dont you think its weird. dont you think its weird that the space race last time was two of the biggest powers in the world. and now its a handful of rich men. dont you think its weird they can afford that. dont you think its bad that rich men can afford the same things as the government.
dont you think its weird that while the world is suffering and poverty is everywhere, where there’s wars and climate change and human pain and homelessness. the same month I’ve watched people die on the news from unbearable heat and unprecedented flooding. that a rich handful of men are going to space, causing more carbon emissions. dont you think its weird that instead of putting their vast amount of money to use for good they’re using it to find a way off the planet theyre destroying.
dont you think its really fucking weird.
“dont you think its bad that rich men can afford the same things as the government.”
I agreed with this post from the start, but that’s the line that really put things in perspective and made me go “oh shit”.
Okay also I’ve been driving electric cars long enough now to be really emphatic that the fact that they’re not all automatically built with solar panels in the roofs is a scandal.
And somehow almost every time I tell anyone this they roll their eyes and attempt to explain to me that this would not create a perpetual motion machine because of the limitations of the area relative to the power draw of the motor, which is incredibly annoying because that’s not the point.
Yes it’s possible that driving in the sunshine with a solar collector dripping into the battery would net you a little more mileage on that trip before needing recharge, but the usefulness of a solar-topped electric car is that if you drive it someplace–say, to work–and leave it outside in the sun all day, you’ll definitely have more range available by the time you’re ready to head home.
Also if you fuck up your calculations because of the inefficiency induced by cold weather or something and get yourself stranded without anywhere to charge, like halfway up a mountain or, more likely, six miles from home, you can call for rescue or walk away, come back later, and it’ll be able to move again.
This is important because unlike running out of gas you can’t really go get some electricity.
like imagine if some of the energy that turns into face-melting air when you first turn the AC on was stored as electricity instead of going to waste
Imagine if electric cars were designed and sold on their merits as practical devices and not toys for the rich.
Hey guys! I don’t usually talk about very serious subjects happening around the world at the current moment, but all this news about climate change permanently affecting the planet is creating alot of anxiety around the world at the moment. I’m sure alot of you guys have given up and don’t care anymore, which I do not blame you as I feel the same way. But, with a little bit of motivation I’m sure we can help aid the climate change problem by adding little changes to our everyday schedule.
Below are some recommendations to help slow down climate change:
Unplug electrical devices when not used
Grow trees/oxygen releasing plants (heavily recommend this website for plant recommendations:
Use less gas releasing transport (use bicycle, walk, ext.)
Eat more naturally grown foods - vegetables, fruit, ext. (You can grow your own, which I can assure you is very interesting as well as money saving. By doing this you spend less money on food miles and less electricity is used on factories.)
Shop locally if you are able to. This can help cut carbon emissions and air pollution as well as cut food miles. By making cleaner air we can also make fresher crops.
Throw away less food. Use the food that you buy when you can and compost it. This can help stop methane gas from entering the air.
If you are interested in learning more ways to help aid climate change then you can use the website below:
One might be tempted to ask oneself why it is that the right wing is so stubborn when it comes to the overwhelming scientific evidence regarding climate change. Even those who can bring themselves to admit it’s happening, it’s our fault, and it’s bad, nevertheless are lukewarm about doing anything about it. In fact, even they tend to revert back to making fun of global warming when the opportunity presents itself.
Think about that: they find it easier to mock something they readily otherwise admit is real than actually do something about it.
This has been somewhat difficult for me to understand. Why would you accept as fact that something that critically bad for everyone is going on yet be reluctant to do anything about it? Why do some people refuse to even entertain the notion?
In some cases, it’s unthinking politics. People take a side and filter the information they get through a political lens based on the sources they read and then do little thinking of their own, choosing what resonates ideologically. To some degree, while reprehensible, they’re the least offensive of recalcitrants. Then there are those who refuse to accept the possibility because it would necessarily require them to admit to themselves and, even less tolerably, admit to the other side that they were wrong about something. But those aren’t the most offensive ones.
