Every time you think it's a given, that there's NO WAY that Red or Yellow could catch up to the other one given the lead, you are wrong. Right down to the wire.
Anya is live and ready to show you everything. Watch her strip, dance, and perform exclusive shows just for you. Interact in real-time and make your fantasies come true.
â Live Streamingâ Interactive Chatâ Private Showsâ HD Quality
Anya is LIVE right now
FREE
Free to watch ⢠No registration required ⢠HD streaming
Honestly, Tvyek is pretty miraculous. Itâs permeable to water vapor but not to water, itâs nearly impossible to tear, but can be easily cut. Itâs cheap and made entirely without binding chemicals. In addition to being used for wristbands, itâs used to wrap construction sites to keep out water during construction, for tear-resistant envelopes at Fed-Ex, coveralls for mechanics, and my wallet, actually.
Fun tip, though it looks like paper, Tyvek is plastic, and cannot be recycled with paper.
An era of great-power competition has startedâbut not all would-be competitors qualify.
In our new era of great-power competition, itâs important to identity the competitors. But it has always been easier to speak about the great powers than to define them. Disagreement over great-power status, and especially over which power is the âgreatest,â characterizes todayâs system, as it did in times past. There is neither a commonly accepted definition of what constitutes a great power, nor any consensus over such basic questions as how many powers there are.
Nevertheless, we can distinguish the great powers by a set of common characteristics, which reveal that there are only four great powers that exist todayâand they are not necessarily the ones you would expect.
Great powers, first of all, have a set of behaviors in common. They always expect to shape or at least be consulted on the main global issues of the day. They make their presence felt, and their absence creates a vacuum to be filled. Often, great powers will insist on their own absolute sovereignty but admit only the qualified sovereignty of lesser powers, especially if they are nearby. In extremis, they reserve the right to change regimes that threaten or displease them but are able to deny any such right with respect to themselves.
At times, the great powers will claim to be above international law. At other times, they will make a virtue of vindicating that law or claim to defend international norms. In other words, the great powers have the power to make the rules and to break them; they are never just rule-takers. They are the orderers, not the ordered.
What enables the great powers to behave this way are their superior capabilities compared to the middling and smaller states. The first such capability is resources. Does the state in question have the military capacity to impose its will or to resist that of others? There is no entirely satisfactory way of assessing military strength, but how much the state spends on its military and how effectively is a rough measure of its defense capabilities.
Deployable nuclear weapons are also an indispensable component of great-power status today. The guaranteed ability to deliver an atomic bomb and thus to deter a nuclear attack gives a state a special position in the world. This is why the great powers take on the immense burdens of planning, researching, maintaining, storing, training, and safeguarding associated with those weapons. Not all nuclear powers are great powers, but all great powers are nuclear.
Then there is the economy. Is the state strong enough to survive the financial headwinds of geopolitical competition and to sustain a substantial military effort? Usually, economic strength is measured by GDP, which covers everything produced within a stateâs borders. The alternative metric of purchasing power parity takes into account how far a sum of money goes in the domestic economy. It privileges non-Western countries with lower standards of living and production costs.
Very importantâand difficult to assessâis the question how national these resources are. Peacetime GDP, GDP in a conflictual situation, and wartime GDP are three very different things. Cut a state off from its markets, sources of credit, raw materials, and food supply through tariffs, sanctions, or a blockade, and its economy will soon take on a completely different aspect. This is where command of the global commons outside the jurisdiction of any one stateâparticularly the worldâs sea lanesâis so important to determining great-power status, or at least the hierarchy among the great powers.
Economic power is thus important, but it is not conclusive in determining great-power status. The strongest militaries of the world measured in terms of capabilities and spending over the past 20 years are the United States, which comfortably leads the pack, and China, followed at some distance by the United Kingdom and Russia. The first three are also among the five or six largest economies in the world. Russia, which is economically weaker, makes the grade on the strength of its outsize nuclear arsenalâthe largest in the world.
