been President of the United States for just shy of six months now. I
 think that most of us among the electorate knew that his presidency would be a relative
 disaster, but I am not sure how many among us expected the catastrophe our nation now
 faces.
friendly-neighborhood-patriarch:

hominishostilis:

abstractandedgyname:
siryouarebeingmocked:

mississpithy:

bogleech:

notyourmoderate:

angrybell:

thinksquad:


http://archive.is/5VvI5


Huffpo, everybody. 




Can someone tell me what high crime or misdemeanor Trump has committed that merits this? Or is the HuffPo just publishing outright fantasies?

God dammit, I’m now in the position of defending Huffington. I didn’t want to be here. Okay, @angrybell … actually, @ literally everyone who reblogged this uncritically as a tacit endorsement and agreement. Such as @the-critical-feminist that I reblog this from.My first question has to be: are you serious? Don’t read that with a tone, don’t read that as an attack. That’s my first question: Are you asking a serious question about what high crimes or misdemeanors Trump has perpetrated? Are you asking a sincere question or is this the sort of rhetoric that doesn’t translate well into text? And, if you are actually asking this question, are ou going to hear the answer or are you going to immediately start concocting your counter-argument because you just know in your heart that anyone who disagrees with you must be wrong, so you start formulating a plan to prove them wrong before you actually hear what they have to say?Next: did you read the article that was posted in the link you responded to? Because the author of that article does a reasonable job of explaining their thought process behind the headline. Or did you lash out before you read the article? Okay, presuming that you did read the article in good faith, evaluate its points, perform the follow-up research to understand context, and still disagree with the central tenets and simply believe that the author’s reasoning does not hold up for whatever reasons you have chosen not to state, and you believe their source information is falsified for whatever reason you have chosen not to state, I will move on. After I have given you and yours every conceivable benefit of the doubt and every charitable assumption. Because if the article itself doesn’t convince you, there’s the fact that Donald Trump has broken literally every federal law against corruption and conflict of interest. Not one or two, not most, not all but a few. Literally every single law we have against corruption, from the Constitution to the informal guidelines circulated as a memo from the White House ethics scholars. He’s broken literally every one of those rules. He’s openly traded favors for money and favors for months now. Hell, that Chinese influence-peddler that paid him off for sixteen million dollars should have been enough to get him convicted of treason. Sharing code-word level classified information with a government on the opposite side of an ongoing military conflict isn’t *necessarily* treason, unless the information was part of a share program with an allied nation and wasn’t his to distribute. That’s aiding a foreign aggressor at the expense of a military ally, and that’s treason. Giving aid and comfort to enemies of the nation. Obstruction of justice is pretty clear-cut, that’s an impeachment, except that the justice in question is also a matter of national security, so that’s treason. Again. Defaming the former president? Misdemeanor, impeachable. The way he drags his heels nominating posts in Justice and State could be prosecuted as dereliction of duty. If he has tapes of Comey, he’s on the hook for contempt, if he doesn’t then he’s on the hook for witness tampering. Hell, deleting the covfefe tweet is destroying federal records, which is a misdemeanor, and impeachable. The man doesn’t go a week without bringing on an impeachable offense. Strictly speaking, every time he goes to Mar-A-Lago he’s committing grand larceny by fraud, because he’s taking millions of dollars of American funds for his own benefit, after promising not to do that. There are dozens, hundreds maybe, of impeachable offenses already in this 140 days, “high crimes and misdemeanors”. Actual counts of treason, punishable by death by hanging, is probably only five or six counts. Only five or six counts of high treason by our sitting president. His job does not put him above reproach. His job is to *be* above reproach. And he’s failing that job. 

Trump’s supporters probably believe he’s done nothing impeachable or treasonous because they spent eight years claiming on no grounds whatsoever that Obama was impeachable and treasonous, just because they didn’t like him. They now probably convince themselves that these facts about Trump are as fake as their Obama theories and they’ve ruined the gravity of these terms for themselves.





“

His job does not put him above reproach. His job is to *be* above reproach. And he’s failing that job.