The most offensive are those whose intellectual vanity is greater than their ideological satisfaction and lead them to accept the consensus and, really, what their fucking eyes are telling them, yet choose to remain anything short of strident in adopting the justifiably alarmist position. I couldn’t understand why. Then I remember Magda Goebbels in Downfall:
“My children cannot grow up in a world without National Socialism.”
She would rather destroy her children than allow them to grow up in a world where her ideology was fundamentally wrong (in her case, German racial superiority).
I have a hard time coming to any other conclusion than to think that conservatives who accept climate science would rather see the world burn than have a reality where their fundamental position of industry first, environment second, is inescapably wrong.
And that’s why they’ll never come around. There are those among them who will blindly refuse to believe it because they are too dull-witted, there are those among them who will refuse to believe it because ideologically their egos cannot take it, and then there are those who will believe it but refuse to do anything about it because, “My children cannot grow up in a world without amoral capitalism.”
Who has rights? What rights do they have? Can circumstances change regarding who does and doesn’t have rights? And should entities other than humans have rights? These are some of the central questions posed by legislation passed in late December by the White Earth Band of Ojibwe in Minnesota to ensure the rights something unexpected: manoomin wild rice.
The statutes represent landmark legislation in the United States since they are the first “to recognize legal rights of a plant species,” said Mari Margil, head of the International Center for the Rights of Nature at the Community Environmental Legal Defense Fund (CELDF). The new statutes, drafted in consultation with CELDF, include provisions to allow manoomin to “exist, flourish, regenerate, and evolve.” Consistent with this goal is the right to have pure water and a healthy climate system, the right to be free from patents, and the right to be free from contamination by genetically engineered organisms.
In summary, manoomin wild rice is deserving of legal standing in U.S. courts — legal personhood. This would allow people, or organizations, to bring lawsuits on behalf of wild rice arguing that the grain itself was being harmed through an action. There would be no need to demonstrate that a person, or another entity with legal personhood, like a corporation, was being harmed.
ok so people are making fun of this but adding this with other anti-global warming tactics will work
This isn’t adding ice just for the sake of denial, it’s adding to the Earth’s albedo. This in turn actually makes the Earth’s climate cooler, and then more ice will be produced naturally because of this.
It isn’t a process we need to continue forever, in fact it’s one that needs to be calculated so that we don’t do it TOO MUCH. The only worry would be cooling down too much.
So yes, this is a good idea. It simply isn’t the only thing we should do because we still have gross pollution.
For the love of god do it . anything just do it. Give us hope.
Here’s the thing: Most environmental catastrophes humans have ever or are currently creating can be fixed. It’s not just a matter of “oh no, things are ruined, and maybe we can stop the degradation so that things don’t get any worse, but we’re stuck with how things are.” There are some things we can’t do, like bringing back extinct species. But there are a lot of other things we can definitely do, many of which are being done right now. The problem is that most of our willpower and effort is spent on bullshit tiny things that won’t solve the problem (individual recycling, etc.) and not on the large-scale things that can and will make a large-scale difference.
Ice caps are melting? Guess what! We know how to make ice. It’s not that hard. Designing mostly-automated robot ships to go to the poles and rebuild the ice caps is well within our current technical capabilities. We just need to fund it.
Deforestation on a massive scale? Destruction of other biomes? Guess what! We know how to plant trees. We know how to plant grasslands. We know how to take barren, lifeless land and turn it back into a viable biome. It’s not that hard. In a lot of cases, if there’s neighboring areas where that biome still exists, all you have to do is dump a few tons of biomass (plant clippings, food waste, etc.) on the barren land and stand back and wait. The biomass will provide nutrients and keep the topsoil from blowing away, and the plants and animals from the neighboring biome will move in. In two decades, even if you don’t do anything besides dumping the biomass on it, you won’t be able to tell what was the barren area and what was the still-existing biome.
Coral reefs dying? Now, coral reefs are a bit more fragile than most biomes, but guess what! We still know how to replant/rebuild them, and in fact are working on that in places affected by coral reef die-off! And we’re learning how to do it better every day.
Desertification? Guess what! We know how to turn desert back into green space. They’re doing it on a large scale in China and sub-Saharan Africa. There are several different techniques, none of which are even very technology-intensive. It takes money and time and labor, but it’s perfectly doable. We know this because we’ve done it.