The second criterion of great-power status is reach. Is the state a global power or merely a regional power, and how willing and able is it to deploy force far from home? Does it have a recognized geographical sphere of influence? Can that state draw on a global network of bases? Does it control key transport nodes and chokepoints? Can its intelligence agencies provide top-quality information on most parts of the world, as well as for cyberspace and space? Does it have a large and sophisticated diplomatic service? Has it a large overseas aid budget?
Reach can be both geographic and virtual. A great power will have the capacity to make its presence felt well beyond its own region, but it will also have the capacity to influence or even coopt global institutions such as the United Nations, the markets, or other fora.
Today, reach is very unevenly distributed among powers. The United States stands out through its sprawling network of military bases. Britain does not enjoy remotely the same global position it once did, but it still maintains important sovereign bases worldwide, including Gibraltar, Cyprus, and the Falkland Islands; it also has a presence in places such as Duqm in Oman on the Indian Ocean. Russia claims a sphere of influence in its near-abroad, though it has recently lost ground in Africa and the Middle East. Russia also enjoys global reach in the fields of propaganda, disinformation, and disruptive digital activity.
China may yet become a major global military player, with a base in Djibouti and a large paramilitary presence protecting infrastructure projects across the world. Its real global reach, though, lies in its partial control of the worldâs supply chains and critical minerals (such as lithium) needed to power the technological and green revolutions.
The third criterion is reputation. Is the state considered a great power by others, especially other great powers, and almost as importantly, does it consider itself a great power? Few doubt that the United States and China are great powers today and many consider Russia so on account of its military capacity to shape or at least disrupt the global order. Though the status of the United Kingdom is disputed, most Europeans still consider it a major power.
Finland and Sweden, for example, sought a bilateral security guarantee from the U.K. in 2022 before NATOâs kicked in; the British-led Joint Expeditionary Force contributes heavily to the security of the Baltic and High North. The United Kingdom is also prized as an ally by important actors in Asia, such as Japan, as well as in the Levant and Persian Gulf. Besides, if the United States withdraws from Europe and Asia, Britainâs much more limited capabilities will gain in importance.
Moreover, a great power always stands for something beyond brute force. Its greatness is also cultural and ideological. Today, the United Kingdom and other Western powers stand for a liberal international order based on democratic principles and free trade. Britain reinforced that image, proving that it is not the âpoodleâ of the United States, by refusing to join U.S. President Donald Trumpâs attack on Iran. Other powers have positioned themselves in more civilizational terms.
For example, Chinese President Xi Jinping has said that China, as a âmajor country,â should conduct a âdistinctiveâ diplomacy marked by a âsalient Chinese feature and a Chinese vision.â Even Russia, perhaps the most brutal of the great powers and one that constantly emphasizes its military and nuclear might, claims that it represents Christian and family values globally against the âsoullessâ West. What exactly the United States, once the mainstay of the rules-based international order, stands for after the second coming of Trump is not yet clear.
Reputation rests in part on a stateâs position in the architecture of global governance. The United States plays a major roleâsome would say dominatesâeconomic organizations such as the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank. It is also a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council, along with a Russia, China, Britain and France. All five powers thereby enjoy significant privileges in the international system, and while these are frequently challenged, reform of the U.N. is as far away as it ever was.
The fourth criterion for great-power status, resilience, concerns how much pain a society and its economy can absorb. Historical performance plays an important role. In the past, victory has not always gone to those who can inflict the most, but sometimes to those who can suffer the most. Past great powers, such as the Habsburg Empire, showed enormous staying power in adversity. Losing and recovering is as critical as winning. A state may command extensive resources and enjoy an impressive reach and reputation yet fall short as a great power if it lacks resilience.
The most resilient powers over time have been Britain and the United States. They have proved able to maintain long contests and to recover from serious defeats, such as the loss of the American colonies or the war in Vietnam. Though both countries are in domestic crisis today in different ways, they can be expected to recover relatively quickly. Russia and China, by contrast, are relatively young powers in their current form, and both have recent memory of political trauma and fragmentation. Like so much else, resilience is rooted in history and especially in the development of social cohesion over time.
