wnycradiolab:

…and other pressing questions about the great Ludwig van B. in our new short.

helms-deep:

So you remember the article I posted a couple of days ago? You know, the one that ended up with me going off on a tangent about fans and fandom in general? Well, guess what? There’s a follow up with rebuttals from some of the leading thinkers in terms of military strategy. It’s yet another long read, but quite enjoyable.

helms-deep:

This is an incredible article breaking down why the Empire failed to destroy the Rebels on Hoth. Even if you’re only a casual Star Wars fan (which, if that’s the case, you’re following the wrong blog), it’s still a great read.

sideshow-bib:

Clearly, it’s time to nom out on cupcakes. CLEARLY.

I don’t agree with calorie-counting and this article is sort of flimsy, but cupcakes! I’m always in favor of cupcakes. xoxoxoxo

(Source: sideshow-bib)

palmtreepalmtree:

Scouting officials argued that background checks would cost too much, scare away volunteers and provide a false sense of security.  They successfully lobbied to kill state legislation that would have mandated FBI fingerprint screening.

While touting their efforts to protect children, the Scouts for years resisted one of the most basic tools for preventing abuse.  The result: The organization let in hundreds of men with criminal histories of child molestation, many of whom went on to abuse more children, according to a Times analysis of the Scouts’ confidential abuse files.

This article is so unbelievably damning, I’m appalled.  I can barely wrap my brain around this.  I hope they get they sued into oblivion.

trigger warning: sexual abuse, child abuse

I could not bring myself to read more than half of this article because I want to cry

but this is fucking repugnant. for an organization to support negligent, damaging policies and tacitly allow this to continue for decades, I just can’t even fathom how this is possible. and I hate that so many of these incidences could have been prevented with a simple procedural change. 

how is it possible for people in charge of this kind of decision-making to convince themselves that this is okay?

this breaks my heart.

xoxoxoxo

thelongbournlibrary:

I’m surprised this hasn’t come across my dash since I first read it last week, but it might be of interest to fellow readers here: Stanford researchers tested the difference between casual and close reading by having students read a chapter of Mansfield Park while their brains were being scanned.

Phillips said the global increase in blood flow during close reading suggests that “paying attention to literary texts requires the coordination of multiple complex cognitive functions.” Blood flow also increased during pleasure reading, but in different areas of the brain. Phillips suggested that each style of reading may create distinct patterns in the brain that are “far more complex than just work and play.”

Worth a full read if you’re interested.

(via jennhoney)