Plastic in the ecosystem, particularly in the ocean? Guess what! There’s a lot of people working on this, both on “how to remove plastic from the ocean” and “how to reuse/recycle it more efficiently.” And the techniques are improving by leaps and bounds every year. This is a solvable problem. These are all solvable problems.
So if you’re crushed by the weight of the coming environmental catastrophe … don’t be. These are all solvable problems! We can stop things from getting worse, and we can fix the things we’ve broken. The issue is political, not practical.
On the political side, of course, is the need to tighten up environmental regulations across the globe. (What’s the statistic, that 90% of pollution is caused by 100 corporations?) And then of course, we need to fund these programs on a large enough scale.
In some ways the political aspect is the hardest, but consider this: we are at a tipping point. Things are changing about the way politicians talk about climate change and ecological degradation. More ordinary people are concerned about this, which means more pressure on politicians. One of the ways that things are changing is that people–even conservatives–are starting to talk about “job opportunities in new green fields” and switching the conversation so that it’s not “rainforest vs. jobs” makes political action a lot more possible. And no, it’s not going to happen on its own, but it canhappen.
This is a solvable problem.
I *needed* this. Climate change has had me feeling SO helpless, having a list of things that can actually potentially be done is beautiful
The Arctic ecosystem is changing and it is doing so at an alarming rate. Indeed, the Arctic Circle is warming faster than most other ecosystems on this planet. All of this change has implications for the plant communities that call this region home. In a landmark study that incorporated thousands of data points from places like Alaska, Canada, Iceland, Scandinavia, and Russia, researchers have demonstrated that Arctic vegetation is, on average, getting taller.
Imagine what it is like to be a plant growing in the Arctic. Extreme winds, low temperatures, a short growing season, and plenty of snow are just some of the hardships that characterize life on the tundra. Such harsh conditions have shaped the plants of this region into what we know and love today. Arctic plants tend to hug the ground, hunkering down behind whatever nook or cranny offers the most respite from their surroundings. As such, plants of Arctic-type habitats tend to be pretty small in stature. As you can probably imagine, if these limits to plant growth become less severe, plants will respond accordingly.
That is part of what makes this new paper so alarming. The vegetation that comprise these Arctic communities is nearly twice as tall today as it was 30 years ago. However, the increase in height is not because the plants that currently grow there are getting taller but rather because new plants are moving northwards into these Arctic regions. New players in the system are usually cause for concern. Other studies have shown that it isn’t warming necessarily that hurts Arctic and alpine plants but rather competition. They simply cannot compete as well with more aggressive plant species from lower latitudes.
Taller plants moving into the Arctic may have even larger consequences than just changes in species interactions. It can also change ecosystem processes, however, this is much harder to predict. One possible consequence of taller plants invading the Arctic involves carbon storage. It is possible that as conditions continue to favor taller and more woody vegetation, there could actually be more carbon storage in this system. Woody tissues tend to sequester more carbon and shading from taller vegetation may slow decomposition rates of debris in and around the soil.
It is also possible that taller vegetation will alter snowpack, which is vital to the health and function of life in the Arctic. Taller plants with more leaf area could result in a reduced albedo in the surrounding area. Lowering the albedo means increased soil temperatures and reduced snowpack as a result. Alternatively, taller plants could also increase the amount of snowpack thanks to snow piling up among branches and leaves. This could very well lead (counterintuitively) to warmer soils and higher decomposition rates as snowpack acts like an insulating blanket, keeping the soil slightly above freezing throughout most of the winter.
It is difficult to make predictions on how a system is going to respond to massive changes in the average conditions. However, studies looking at how vegetation communities are responding to changes in their environment offer us one of the best windows we have into how ecosystems might change moving into the uncertain future we are creating for ourselves.
If I had a time machine, the first place I would visit would be the Carboniferous. Spanning from 358.9 to 298.9 million years ago, this was a strange time in Earth’s history. The continents were jumbled together into two great landmasses - Laurasia to the north and Gondwana to the south and the equatorial regions were dominated by humid, tropical swamps. To explore these swamps would be to explore one of the most alien landscapes this world has ever known.