According to these criteria, several great-power contenders can be discounted. Some economically significant actors such as Germany and Japan lack the military capabilities, especially nuclear weapons, to be great powers.
When it comes to reach, Germany, Japan, Brazil, and Indonesia have largely regional military capabilities; some of them enjoy considerable global influence through their diplomatic services and overseas aid policies. Germany and Japan have substantial soft power, but Brazil and Indonesia do not. All four have shown themselves to be brittle in the past and thus lack the necessary resilience.
Despite the endorsement of many, India does not meet most of the criteria either. It has nuclear weapons and the worldâs fifth- or sixth-largest economy, but New Delhiâs military reach is largely regional. India claims a reputation as a âworld teacher,â but it understands this role in non-great-power terms. Given the countryâs relative youth in its modern form, Indiaâs resilience is hard to measureâbut its propensity to suffer terrorist and communal violence and its persisting poverty suggests vulnerabilities.
France is hard to assess. It is a large economy and commands a nuclear arsenal more independent than that of Britain, but it has lost important parts of its sovereignty, such as control over its own borders and currency, to the European Union. Paris still enjoys a lot of influence in Africa and has a significant presence in the Indo-Pacific, but it is on the retreat in the former and challenged by anticolonial movements in the latter. France also enjoys a global brand distinct from the Anglo-Saxons, China, and Russia.
In terms of resilience, though, France has repeatedly experienced state collapse in the 19th and 20th centuries, most notably when it was overrun by Germany in 1940 and had to be re-constituted by the Anglo-Americans after the war. It is much more brittle than the United Kingdom.
What is clear is that the extent to which the great powers enjoy resources, reach, reputation and resilience, and the balance between these capabilities, varies considerably. No great power is configured quite like any other, and they differ considerably in capacity and vulnerabilities. It has always been thus. In the past, none of the great powers were exactly as strong as any other, and some were considerably weakerâfor example, 18th-century Prussia and late 19th-century Austria-Hungary.
Likewise, the great powers of today differ considerably from each other both in terms of individual strengths and overall strength. Though the United States and China are economically and militarily far ahead of Russia and the United Kingdom, all four states have attributes that mark them out from the next rung of major actors on the world scene. There is also one country, France, whose great-power status is unclear.
This listâthose it includes and those it leaves offâmay take some by surprise. Seen historically, however, its consistency is remarkable. Although the balance between the actors has shifted considerably, this configuration of great powers would have been recognizable not merely to our grandparents but our great-grandparents. In all likelihood, it will remain so to our children and grandchildren.
Study because it makes you smarter. Every time you dive into a new topic, you're not just memorizing facts; you're building a sharper, more agile mind. The breadth of your knowledge will never be a hindrance; it will only ever propel you further in life.
Study because it opens doors. Knowledge is your ticket to new opportunities. Whether it's landing your dream job, travelling the world, or just being able to hold your own in any conversation, the more you know, the further you can go.
Study because it builds discipline. Setting aside time to study teaches you valuable skills like time management and self-discipline. These habits will serve you well in all areas of life, long after youâve closed the textbooks.
Study because you want to improve yourself. Self-improvement isn't just about hitting the gym or eating right. It's about feeding your mind and growing as a person. Each study session is a step towards a better, more informed you.
Study because itâs a privilege. Not everyone has the opportunity to learn. Embrace the privilege of education and make the most of it. Honor those who fought for the right to study by making the most of your own education.
Anya is live and ready to show you everything. Watch her strip, dance, and perform exclusive shows just for you. Interact in real-time and make your fantasies come true.
