rating: explicit pairing: percy/annabeth, with previous luke/annabeth summary: It wasn’t like Annabeth hadn’t been warned about him. In New Rome, there was just one unofficial rule to surviving and thriving for demigods and mortals alike. Avoid the son of Neptune. At all costs. support: ko-fi

“A throne room? You can’t be that tacky.”

“Sure I can.” He winked, getting out of the car. “I designed it after the big man’s himself.”

Annabeth laughed as she unbuckled her seat belt and ducked out of the car, relief washing through her and uprooting some of her pesky nerves. She hadn’t realized how worried she’d been about his expectations for the night, if he would be disappointed if she didn’t live up to her adrenaline laced promises.

“The gods must think you’re impertinent,” she said as he shut her door and crowded her up against the car. He propped a hand on the Maserati’s roof and leaned in, caressing her jawline with his knuckles.

“Only because I am.”

read it here

it's indigenous peoples' day in the usa! to celebrate i am here to help non-indigenous folks in north america to think about the terminology they use because i know not all of y'all know how the nuances of the many things we're called. in general, when talking about an indigenous person or character and referring to their indigeneity, referring to their specific culture is the best option. i am indigenous, but more specifically i am cree. that said, let's talk about terminology while recognizing that the following list is super simplified to give you a brief overview.

indigenous is an umbrella term that refers to the original inhabitants of a land. it is used to talk about indigenous people worldwide. we use it as a collective term because we share many interests, but we are all different peoples and nations. people who are māori or sámi or ainu are all indigenous, but they're all from very different places and cultures. indigenous as a term unites us, but shouldn't be used to erase our differences.

aboriginal is, like indigenous, an umbrella term that refers to the original inhabitants of a land. aboriginal was a favoured term in canada for many years and is still used by some multi-nation organizations. canada's indigenous peoples' day (‪june 21‬) is also sometimes called aboriginal peoples' day.

native american is a term that refers specifically to indigenous people living in what is currently the contiguous united states of america. people living in alaska or hawaii may prefer the term native hawaiian or native alaskan. if you call someone in canada native american they'll know what you mean, but it's not the preferred term. like indigenous, it is an umbrella term and covers many different tribes/nations. it is a term assigned to indigenous people and adopted by us, but not one we came up with ourselves.

native alaskan is an umbrella term that refers to indigenous people living in what is currently alaska. they are culturally distinct peoples from native american cultures. you may be used to calling native alaskans "esk*mos" and if you are you should stop that right fucking now because esk*mo is a derrogatory term that comes from cree slang. some native alaskan people are inuit (see below), but not all are.

native hawaiian is a term for indigenous hawaiians. this is another umbrella term. native hawaiians were not included in federal programs for native americans until the 70s and some programs still exclude them, as do many discussions about native american issues even though they are also an indigenous group colonized by the usa.

native is an umbrella term used by indigenous people to refer to themselves. in north america, it may be socially acceptable to refer to indigenous people as being native, but ymmv and elsewhere in the world, it carries more racist, colonial baggage than it does here, where it is generally understood as a shortened form of native american.

american indian is a dated term that is still used in some official spaces in the united states. older indigenous people may use this (or the term indian) because they're used to saying it. if you're not indigenous, you should probably say native american or indigenous. amerindian is a portmanteau of this term and similarly isn't really favoured anymore.

indian is a dated term for indigenous people in canada and the united states. it stems from the time of christopher columbus when columbus decided to call us "indian". if you are non-indigenous, do not refer to indigenous people as indian. in canada, it is also a legal designation tied to the indian act that means some indigenous people hold "indian status," which grants them certain rights. some indigenous people in north america have reclaimed the term indian to refer to themselves.

ndn is a slang term we use to refer to ourselves online. if you're non-indigenous then bro. do not. it just stands for indian, you can't!