The Carboniferous was the heyday for early land plants. Giant lycopods, ferns, and horsetails formed the backbone of terrestrial ecosystems. By far the most abundant plants during these times were a group of giant, tree-like lycopsids known as the scale trees. Scale trees collectively make up the extinct genus Lepidodendron and despite constantly being compared to modern day club mosses (Lycopodiopsida), experts believe they were more closely related to the quillworts (Isoetopsida).
It is hard to say for sure just how many species of scale tree there were. Early on, each fragmentary fossil was given its own unique taxonomic classification; a branch was considered to be one species while a root fragment was considered to be another and juvenile tree fossils were classified differently than adults. As more complete specimens were unearthed, a better picture of scale tree diversity started to emerge. Today I can find references to anywhere between 4 and 13 named species of scale tree and surely more await discovery. What we can say for sure is that scale tree biology was bizarre.
The name “scale tree” stems from the fossilized remains of their bark, which resembles reptile skin more than it does anything botanical. Fossilized trunk and stem casts are adorned with diamond shaped impressions arranged in rows of ascending spirals. These are not scales, of course, but rather they are leaf scars. In life, scale trees were adorned with long, needle-like leaves, each with a single vein for plumbing. Before the started branching, young trees would have resembled a bushy, green bottle brush.
As scale trees grew, it is likely that they shed their lower leaves, which left behind the characteristic diamond patterns that make their fossils so recognizable. How these plants achieved growth is rather fascinating. Scale tree cambium was unifacial, meaning it only produced cells towards its interior, not in both directions as we see in modern trees. As such, only secondary xylem was produced. Overall, scale trees would not have been very woody plants. Most of the interior of the trunk and stems was comprised of a spongy cortical meristem. Because of this, the structural integrity of the plant relied on the thick outer “bark.” Many paleobotanists believe that this anatomical quirk made scale trees vulnerable to high winds.
Scale trees were anchored into their peaty substrate by rather peculiar roots. Originally described as a separate species, the roots of these trees still retain their species name. Paleobotanists refer to them as “stigmaria” and they were unlike most roots we encounter today. Stigmaria were large, limb-like structures that branched dichotomously in the soil. Each main branch was covered in tiny spots that were also arranged in rows of ascending spirals. At each spot, a rootlet would have grown outward, likely partnering with mycorrhizal fungi in search of water and nutrients.
Eventually scale trees would reach a height in which branching began. Their tree-like canopy was also the result of dichotomous branching of each new stem. Amazingly, the scale tree canopy reached staggering heights. Some specimens have been found that were an estimated 100 ft (30 m) tall! It was once thought that scale trees reached these lofty heights in as little as 10 to 15 years, which is absolutely bonkers to think about. However, more recent estimates have cast doubt on these numbers. The authors of one paper suggest that there is no biological mechanism available that could explain such rapid growth rates, concluding that the life span of a typical scale tree was more likely measured in centuries rather than years.
Regardless of how long it took them to reach such heights, they nonetheless would have been impressive sites. Remarkably, enough of these trees have been preserved in situ that we can actually get a sense for how these swampy habitats would have been structured. Whenever preserved stumps have been found, paleobotanists remark on the density of their stems. Scale trees did not seem to suffer much from overcrowding.
The fact that they spent most of their life as a single, unbranched stem may have allowed for more success in such dense situations. In fact, those that have been lucky enough to explore these fossilized forests often comment on how similar their structure seems compared to modern day cypress swamps. It appears that warm, water-logged conditions present similar selection pressures today as they did 350+ million years ago.
Like all living things, scale trees eventually had to reproduce. From the tips of their dichotomosly branching stems emerged spore-bearing cones. The fact that they emerge from the growing tips of the branches suggests that each scale tree only got one shot at reproduction. Again, analyses of some fossilized scale tree forests suggests that these plants were monocarpic, meaning each plant died after a single reproductive event. In fact, fossilized remains of a scale tree forest in Illinois suggests that mass reproductive events may have been the standard for at least some species. Scale trees would all have established at around the same time, grown up together, and then reproduced and died en masse. Their death would have cleared the way for their developing offspring. What an experience that must have been for any insect flying around these ancient swamps.