â Live Streamingâ Interactive Chatâ Private Showsâ HD Quality
Anya is LIVE right now
FREE
Free to watch ⢠No registration required ⢠HD streaming
Not to be former Catholic-blogging on main but Chicago Pope can WRITE, y'all
Breaking the chains of new forms of slavery
173. This distorted view of the human person is reflected today in various forms of servitude directly linked to the digital economy. Nothing in the world of AI is immaterial or magical. Every seemingly immediate and flawless response is the result of a long chain of mediation, involving vast networks of natural resources, energy infrastructure and, above all, people. A significant part of the digital economyâs functioning relies on the silent work of millions of people engaged in essential yet largely unseen activities, such as data labeling, model training and content moderation, often involving disturbing material. In many cases, these workers are young people, predominantly women, working under demanding conditions for minimal wages. Added to this invisible labor is the even harsher work of extracting the resources required for the production of the devices and microprocessors on which AI depends. In some regions of the world, children and adolescents work in dangerous conditions, crushing the materials from which rare earth elements are extracted. The bodies of these people are scarred, injured and worn down so that computational flow may continue uninterruptedly. Furthermore, criminal networks use online platforms, messaging systems, anonymous payment methods and profiling techniques in order to recruit, control and transport victims of trafficking â very often minors â reducing men and women to âdataâ to be tracked and âpackagesâ to be moved around within the same digital circuits that support much of the global economy. This reality deeply challenges the moral conscience of our time. It is not enough to invoke efficiency, nor to celebrate the benefits of innovation, if they are built on a chain of exploitation that remains deliberately hidden. If technology promises emancipation, yet produces new forms of global subordination, it stands in contradiction to the fundamental principle of human dignity.
MAGNIFICA HUMANITAS
OF HIS HOLINESS
POPE LEO XIV
ON SAFEGUARDING THE HUMAN PERSON
IN THE TIME OF ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE
After months and months and months of internet blackout and trying so many different ways to get connected I'm finally here again...
I don't know what to do, there's so much I wanna do and there's so much fear of losing it again that I don't know what to do...
I wonder if the world can survive a week without the internet while we endure months of it not working, not that I blame anyone but the Islamic Republic.
Yes the war happened but the dictatorship in my country made sure that we suffer more through it, they can blame America and whatever but the truth it this dictatorship (the Islamic Republic) is the one to blame, millions of Iranians losing their jobs, their lives, their happiness, the connection to their families because of what they did with the internet, they damage they've done to all those who planned for their future by trying to even escape this dictatorship, the damage to the school systems, billions of money spent to shut people up so that they can write their own narrative and unfortunately from what I'm seeing the world believed them.However,t that's not surprising, given that we didn't have the chance to tell the truth from the starte.
Btw they're still executing innocent people they arrested since the protests without any trial, any proof, they're not even given the chance of having a personal lawyer to some of these prisoners, and it's too much. Too many innocent lives are being taken and this war just proved that these monsters, no matter what they do no one is ever going to question or stop them.
Little inky paw print bookmarks I'm working on as part of my scriptorium cat collection! Based off the picture on the right of a 15th century manuscript.
Religion in fantasy worlds: Everyone believes the exact same things about Green Nature Goddess and has official rituals for her that are the same everywhere
Religion irl: Technically itâs heresy for me to worship this skeleton but my spiritual advisor said that itâs legit so Iâm gonna keep giving it offerings of yogurt
Religion in fantasy worlds: These are the rules. The rules are law. Nobody can break the rules.
Religion irl: Okay you say that there are ârulesâ but how exactly are we defining ârulesâ here? Like is a suggestion a rule? How are we defining suggestion? No come back. Listen. Are we going by nuance in the original language or are translations fine or-
High control religions/cults recruiting in fantasy worlds: Join us! For we shall all eat the moon! This is a legitimate position to have!