“






I like how Bogleech doesn’t know many Trump supporters are former Obama supporters.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/04/us/obama-trump-swing-voters.html
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/10/16/17980820/trump-obama-2016-race-racism-class-economy-2018-midterm
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obama-Trump_voters
It’s not even a secret. But why am I not surprised bogleech - that intellectual titan - failed to do basic research?
And last time I checked, no nation required their politicans to be perfect. Which is what NYM is asking for with that quote; perfection. That’s what ‘above reproach’ means. An impossible standard, considering people “reproach” Trump for feeding fish wrong, for his skin color, for any and every little thing, even if they have to twist reality into a pretzel to do it. In fact, I’ve seen people take pictures of kids in cages from 2014, and blame Trump for it.

So this:


Are you asking a serious question about what high crimes or misdemeanors Trump has perpetrated?


Is a question of this:


Can someone tell me what high crime or misdemeanor Trump has committed that merits this?


Seems you missed the part that says “merits this”.


Next: did you read the article that was posted in the link you responded to? Because the author of that article does a reasonable job of explaining their thought process behind the headline. Or did you lash out before you read the article? 


(The underlined is in the subtitle, not the headline.)


Okay, presuming that you did read the article in good faith, evaluate its points, perform the follow-up research to understand context, and still disagree with the central tenets…
Context? Central tenets? Do you not know how highlighting works? You don’t need to know the context, or any other point, when you’re indicating a specific, explicit, and isolated quality.
The subtitle called for Trump’s execution, we’re 5 paragraphs in and you haven’t even acknowledged that part yet. Or at all, I’m guessing, because I’m not reading further. You keep talking around it. You accuse others, preemptively, of not hearing the answer and pre-”concocting” a response, and yet you’re waffling on about shit around the one, sole, isolated thing that was indicated in the first place.
This isn’t about ignoring context, this is about criticising one thing. Which is a thing people are allowed to do, by the way, just because people criticise one thing, doesn’t mean they’re criticising everything about the everyone involved, and everything said before, adjacent to, and after that one thing, and therefore are required to include all of those things in their consideration and assessment of this one thing.
The specific criticism of the indicated quality is the advocation of Trump’s execution. That’s it. No context is needed to understand that this is what was said, especially since that which was said, which is being criticised, is explicit. No amount of, “So, click-bait subtitle that you don’t see until you’ve already clicked on the article link out of the way, here’s what I actually meant when I said I wanted this person tried and executed,” could excuse the use of that language, let alone actually believing in it.
It’s like… it’s like if someone makes a typo, someone else is like, “Oh, seems you made a typo,” you’d jump in like, “But what about they’re perfectly reasonable spelling everywhere else? Hm? Forced to ignore contextual perfect spelling I see. They’re lack of typos everywhere else explains this typo, and vindicates it”.
You and what’s his face, James, fuckin ReasonAndEmpathy or whatever now, y’all keep saying “but what of the context?” when the criterion of criticism is isolated, atomic, specific, and/or explicit. No amount of context invalidates the very specific, singular words explicitly spoken. “Sure he called for Trump to be executed, but he explains himself.” Fucking and? When did the death sentence become ok? When did that happen? Moderates are ok with the death sentence now? Aight, weird.


Man this fucking post aged like fine wine, take a SIP 

Delicious

This was quite a ride

friendly-neighborhood-patriarch: hominishostilis: abstractandedgyname: siryouarebeingmocked: mississpithy: bogleech: notyourmoderate: ...

