Niall Mac Giolla Rua

lotusinaglacier:

tastefullyoffensive:

Animals Waving Hello to You [boredpanda]

Previously: Perfectly Timed Dog Photos

That last one!

tastefullyoffensive:

[fartywings]

Call that a birthing? Hah! I’d’ve done better myself.

tastefullyoffensive:

[fartywings]

Call that a birthing? Hah! I’d’ve done better myself.

I made a “lyrics” video to go with my song “lift me up into your arms”. I used royalty free images from NASA and the Hubble telescope. It’s a folky sort-of song all about a remarkable paradox at the heart of human relationships: the enormous strength and freedom that comes from allowing one’s most vulnerable, most frightened, most childlike aspects to emerge in the safety of a loving relationship.

People are good

Someone once told me about this thing called the domino effect (I think he might’ve coined that phrase himself, he was a bit of a genius, this guy). It’s when you make a mistake there’s a tendency to make more especially if you get caught up in trying to fix it. When people seem bad, inside themselves they’re really caught up to their necks in mistakes and struggling to get out and out of ‘moral or social debt’ so to speak. Give them a hand by seeing the good in them. Focus on the good. It’s always, always there, despite appearances. 

It’s easy enough to feel people are good when you read “faith in humanity” stories, but I challenge you to see to see the good where it’s not so obvious. Side benefit: practicing this heals you.

cashtier:

when someone do a draw for u
image
image

image

:)

abseunt:

unconsciousearth:


NASA released a satellite image of india in the evening during the festive holiday of diwali, the celebration of lights. 

this is one of the prettiest things i’ve ever seen

awh look at Sri Lanka too omg

abseunt:

unconsciousearth:

NASA released a satellite image of india in the evening during the festive holiday of diwali, the celebration of lights.

this is one of the prettiest things i’ve ever seen

awh look at Sri Lanka too omg

Alan Watts - Life and Music (HD quality)

(This is lovely, and one interesting surprise is in the producer credits—Trey Parker and Matt Stone )

ALL THE LEAVES ARE BRAAAALL THE LEAVES ARE BROWN
politicsprofile:

hello-missmayhem:

doomhamster:

belcanta:

Guaranteeing basic income to every citizen, whether or not they are employed, ensures their survival and that they live in a dignified, humane way; prevents poverty, illness, homelessness, reduces crime, and encourages improving skills. 

The thing is, while I’m sure you could scrape up a few people who’d be willing to just float by on a guaranteed minimum income? For most people the choice to work would be a no-brainer. “Hmmm. I can get by on 33k a year, or I can take that part time job and make 48k… enough to move to a better apartment, maybe take the family on vacation. Sold.” Hell, most people would want to work simply because it gives one a sense of dignity and something to do with one’s time.
And with this system, part-time jobs and “non-skilled” jobs would be much more readily available because nobody would need to work two or three jobs just to stay afloat!
Which would ALSO mean that employers and customers couldn’t shamelessly exploit employees the way they can today, because if losing a job weren’t necessarily a financial disaster, more people would be willing to walk out on jobs where they weren’t being treated with dignity.
Nobody would be forced to stay with people they hate because they couldn’t afford to move out.
TL;DR Doomie thinks this is a good idea, laughs at those who protest.

They tried something like this out in Canada as a sort of social experiment, called Mincome. What they found was that, on the whole, people continued to work about as much as they did before. Only new mothers and young adults worked substantially less hours. 
But wait, there’s more. Crime rates, hospital trips, psychiatric hospitalizations and domestic abuse rates all dropped, as well. Those who continued to work reported more job flexibility and more opportunity to choose employment they preferred.
Basically, now you can go prove to any jerks you may know that society won’t collapse without poor people.

I prefer Basics Through Taxes, but this plan might be easier for some people to swallow because of the simpler distribution. In America, the Green Party has also suggested a universal income. I’m so glad to hear that there’s so much support! :)

I was just thinking about this today. And I don’t believe it would impact on the economy negatively at all; on the contrary I believe generally speaking, without the threat of extreme poverty, a person is in a better position to turn his/her attentions to worthy causes and solutions which naturally benefit all around. On a related note, if in war, the enemy ground was bombed with money and provisions to basic living comforts, rather than…well bombs; it would be actually less expensive than the cost of building, deploying and using military equipment; it would be way, way less expensive in terms of cost to lives, less violent, easier and much faster. But how would that neutralise enemy threat I hear you ask? It would seriously demotivate hostile elements on the ground. Basic psychology: people who are comfortable, well fed and looked after don’t want to war, and not surprisingly they don’t want to war against those who are caring for their practical needs. It’s quite impossible to get someone who’s comfortable and relaxed to take part in extreme conflicts (unless they’re a bit insane, which can and does happen). However, having said all that, this kind-of solution will not likely come to realisation in this world, because people who war want to war, because they suffer from a sickness called hatred.

politicsprofile:

hello-missmayhem:

doomhamster:

belcanta:

Guaranteeing basic income to every citizen, whether or not they are employed, ensures their survival and that they live in a dignified, humane way; prevents poverty, illness, homelessness, reduces crime, and encourages improving skills. 

The thing is, while I’m sure you could scrape up a few people who’d be willing to just float by on a guaranteed minimum income? For most people the choice to work would be a no-brainer. “Hmmm. I can get by on 33k a year, or I can take that part time job and make 48k… enough to move to a better apartment, maybe take the family on vacation. Sold.” Hell, most people would want to work simply because it gives one a sense of dignity and something to do with one’s time.

And with this system, part-time jobs and “non-skilled” jobs would be much more readily available because nobody would need to work two or three jobs just to stay afloat!

Which would ALSO mean that employers and customers couldn’t shamelessly exploit employees the way they can today, because if losing a job weren’t necessarily a financial disaster, more people would be willing to walk out on jobs where they weren’t being treated with dignity.

Nobody would be forced to stay with people they hate because they couldn’t afford to move out.

TL;DR Doomie thinks this is a good idea, laughs at those who protest.

They tried something like this out in Canada as a sort of social experiment, called Mincome. What they found was that, on the whole, people continued to work about as much as they did before. Only new mothers and young adults worked substantially less hours. 

But wait, there’s more. Crime rates, hospital trips, psychiatric hospitalizations and domestic abuse rates all dropped, as well. Those who continued to work reported more job flexibility and more opportunity to choose employment they preferred.

Basically, now you can go prove to any jerks you may know that society won’t collapse without poor people.

I prefer Basics Through Taxes, but this plan might be easier for some people to swallow because of the simpler distribution. In America, the Green Party has also suggested a universal income. I’m so glad to hear that there’s so much support! :)

I was just thinking about this today. And I don’t believe it would impact on the economy negatively at all; on the contrary I believe generally speaking, without the threat of extreme poverty, a person is in a better position to turn his/her attentions to worthy causes and solutions which naturally benefit all around. On a related note, if in war, the enemy ground was bombed with money and provisions to basic living comforts, rather than…well bombs; it would be actually less expensive than the cost of building, deploying and using military equipment; it would be way, way less expensive in terms of cost to lives, less violent, easier and much faster. But how would that neutralise enemy threat I hear you ask? It would seriously demotivate hostile elements on the ground. Basic psychology: people who are comfortable, well fed and looked after don’t want to war, and not surprisingly they don’t want to war against those who are caring for their practical needs. It’s quite impossible to get someone who’s comfortable and relaxed to take part in extreme conflicts (unless they’re a bit insane, which can and does happen). However, having said all that, this kind-of solution will not likely come to realisation in this world, because people who war want to war, because they suffer from a sickness called hatred.