High control religions/cults recruiting irl: We have free snacks. That shirt looks sooo cute on you btw. What, you heard that we wanna eat the moon? The media is always telling lies about us you know. We may have some unorthodox opinions about the moon but, tell you what. Come get some snacks, make some new friends, maybe chat about the moon a bit. See what you think. Weâve got pizza.
these disgusting men forcibly impregnate their wives and force her to give birth to more children than he can provide for
so now thereâs an epidemic of afghan males trafficking their daughters (and itâs always only daughters) to pedophiles so that they can feed their sons instead
Maybe these men could actually fight the Taliban and liberate their wives and daughters if this is truly so painful for them đđđ. But they won't because they actually love being superior to women and are only saying it's hard for them because they know they're evil
Anya is live and ready to show you everything. Watch her strip, dance, and perform exclusive shows just for you. Interact in real-time and make your fantasies come true.
â Live Streamingâ Interactive Chatâ Private Showsâ HD Quality
Anya is LIVE right now
FREE
Free to watch ⢠No registration required ⢠HD streaming
Lego's Q3 2025 earnings announcement, October 2025
So Lego just posted another monster quarter and everyone's doing the usual "timeless appeal of analog play in the digital age" garbage and like, no, the actual story is that Lego is a privately-held Danish family company that spent the 2000s nearly going bankrupt and came out of it having figured something out that almost nobody in consumer products has figured out, which is that your core IP is the manufacturing tolerance.
Here's what I mean. A Lego brick made in 1958 still clicks perfectly onto a Lego brick made last week. That is not a marketing claim, it's a manufacturing fact, and it's enforced by tolerances measured in like two thousandths of a millimeter â the stud diameter variance on a standard 2x4 brick is famously smaller than most medical device manufacturers hit on parts going inside human bodies. Which sounds like trivia until you realize it's the entire business model: every brick ever made is compatible with every brick that will ever be made, which means the installed base isn't a depreciating asset, it's an appreciating one, because every new set expands what you can do with the bricks already in your kid's bin (and your bin, and your dad's bin in the attic).
Now compare this to basically every other toy category. Hot Wheels from 1972 don't interface with Hot Wheels from 2024 in any meaningful way â they're both little cars, sure, but the track systems have changed, the scales have drifted, the accessories are incompatible. Barbie has gone through probably a dozen body molds. American Girl dolls from the 90s have different proportions than the current ones. The entire video game industry is structured around planned incompatibility â your Switch games don't work on Switch 2, your Xbox 360 discs mostly don't work on Series X. Incompatibility is the business model, it's how you get people to rebuy.
Lego said no. Lego said the brick from 1958 will fit the brick from 2058. And this is insane, if you think about it, because it means they have voluntarily foreclosed on the single most powerful lever in consumer products, which is forcing obsolescence. Every company that sells a durable good spends enormous amounts of R&D figuring out how to make this year's product not work with last year's product without pissing the customer off too much. Apple is a master at this, Microsoft is slightly worse at it, car companies have built entire industries on it (proprietary charging connectors, OBD-II access, right-to-repair fights). Lego just... doesn't do it.
What they get in return â and this is the thing the "timeless analog charm" people miss â is that the brick becomes infrastructure. A Lego brick is not really a toy. It's a piece of durable manufacturing infrastructure that gets distributed into hundreds of millions of homes worldwide, and every new set is basically an expansion pack for an operating system that already has universal install. Which means the network effects are doing most of the work. When a grandparent buys a Lego set for a kid, they're not buying "a toy" in the sense that a Mattel product is a toy â they're depositing compatible substrate into an accumulating household stockpile, and every deposit raises the marginal utility of the next deposit.
This is also why the IP licensing deals (Star Wars, Harry Potter, the recent Nintendo stuff) work for them in a way they work for basically nobody else. When Hasbro does a Star Wars license, they're making Star Wars figures that sit on a shelf. When Lego does a Star Wars license, they're making bricks in Star Wars configurations, which means even if the kid loses interest in Star Wars in six months, the bricks get absorbed into the general pool and keep producing value. The license is temporary, the substrate is permanent, and the substrate was already the valuable part.