Birthday, Facts, and Joker: 15-3901 1:05 5 Img:14 SP:11.91 PPHFS Mat 256 x 192 ps.zo PE-64 PPNES Nat 320x 240 MP Caters News Agency 17am A boy born with just two percent of his brain has defied doctors' predictions after his brain grew back to 80 percent of the average size. Doctors had told the parents to terminate pregnancy not once but five times. @factsweird Photo courtesy of Caters News Agency greater-than-the-sword: recoveringvictorian: mccarthyites: mindblowingfactz: A boy born with just two percent of his brain has defied doctors’ predictions after his brain grew back to 80 percent of the average size. Doctors had told the parents to terminate pregnancy not once but five times. I saw this before some time ago and it just absolutely fascinated me because there was never any other information provided and the little info that was given was tantalizingly vague. Even with 80% of his brain growing surely he had all kinds of severe issues, right? And even if his brain did grow back he might not have lived very long. So I did a little research on him. Everything happened exactly like it says in the pic- the parents were strongly urged to abort the baby five separate times, and they refused all five times, and he was born with two percent of his brain and he does now have 80% of it. What the blurb doesn’t say is that the little boy’s name is Noah Wall and he’s now a very happy, healthy, six year old boy. Doctors said he would be SEVERELY mentally disabled, unable to see, hear, talk, or even eat. The doctors were wrong. He can do all of these things and more. By age two he was sitting up straight and singing; he can play with legos and computer games, he’s learned how to count, he can hold perfectly normal conversations, and he loves painting. He just recently wrote his name for the first time, and he’s trying very hard to learn how to walk (but that’s still a long way off because he’s mostly paralyzed from the waist down). Most of this probably just seems like boring normalcy, but considering he was born with only 2% of his brain he shouldn’t be able to do ANY of this. The fact that he lived beyond his first birthday is a miracle in and of itself. Noah hasn’t had a brain scan since he was three years old, so no one knows if his brain has grown more since then, but all indications are that he’s developing physically at a normal rate, and he’s developing well enough mentally that his parents recently enrolled him in a local elementary school- not any special education classes, a normal, mainstream school. It’s hard work for the parents, there’s tons of medical appointments, regular surgeries with lengthy recovery times, they had to shuttle Noah to a neurophysics center in Australia to help him learn how to sit upright. But they both agree he’s worth it. This is what his mom Shelly has to say:  “I thank him every night before he goes to bed. I say ‘Noah, thank you for such a lovely day. I’ve loved my day.’ And he’ll say ‘I love you, Mummy. Night night.’” https://nypost.com/2019/02/20/boy-born-without-brain-defies-odds-to-live/ https://www.theepochtimes.com/boy-born-with-2-percent-of-brain-defies-odds-learns-to-count-and-surf_2810231.html https://www.cbc.ca/passionateeye/features/the-boy-born-without-a-brain-is-now-a-practical-joker-who-loves-playing-mar I saw a video on him and his parents awhile back and it’s such a happy story. ^^ Just another invalid deformed beyond hope and destined to be a vegetable who should have been killed in the womb, amirite? This really speaks to cases where people think that killing a baby is “the right thing to do” because of probabilities and likelihoods.
Birthday, Facts, and Joker: 15-3901
 1:05 5
 Img:14
 SP:11.91
 PPHFS
 Mat 256 x 192
 ps.zo
 PE-64
 PPNES
 Nat 320x 240
 MP
 Caters News Agency
 17am
 A boy born with just two percent of his brain
 has defied doctors' predictions after his brain
 grew back to 80 percent of the average size.
 Doctors had told the parents to terminate
 pregnancy not once but five times.
 @factsweird
 Photo courtesy of Caters News Agency
greater-than-the-sword:
recoveringvictorian:

mccarthyites:


mindblowingfactz:
A boy born with just two percent of his brain has defied doctors’ predictions after his brain grew back to 80 percent of the average size. Doctors had told the parents to terminate pregnancy not once but five times.
I saw this before some time ago and it just absolutely fascinated me because there was never any other information provided and the little info that was given was tantalizingly vague. Even with 80% of his brain growing surely he had all kinds of severe issues, right? And even if his brain did grow back he might not have lived very long. So I did a little research on him.
Everything happened exactly like it says in the pic- the parents were strongly urged to abort the baby five separate times, and they refused all five times, and he was born with two percent of his brain and he does now have 80% of it.
What the blurb doesn’t say is that the little boy’s name is Noah Wall and he’s now a very happy, healthy, six year old boy.
Doctors said he would be SEVERELY mentally disabled, unable to see, hear, talk, or even eat. The doctors were wrong. He can do all of these things and more. By age two he was sitting up straight and singing; he can play with legos and computer games, he’s learned how to count, he can hold perfectly normal conversations, and he loves painting. He just recently wrote his name for the first time, and he’s trying very hard to learn how to walk (but that’s still a long way off because he’s mostly paralyzed from the waist down). Most of this probably just seems like boring normalcy, but considering he was born with only 2% of his brain he shouldn’t be able to do ANY of this. The fact that he lived beyond his first birthday is a miracle in and of itself.
Noah hasn’t had a brain scan since he was three years old, so no one knows if his brain has grown more since then, but all indications are that he’s developing physically at a normal rate, and he’s developing well enough mentally that his parents recently enrolled him in a local elementary school- not any special education classes, a normal, mainstream school. It’s hard work for the parents, there’s tons of medical appointments, regular surgeries with lengthy recovery times, they had to shuttle Noah to a neurophysics center in Australia to help him learn how to sit upright. But they both agree he’s worth it.
This is what his mom Shelly has to say:  “I thank him every night before he goes to bed. I say ‘Noah, thank you for such a lovely day. I’ve loved my day.’ And he’ll say ‘I love you, Mummy. Night night.’”
https://nypost.com/2019/02/20/boy-born-without-brain-defies-odds-to-live/
https://www.theepochtimes.com/boy-born-with-2-percent-of-brain-defies-odds-learns-to-count-and-surf_2810231.html
https://www.cbc.ca/passionateeye/features/the-boy-born-without-a-brain-is-now-a-practical-joker-who-loves-playing-mar