first nations is a term analogous to native american. it is used in canada to refer to the many indigenous nations south of the arctic circle. as someone who is cree, i'm first nations. it is an umbrella term, but not every indigenous person in canada is first nations. unlike "indian", it is not a legal term.

inuit is the term for indigenous peoples that live in what is currently canada's north. some indigenous people in alaska (and elsewhere) may also identify as inuit because the american/canadian border is a new addition in the grand scope of their histories. inuit are culturally distinct from first nations/native americans. also inuit means "the people" and y'all my inuk friend is so fucking amused every time someone says "the inuit people" because y'all are out here saying "the the people people." not all indigenous people in the north are inuit.

métis is a term for people who are descended from specific communities where indigenous people and non-indigenous settlers intermarried and created their own culture. they are specific, cultural communities within canada with their own culture and language. not everyone with mixed indigenous and settler ancestry is métis. for example, my dad is white and my mom is cree. i am not métis because i don't have any connection to a historic métis community. again, this is not a legal term the way indian is.

redsk*n is a derogatory term for native american/first nations people. the term originates from the genocide of our peoples, tied with the practice of collecting bounties for the scalps (the "red skins" in question) or other body parts of indigenous people in the west. do not use the term. even if you're talking about the football team that recently changed its name, say "the washington team" or something similar. it's a slur. (source: https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/a-brief-history-of-the-word-redskin-and-how-it-became-a-source-of-controversy/2016/05/19/062cd618-187f-11e6-9e16-2e5a123aac62_story.html)

In 2016, over 75,000 mail-in ballots were left uncounted and discarded because they were received after  mail-in voting deadlines, which all vary by state, according to CBS news. 

Some states like California allow you to check with the Registrar of Voters on-line to verify both if a ballot has issued and if it was received to help prevent voting errors.

Because of the Fifth Amendment, no one in the U.S. may legally be forced to testify against himself, and because of the Fourth Amendment, no one’s records or belongings may legally be searched or seized without just cause. However, American police are trained to use methods of deception, intimidation and manipulation to circumvent these restrictions. In other words, cops routinely break the law—in letter and in spirit—in the name of enforcing the law. Several examples of this are widely known, if not widely understood.

1) “Do you know why I stopped you?” Cops ask this, not because they want to have a friendly chat, but because they want you to incriminate yourself. They are hoping you will “voluntarily” confess to having broken the law, whether it was something they had already noticed or not. You may think you are apologizing, or explaining, or even making excuses, but from the cop’s perspective, you are confessing. He is not there to serve you; he is there fishing for an excuse to fine or arrest you. In asking you the familiar question, he is essentially asking you what crime you just committed. And he will do this without giving you any “Miranda” warning, in an effort to trick you into testifying against yourself.

2) “Do you have something to hide?” Police often talk as if you need a good reason for not answering whatever questions they ask, or for not consenting to a warrantless search of your person, your car, or even your home. The ridiculous implication is that if you haven’t committed a crime, you should be happy to be subjected to random interrogations and searches. This turns the concept of due process on its head, as the cop tries to put the burden on you to prove your innocence, while implying that your failure to “cooperate” with random harassment must be evidence of guilt.

3) “Cooperating will make things easier on you.” The logical converse of this statement implies that refusing to answer questions and refusing to consent to a search will make things more difficult for you. In other words, you will be punished if you exercise your rights. Of course, if they coerce you into giving them a reason to fine or arrest you, they will claim that you “voluntarily” answered questions and “consented” to a search, and will pretend there was no veiled threat of what they might do to you if you did not willingly “cooperate.” (Such tactics are also used by prosecutors and judges via the procedure of “plea-bargaining,” whereby someone accused of a crime is essentially told that if he confesses guilt—thus relieving the government of having to present evidence or prove anything—then his suffering will be reduced. In fact, “plea bargaining” is illegal in many countries precisely because it basically constitutes coerced confessions.)