Compared to modern day angiosperms, the habits of the various scale trees may seem a bit inefficient. Nonetheless, this was an extremely successful lineage of plants. Scale trees were the dominant players of the warm, humid, equatorial swamps. However, their dominance on the landscape may have actually been their downfall. In fact, scale trees may have helped bring about an ice age that marked the end of the Carboniferous.
You see, while plants were busy experimenting with building ever taller, more complex anatomies using compounds such as cellulose and lignin, the fungal communities of that time had not yet figured out how to digest them. As these trees grew into 100 ft monsters and died, more and more carbon was being tied up in plant tissues that simply weren’t decomposing. This lack of decomposition is why we humans have had so much Carboniferous coal available to us. It also meant that tons of CO2, a potent greenhouse gas, were being pulled out of the atmosphere millennia after millennia.
As atmospheric CO2 levels plummeted and continents continued to shift, the climate was growing more and more seasonal. This was bad news for the scale trees. All evidence suggests that they were not capable of keeping up with the changes that they themselves had a big part in bringing about. By the end of the Carboniferous, Earth had dipped into an ice age. Earth’s new climate regime appeared to be too much for the scale trees to handle and they were driven to extinction. The world they left behind was primed and ready for new players. The Permian would see a whole new set of plants take over the land and would set the stage for even more terrestrial life to explode onto the scene.
It is amazing to think that we owe much of our industrialized society to scale trees whose leaves captured CO2 and turned it into usable carbon so many millions of years ago. It seems oddly fitting that, thanks to us, scale trees are once again changing Earth’s climate. As we continue to pump Carboniferous CO2 into our atmosphere, one must stop to ask themselves which dominant organisms are most at risk from all of this recent climate change?
Last week was a blast, this week for the Abstract Advent the Christmas Shit™ started to bite, and I found it harder to juggle meeting up with people, portrait sessions, getting all the cards and parcels off in a panic because like storms, flooding, wrong kind of wind, snow and ice on the roads as always Royal Mail can’t keep to their last posting times…
Australia’s east-coast bushfires of 2019-2020 have been extinguished for some time now, but the rafts of charred debris continue to linger on our beaches, leaving a permanent record of the events of last summer.
Such records, when successfully preserved in sedimentary environments, is what scientists study to better understand what fire regimes were like in the past, so we have better idea what is to come.
Concrete Mirrors deals with the iconography of space conquest during the 60s, back to a climate of suspicion and paranoia linked to the cold war. Presented as a fake photograph-documentary, this project puts together three corpus of images of different nature and status, combining types of reality, these are documents, and virtuality, those are places.
Throughout recorded history, humans have forced the evolution of select plants and animals. Now, researchers at the Hawaii Institute of Marine Biology’s Gates Lab are using this technique, called “assisted evolution”, to create “super coral.”
Why would researchers, led by Hollie Putnam and Ruth Gates, director of the the Hawaii Institute of Marine Biology, want to breed this strong, resilient coral? It comes down to the impact of climate change on oceanic ecosystems.
“"I think it is perhaps just the Ötzi-find which has preserved fletching on arrows, but his arrow fletchings are nowhere as well preserved as some of ours,” Lars Pilø, an archaeologist at the Department of Cultural Heritage, Innlandet County Council, Norway, co-director of the Glacier Archaeology Program, told Live Science in an email. However, “his are older too, by several thousand years, so this is not to diss Ötzi’s arrows,” Pilø said"
Hello my lovely humans, welcome back to what I like to call informal essays. Today brings together two very important topics to me, food and conservationism. This is going to be longer than my last post and is going to involve some sidetracking as well.