I saw a video on him and his parents awhile back and it’s such a happy story. ^^ Just another invalid deformed beyond hope and destined to be a vegetable who should have been killed in the womb, amirite? 


This really speaks to cases where people think that killing a baby is “the right thing to do” because of probabilities and likelihoods.

greater-than-the-sword: recoveringvictorian: mccarthyites: mindblowingfactz: A boy born with just two percent of his brain has defied doc...

Iphone, Tumblr, and Twitter: maxine mawhinney @maxinemawhinney Morocco has completely banned plastic bags. You can't even pay for one. What they have instead is recycled paper fibre bags that feel like soft fabric and are biodearadable. Here is my afternoon purchase in its bag. Way to go Morocco. @bountay It's interesting how countries in the global south have continued their commitment to tackling climate change, despite being disproportionately affected by it Meanwhile the west will continue to consume way beyond its means maxine mawhinney@maxine... Mar 26, 2018 Morocco has completely banned plastic bags. You can't even pay for one. What they have instead is recycled paper fibre bags that feel like soft fabric an 6:04 AM Apr 26, 2019 Twitter for iPhone 44.5K Likes 16.7K Retweets @bountay And by interesting I mean totally goes to show how Western interests lie at the heart of continuing to ruin and deplete the planet of its resources for its own self serving purposes. through capitalism of course 6:05 AM Apr 26, 2019 Twitter for iPhone thatpettyblackgirl: Not only that, but they’ll tell people that it’s our fault that the world is dying instead of corporations producing over 80% of emissions and waste. Asking the west to retire plastic is like asking them to give up their nuclear weapons. The U.S. military is the single greatest institutional contributor to the growing natural disasters intensified by global climate change.
Iphone, Tumblr, and Twitter: maxine mawhinney
 @maxinemawhinney
 Morocco has completely banned
 plastic bags. You can't even pay for
 one. What they have instead is
 recycled paper fibre bags that feel like
 soft fabric and are biodearadable.
 Here is my afternoon purchase in its
 bag. Way to go Morocco.

 @bountay
 It's interesting how countries in the
 global south have continued their
 commitment to tackling climate
 change, despite being
 disproportionately affected by it
 Meanwhile the west will continue to
 consume way beyond its means
 maxine mawhinney@maxine... Mar 26, 2018
 Morocco has completely banned plastic bags. You
 can't even pay for one. What they have instead is
 recycled paper fibre bags that feel like soft fabric an
 6:04 AM Apr 26, 2019 Twitter for iPhone
 44.5K Likes
 16.7K Retweets

 @bountay
 And by interesting I mean totally goes
 to show how Western interests lie at
 the heart of continuing to ruin and
 deplete the planet of its resources for
 its own self serving purposes. through
 capitalism of course
 6:05 AM Apr 26, 2019 Twitter for iPhone
thatpettyblackgirl:

Not only that, but they’ll tell people that it’s our fault that the 
world is dying instead of corporations producing over 80% of emissions 
and waste.

Asking the west to retire plastic is like asking them to give up their nuclear weapons.


The U.S. military is the single greatest institutional contributor to the growing natural disasters intensified by global climate change.

thatpettyblackgirl: Not only that, but they’ll tell people that it’s our fault that the world is dying instead of corporations producing o...