4) “We’ll just get a warrant.” Cops may try to persuade you to “consent” to a search by claiming that they could easily just go get a warrant if you don’t consent. This is just another ploy to intimidate people into surrendering their rights, with the implication again being that whoever inconveniences the police by requiring them to go through the process of getting a warrant will receive worse treatment than one who “cooperates.” But by definition, one who is threatened or intimidated into “consenting” has not truly consented to anything.

5.) We have someone who will testify against you Police “informants” are often individuals whose own legal troubles have put them in a position where they can be used by the police to circumvent and undermine the constitutional rights of others. For example, once the police have something to hold over one individual, they can then bully that individual into giving false, anonymous testimony which can be used to obtain search warrants to use against others. Even if the informant gets caught lying, the police can say they didn’t know, making this tactic cowardly and illegal, but also very effective at getting around constitutional restrictions.

6) “We can hold you for 72 hours without charging you.” Based only on claimed suspicion, even without enough evidence or other probable cause to charge you with a crime, the police can kidnap you—or threaten to kidnap you—and use that to persuade you to confess to some relatively minor offense. Using this tactic, which borders on being torture, police can obtain confessions they know to be false, from people whose only concern, then and there, is to be released.

7) “I’m going to search you for my own safety.” Using so-called “Terry frisks” (named after the Supreme Court case of Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1), police can carry out certain limited searches, without any warrant or probable cause to believe that a crime has been committed, under the guise of checking for weapons. By simply asserting that someone might have a weapon, police can disregard and circumvent the Fourth Amendment prohibition on unreasonable searches.

U.S. courts have gone back and forth in deciding how often, and in what circumstances, tactics like those mentioned above are acceptable. And of course, police continually go far beyond anything the courts have declared to be “legal” anyway. But aside from nitpicking legal technicalities, both coerced confessions and unreasonable searches are still unconstitutional, and therefore “illegal,” regardless of the rationale or excuses used to try to justify them. Yet, all too often, cops show that to them, the Fourth and Fifth Amendments—and any other restrictions on their power—are simply technical inconveniences for them to try to get around. In other words, they will break the law whenever they can get away with it if it serves their own agenda and power, and they will ironically insist that they need to do that in order to catch “law-breakers” (the kind who don’t wear badges).

Of course, if the above tactics fail, police can simply bully people into confessing—falsely or truthfully—and/or carry out unconstitutional searches, knowing that the likelihood of cops having to face any punishment for doing so is extremely low. Usually all that happens, even when a search was unquestionably and obviously illegal, or when a confession was clearly coerced, is that any evidence obtained from the illegal search or forced confession is excluded from being allowed at trial. Of course, if there is no trial—either because the person plea-bargains or because there was no evidence and no crime—the “exclusionary rule” creates no deterrent at all. The police can, and do, routinely break the law and violate individual rights, knowing that there will be no adverse repercussions for them having done so.

Likewise, the police can lie under oath, plant evidence, falsely charge people with “resisting arrest” or “assaulting an officer,” and commit other blatantly illegal acts, knowing full well that their fellow gang members—officers, prosecutors and judges—will almost never hold them accountable for their crimes. Even much of the general public still presumes innocence when it comes to cops accused of wrong-doing, while presuming guilt when the cops accuse someone else of wrong-doing. But this is gradually changing, as the amount of video evidence showing the true nature of the “Street Gang in Blue” becomes too much even for many police-apologists to ignore.

Michaelá is a 24 y/o Black woman who was physically assaulted at a nail salon in Michigan and was afterwards threatened online by the same workers who shared her personal information and created a false story for others to attack her. Police did nothing and even denied her to press charges against her attackers. This is her GoFundMe.

More information can be found on her original IG post. She has also made other posts updating her situation as time passes. Below are pictures of the place of the attack and some of the online threats she's been getting.

Y’all please help in anyway you can. This baby is only 11!

Here is their PayPal: https://www.paypal.com/paypalme2/sistahgirlRsp