awkwardsituationist:

photos by mark bridger (more deer posts)

micdotcom:

Watch: Comedian Aamer Rahman’s explainer of reverse racism is still requisite viewing.

Especially considering the astounding number of Americans who think “reverse racism” is a real problem.

swingsetindecember:

onemuseleft:

poe-damnneron:

lunar-lavender:

shofie-ffxiv:

wildlife-rehabilitator:

meowoofau:

purina tidy cats lightweight litter causes health problems

Purina tidy cats lightweight litter has caused serious health issues in cats. They include wheezing, bloody nose, bloody urine and respiratory problems. If you are currently using this product, please keep a close eye on your feline’s health. Please consider avoiding purchasing this product if possible as it is not worth the risk.

This isn’t the first time a Purina product has been reported to adversely affect pets, we posted earlier this year that Beneful is facing a class action lawsuit for the death of 4,000 dogs.

As parents of furchildren, we need to be more aware of the food and products we give our babies and not be blinded by big budget campaigns and advertisements from giant pet brands. They may claim to have our pets’ best interests at heart but that is not always the case.

Every single one of you, please please reblog this to help inform others.

Actually gonna reblog this to my main blog because this should get more exposure

Be careful, pet owners, this is not a hoax. Some of the Amazon reviews are painful and sickening to read, this stuff is so damaging to pets. Don’t buy it, don’t let others buy it.

I literally just bought this at the store today. I will promptly return it.

Fair warning, this product is, in my experience, really, really terrible for people who have asthma or any kind of respiratory problems as well.

from the MSDS (material safety data sheet), purina tidy cats lightweight litter shouldn’t even be around humans for long periods. 

it contains perlite which is an industrial insulator. also silica and bentonite, which if fine enough are respiratory hazards. 

From the MSDS sheet: 

• Dust may be irritating to skin, eyes and nasal passages. 
• Maintaining occupation exposures to dust to levels less than the occupational exposure levels are recommended to minimize the potential for silicosis, respiratory tract, eyes and skin irritation. 
  
• Health Hazard – Carcinogenicity 
  
• Inhalation: Short Term: Dust may irritate the nasal passages. Long Term: Breathing small particles can be hazardous to lungs. This product contains crystalline silica in extremely small amounts. Crystalline silica in high concentrations can cause lung disease.
  

Even the MSDS sheet says you need to be in a well ventilated area and minimize exposure if using. That alone is a red flag. 

alwaysbewoke:

alwaysbewoke:

seriouslyamerica:

alwaysbewoke:

amyleona:

vivaillajams:

random-alias:

alwaysbewoke:

for real. reading the history of the laws (the many laws) written to keep blacks away from anything empowering is quite dizzying and housing discrimination was a big one. laws keeping and taking land from blacks go way back (for example) and as society progressed, it morphed to fit the times. nowadays it’s housing discrimination and it’s rampant. 

Shonda Rhimes needs to make a show for Black kids and let him star.

How ironic. I was just talking about this.

This shit is serious. Gentrification is an issue. Housing discrimination is real. 

True stories:
-A Black family moving into a suburban neighborhood actually would lower the prices of homes. Because all the White people would try to move out as soon as possible.
-If the new suburb was next to a non-White neighborhood, a fence could be put up “for safety” to instantly raise property values.
-Have you heard the term redline/-ing? It refers to the practice of corporations color coding a region and not investing in or refusing service to those from certain (red) areas. These were usually poor Black neighborhoods. This included refusing those in redlined areas access to jobs, loans, medical care, etc.
-Many older developments that were predominately home to poor PoC were destroyed with the promise of a new development or a suburb. This almost never happened and left the country with a shortage of affordable housing that still exists today.
-“Between 1934 and 1962, the federal government backed $120 billion of home loans. More than 98% went to whites. Of the 350,000 new homes built with federal support in northern California between 1946 and 1960, fewer than 100 went to African Americans.” http://newsreel.org/guides/race/whiteadv.htm

White people whose family has owned homes since the mid 20th century: The financial success and safety of our families and ourselves is completely based on racism. Never forget that.

Read more:
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institutional_discrimination_in_the_United_States_housing_market
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redlining
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Housing_Administration
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shelley_v._Kramer
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_Housing_Act

This needs more notes. People need to know just how this society made it a point at every turn to hold (and still hold today) Black people down for the benefit of whites.

A huge part of white wealth was created through real estate. A sector that Black people were systematically kept out of. A sector now where Black people are still preyed upon.

White real estate agents also took advantage of racist white homeowners with a practice called blockbusting, where they would encourage them to sell their homes at a loss with just the hint or promise that a black family (or sometimes Jewish or nonblack PoC family, depending on the region) was going to move in.

There were also footnotes on the actual deeds for many houses in white neighborhoods, stipulating that the house was never allowed to be sold or rented to a nonwhite occupant (Jewish people were nearly always considered nonwhite for these purposes). Called restrictive covenants, these were demanded and upheld by white homeowners associations, often with the real threat of violence.

Racist housing discrimination is as American as apple pie at a baseball game.

and this brings us to the current situation where the supreme court is going to take a look at the “Disparate Impact” rule of the Fair Housing Act of 1968. What disparate impact rule does is keep people from trying to discriminate against protected groups in America though subtle means. In our society, racism is very subtle especially when it’s corporate. So instead of putting out a sign that says “whites only” in front of building, a landlord can simply refuse to entertain people with a “Black” sounding name. In doing so they can say that their screening process has nothing to do with race but yet their process negatively impacts Black people and under this rule would be considered illegal. Another example would be banks deciding to issue loans at a higher interest rate to people in a certain part of town and claiming that doing so has nothing to do with race when in fact they are well aware that said part of town is populated by mostly Black people. So again, not blatant, quite subtle but under the disparate impact rule illegal. The Supreme Court is set to hear arguments on the legality of this rule and, given their history of gutting civil right protections, could very well strike it down. If that happens, the flood gates of housing discrimination will be wide open and Black people, above all, are going to get hammered.

The case the Supreme Court will here is actually a great example of the subtle racial discrimination and racist practices the rule was made to fight. A Texas state agency awards low-income-housing tax credits to certain developers; a high percentage of this housing winds up being occupied by minorities. The agency, without giving a legitimate reason, granted the tax credits disproportionately to developers who own properties in impoverished, minority-majority neighborhoods. A fair housing group sued, insisting that the agency’s practices had the effect of keeping minorities trapped in minority communities while helping white communities keep minorities out. Simple. A subtle action was taken that had huge negative affect on minorities because where you live is everything in this country. From access to public transportation, healthy foods, clean air, emergency services, well resourced schools, playgrounds, cleanliness and etc are all affect by where you live and if an action is creating a circumstance that keeps a group of people locked in areas where those elements are below average, there’s a problem. Racism and discrimination in this country is subtle as fuck but that doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist and shouldn’t be fought. What the SCOTUS is going to do is anyone’s guess but I’m not optimistic. We could very well be looking at a long period where Blacks (as well as other minority groups) are going to be preyed upon more viciously than we’ve seen in a very long time. 

There’s a bunch of re-blogs of this without the caption, smfh. DO NOT REMOVE THE TEXT ABOVE!! THERE IS VITAL INFORMATION HERE!!!