The near-death experience in the early 2000s is the instructive piece here, because Lego almost lost this. They went on a diversification binge â theme parks, video games, clothing, Galidor (look it up, it's hilarious) â and they started loosening the tolerances on the actual bricks because the bricks were seen as a commodity and the "brand" was seen as the valuable part. Which is exactly backwards. Jørgen Vig Knudstorp comes in in 2004, basically says the bricks are the company, tightens tolerances back up, narrows the product line, and the company starts printing money again. The takeaway the business press drew was "focus on your core competency" which is such a domesticated reading of what actually happened â the actual lesson is "the boring manufacturing discipline IS the moat, and when you think the brand is the moat, you are about to destroy the company."
Which is interesting because right now there's a huge knockoff market â Mega Bloks, Chinese brands like Lepin (which got sued into oblivion), various others â and they make bricks that are almost compatible with Lego. Almost. And it turns out almost-compatible is actually worse than incompatible, because when a kid tries to fit a knockoff into a real Lego build and the stud is 0.03mm off, the whole structure gets wobbly, and the kid learns not to mix them. The tolerance is a credential. You can counterfeit the shape but you can't counterfeit sub-thousandth precision at scale without becoming, essentially, Lego.
Anyway, the Q3 number is like 13% up year-over-year in a consumer products environment where basically nothing is growing, and the analyst takes are all about "emotional connection" and "intergenerational brand equity" which â sure, fine, those are downstream effects. The upstream cause is that a Danish family spent fifty years obsessing over whether their plastic rectangles were within two thousandths of a millimeter of spec, and it turned out that was the whole game.
Not âOnly my reading of canon is correctâ or âInterpretations are subjective and all validâ but a secret third thing, âMore than one interpretation can be valid but thereâs a reason your English teacher had you cite quotes and examples in your papers, you have to have a strong argument that your interpretation is actually supported by the text or it is just wrong and Iâm fine with telling you itâs wrong, actually.â
If the text says the curtains are blue you can argue about what that means; but if youâre going to claim theyâre actually yellow youâd better have a really good argument.
Fandom has such unresolved mommy/daddy issues about authors. If you apply a little reading comprehension skills to my original post youâll see I didnât say anything at all about the author. You guys always make âinterpretationâ about your beef with the author. Youâre all obsessed with the author. This post is just about deciphering what is there in canon. Figuring out what is being communicated by the canon itself with all the words and images and basic formal elements that are there in canon. Thatâs all itâs about. It really doesnât matter if the author intentionally put all those things there in a pattern that might support the idea that this one characterâs queer. Thatâs not what this is about. What matters is if you can compellingly argue thereâs a pattern of evidence there. Or not. Everyone is conspiring together to make me go insane still adding shit about authorial intent on my post.
listen to me, this is so so important: you've gotta get used to really giving it your 60% as a default. like don't half-ass it necessarily but try not to go over 70% or so of an ass. you'll feel better and live a happier more fulfilled life, and on the rare occasions where you do need to lock the fuck in you'll be able to pull off bullshit that the sad miserable wretches giving it their 100% can never dream off, because they're busy draining themselves dry and you have energy reserves to spare.
where do the reports of IDF intentionally targeting children come from?
They come from a mix of sources, Anon, and the quality varies wildly.
Some originate from Hamas-controlled media in Gaza, which has obvious incentives to portray Israeli actions in the worst possible light. Others come from activist organizations like Defense for Children International-Palestine, which has documented ties to terrorist groups.
The most problematic source is social media, where unverified videos get shared with inflammatory captions. A video of injured children in Syria gets recycled as "proof" of Israeli war crimes.
Here's what makes this tricky - children do die in Gaza, and some are killed by Israeli strikes. But there's a massive difference between children being killed in military operations (tragic but not illegal) and children being deliberately targeted (which would be a war crime).
The "intentionally targeting" claim almost never has anything remotely like evidence. It's usually inference: children died, therefore they must have been targeted.
There's also something darker at work here. The idea that Jews deliberately murder children taps into blood libel accusations that have persisted for centuries. Today's version just swaps IDF uniforms for medieval robes, but the underlying antisemitic fantasy remains the same.
