Decisions Are Made By Those Who Show Up

My name is Emily Grace and this is my political blog. I've been involved in Democratic politics all my life, so obviously this blog leans left. Very left.

I blog about current events, my personal opinions and political happening around the world. Ask is open, feel free to fire away!

mentalalchemy:

senpaimami:

lordkza:

senpaimami:

SOOOOO. I just called the Ferguson Police Department.

Before I could say ONE word, this lady says “You wannabe revolutionaries are wasting your fucking time”.

whats the number

314-522-3100

Boost it. This won’t go away.

lolololol wut.

1 week ago on August 20th, 2014 | J | 106,217 notes
thehpalliance:

If you use YouTube, you need to know this.
You’ve heard all these rumblings about Net Neutrality over the past several months. Let’s get real: this is about controlling online video. It is estimated that by 2017, video content will account for 80-90% of all global Internet traffic.
This isn’t just about not being able to binge-watch a series on Netflix. It’s about the future of online video as we know it.
Whether your YouTube channel is home to daily vlogs, short films, or just that one video from when the cinnamon challenge seemed like a good idea, you’re a video creator. Your content and comments help shape this community. Let’s keep it that way.
Net Neutrality means that your YouTube videos reach people at the same speed as clips from last night’s episode of the Tonight Show. It means a level playing field for video creators looking to reach an audience. But new Net Neutrality rules could mess that up.
Here’s the deal: Telecommunications companies already charge us to access the Internet through our homes and our phones. New FCC rules could allow them to also charge content providers (like YouTube, Netflix, and even PBS) for access to our eyeballs. It could create a fast lane for Jimmy Fallon’s clips, and slow lane for your YouTube videos.
It is really important that the FCC understands that online video creators care about Net Neutrality. Even if you’ve only ever uploaded ONE VIDEO, you are a creator and you have a voice.
If you can, please add your channel to our petition. We’ll deliver this to the FCC in September and demonstrate that the online video community cares about this issue. 
Sign the petition, then spread the word.

thehpalliance:

If you use YouTube, you need to know this.

You’ve heard all these rumblings about Net Neutrality over the past several months. Let’s get real: this is about controlling online video. It is estimated that by 2017, video content will account for 80-90% of all global Internet traffic.

This isn’t just about not being able to binge-watch a series on Netflix. It’s about the future of online video as we know it.

Whether your YouTube channel is home to daily vlogs, short films, or just that one video from when the cinnamon challenge seemed like a good idea, you’re a video creator. Your content and comments help shape this community. Let’s keep it that way.

Net Neutrality means that your YouTube videos reach people at the same speed as clips from last night’s episode of the Tonight Show. It means a level playing field for video creators looking to reach an audience. But new Net Neutrality rules could mess that up.

Here’s the deal: Telecommunications companies already charge us to access the Internet through our homes and our phones. New FCC rules could allow them to also charge content providers (like YouTube, Netflix, and even PBS) for access to our eyeballs. It could create a fast lane for Jimmy Fallon’s clips, and slow lane for your YouTube videos.

It is really important that the FCC understands that online video creators care about Net Neutrality. Even if you’ve only ever uploaded ONE VIDEO, you are a creator and you have a voice.

If you can, please add your channel to our petition. We’ll deliver this to the FCC in September and demonstrate that the online video community cares about this issue.

Sign the petition, then spread the word.

1 week ago on August 20th, 2014 | J | 46,436 notes

blastortoise:

okay but when you have holocaust survivors and people who were activists during the civil rights movement supporting mike brown and then KKK members and neo nazi’s supporting the officer you should be able to figure out which side is the right one.

1 week ago on August 19th, 2014 | J | 146,636 notes
Last year, in total, British police officers actually fired their weapons three times. The number of people fatally shot was zero. In 2012 the figure was just one. Even after adjusting for the smaller size of Britain’s population, British citizens are around 100 times less likely to be shot by a police officer than Americans. Between 2010 and 2014 the police force of one small American city, Albuquerque in New Mexico, shot and killed 23 civilians; seven times more than the number of Brits killed by all of England and Wales’s 43 forces during the same period.

The explanation for this gap is simple. In Britain, guns are rare. Only specialist firearms officers carry them; and criminals rarely have access to them. The last time a British police officer was killed by a firearm on duty was in 2012, in a brutal case in Manchester. The annual number of murders by shooting is typically less than 50. Police shootings are enormously controversial. The shooting of Mark Duggan, a known gangster, which in 2011 started riots across London, led to a fiercely debated inquest. Last month, a police officer was charged with murder over a shooting in 2005. The reputation of the Metropolitan Police’s armed officers is still barely recovering from the fatal shooting of Jean Charles de Menezes, an innocent Brazilian, in the wake of the 7/7 terrorist bombings in London.

In America, by contrast, it is hardly surprising that cops resort to their weapons more frequently. In 2013, 30 cops were shot and killed—just a fraction of the 9,000 or so murders using guns that happen each year. Add to that a hyper-militarised police culture and a deep history of racial strife and you have the reason why so many civilians are shot by police officers. Unless America can either reduce its colossal gun ownership rates or fix its deep social problems, shootings of civilians by police—justified or not—seem sure to continue.
1 week ago on August 19th, 2014 | J | 31,048 notes

postracialcomments:

People trying to go home, get detained

1 week ago on August 19th, 2014 | J | 21,668 notes

Ya know what would be cool?

IF THEY ARRESTED THE COP WHO KILLED AN UNARMED TEENAGER. THAT WOULD BE COOL.

idk, I’m just spitballing.

1 week ago on August 19th, 2014 | J | 1 note

nystic:

this is important please spread

1 week ago on August 19th, 2014 | J | 102,876 notes
suburban, white conservative: "PRO LIFE! ALL LIVES MATTER!!!!!!"
*black child gets shot by cop*
suburban, white conservative: *crickets chirping*
1 week ago on August 19th, 2014 | J | 23,244 notes

imnothavinit:

Link to the NYT article on the autopsy

1 week ago on August 18th, 2014 | J | 95,007 notes

bisexualemoji:

AMAZING

2 weeks ago on August 17th, 2014 | J | 1,156 notes