Credible investigations find no systematic policy of targeting children and there's been no direct evidence of the IDF targeting children.
But facts now matter less than narrative and emotional resonance.
We should be furious that more care is not taken to avoid killing children . . . that is absolutely true. But another truth is that Hamas puts headquarters in places that make safeguarding children difficult or impossible. I do not believe the line that more cannot be done, but neither to I believe that Hamas is not intentionally benefiting from the deaths of Palestinian children.
We should be furious that more care is not taken to avoid killing children . . .
We should? What more should be done?
I do not believe the line that more cannot be done
Okay - what more can be done? That's twice you've suggested that the IDF is lying when it says it is doing its best to minimize the civilian casualties that Hamas celebrates.
The IDF has been working on this problem for a very long time and I'm 100% certain they'd be thrilled to have new ideas about how to eliminate Hamas while harming the smallest possible number of non-combatants So please: share your ideas.
From here, it seems like you're accusing them of negligence or apathy, despite acknowledging that Hamas deliberately, consciously uses children as human shields and welcomes their deaths as a PR victory .
The IDF has implemented measures to mitigate civilian harm in Gaza that experts like John Spencer, chair of urban warfare studies at West Point, characterize as a historic "gold standard".
These specific tactics include making over 70,000 direct phone calls, sending millions of text messages, and dropping millions of leaflets to warn civilians of imminent strikes. These actions intentionally forfeit tactical surprise.
The IDF also pioneered "roof knocking" (dropping non-explosive devices as a final warning) and released hyper-detailed evacuation maps dividing Gaza into hundreds of tiny numbered zones to facilitate precise civilian movement.
While civilian suffering is tragic, data suggests the IDF has maintained a lower civilian-to-combatant casualty ratio than other modern urban sieges, representing an unprecedented effort by a military to protect an enemy population while fighting a combatant that uses its own people as human shields.
So if you don't have actionable ideas the IDF can use to spare more civilian lives, you owe them an apology for your allegation of apathy or negligence.
No military in human history has ever done more to protect the civilians of an enemy population.
If you have workable ideas, share them.
If you don't, I implore you to share instead your apology and retraction.
Anya is live and ready to show you everything. Watch her strip, dance, and perform exclusive shows just for you. Interact in real-time and make your fantasies come true.
â Live Streamingâ Interactive Chatâ Private Showsâ HD Quality
Anya is LIVE right now
FREE
Free to watch ⢠No registration required ⢠HD streaming
MAVIS NICHOLSON: "Do you think it is possible, then, for someone to forgive themselves even when they've done something absolutely terrible?"
TONI MORRISON: "Yes. It's called grace. At some point you do. If you don't, you're in a cul-de-sac. But you have to go through the fire first. You have to experience the full fall, and the complete self-loathing, in order to come around to something like the forgiving of oneself. It's when you skip responsibility, when you use a subsititute emotion like guilt--which is of no use to anyone--but if you feel the real thing which is shame, hatred, humiliation, and self-loathing: that is the door. And if you get through that, then you can forgive yourself."
âHaha remember when murder-hornets were gonna be a thing? What a nothingburger.â
Yes, because the Washington state government activated like a sleeper-cell and ruthlessly, systematically hunted them down and annihilated them.
âY2K came to nothing amirite?â
Yes because an army of software engineers working around the clock, losing sleep, and busting ass till the last minute prevented it from happening.
âRemember the hole in the ozone layer?â
You mean the one that was fixed through rigorous world wide government action?
One of the root problems of our society is a refusal or inability by media to articulate that all those âitâs gonna be an apocalypseâ disasters were not disasters because we collectively did something about them.
The good news is this is actually quite correctable. I maintain my firm belief that we as humans are capable of solving almost all of our problems, when we decide to do so.
And I still think thatâs going to happen. I donât know when or how, but I do know that abandoning hope wonât help bring it about.
And I refuse to let the cynics own a chunk of my heart.