I came up with this topic while looking at all the spices I was using to make butter chicken for dinner tonight and wondering how much the price was going to go up when shit really hits the fan, if we could have such dishes like this again, etc. So, essentially my anxiety spiral led me to doing research and wanting to discuss the intersectionality of culinary arts, climate science, and farming. In our current state, beef reigns supreme in terms of climate change contribution, the most eaten meat in the world is actually chicken, which is significantly less harmful than beef or pork, and yet beef and pork have the greatest climate impact and are highly susceptible to diseases (poultry is as well, don’t get me wrong). In general animal farming is a big contributor to climate change, crop farming is as well…
Crop farming, which I talk about here, also emits a lot of fossil fuels, pesticides, herbicides, fungicides, and pollutes ground water, depletes soil, and flows downriver along with cow and pig manure, thus killing fish, crustaceans, marine reptiles, and mammals who live in or around the sea. This combination of disregard after disregard for natural ecosystems leads us into where we are now. The Midwest is on the cusp of desertification, there’s been no agriculture reform or sign of actual change, which is why we need to take it upon ourselves to start vertical farming, hydroponics, and soil-less farming on an industrial scale. Not only is it more efficient, it’s better for the environment in every possible aspect, even using less water and requiring very little usage of fertilizers, but how do you replace animal farming? Answer: You don’t, you just get rid of it, the least amount of impact out of any animal is the chicken, so it may be able to stay, but cows and pigs cannot be farmed en masse anymore, it’s dangerous for our environment and our health, so they must be used all at once, and composted (with the rich preferably). It sounds cruel, I know, but there aren’t many better options. Of course the meat and dairy industries will try to interfere like they always do, but we knew that would happen anyway.
Moral of the story, our modern agriculture industry is profit focused and not based around the health or well-being of us or our planet, causing both a rise in greenhouse gas emissions, water and land pollution, and is just generally bad for us in the dietary respect.
Anyway, that’s all for today babes. This has been @punkofsunshine have a good one and stay safe.
FromPhotos: Sandstorms Sweep Across Parts of the Middle East, one of 16 photos. Bedouin shepherds walk alongside their grazing flock in the al-Henniyah area outside of Najaf, Iraq, on May 23, 2022, during a sandstorm sweeping the country. (Qassem Al-Kaabi / AFP / Getty)
The only forms of rebellion the system allows are those which create the illusion of choice while benefitting the status quo.
Black rights activists are still murdered. Indigenous activists are still murdered. Environmentalists are still murdered. Women are still murdered.
Transgenderism is a false, sanctioned form of rebellion that falls within a framework of the oppressive, capitalist system. It benefits pharmaceutical industries and relies on patriarchy’s lie that gender stereotypes are innate.
The system creates the problem and sells a solution. Gender dysphoria is real, as any woman can attest. Gender, however, is not.
All forms of rebellion can be absorbed into the capitalist framework, especially through the sale of selfhood as an external marker. Under such defense, nothing is sacred and any idea or identity may be bought; there are no limits to what can become a commodity.
This is why activists who pursue changing the system are killed, why transgenderism as an ideology is being embraced worldwide by governments who understand that it benefits men and legally erases patriarchy.
Those who oppose this way of thinking are murdered; those who adopt it as a person choice become lauded mascots.
How do you immediately understand that transgenderism is a false flag?
By how quickly it has been embraced by celebrities and politicians, and how very quickly laws are being changed globally.
Reminder: the US never passed the ERA granting women equal rights.
We have so much work to do. We are on the brink of mass extinctions. What better way to divert from global ecological crises than to label biology itself as socially constructed by men, and who better fit to encourage bio-denial than corporations and celebrities?
It makes complete sense that the death throes of an obsolete system collectively resort to violent gnashings against nature and biology itself, at a time when our very survival as a species depends on healing biological systems.
Anyone who cares about the survival of the planet, or even of humanity itself, ought to shun outright the concept of becoming a true “self” through toxic chemicals. Instead we ought to re-establish a concept of selfhood through actions as opposed to perceptions.
Indeed, human self-identity is also at odds with the survival of the planet, as long as we shape it as dependent on external means.
You can never buy an identity, or medicate yourself into existence; in truth, your existence is nothing but part of an ecological system.
It’s my view that transgenderism goes hand in hand with climate change; that it diverts us from our own extinction by feeding an appetite for validation, to fill a hole created by a destructive system.
So we turn inward, rather than facing our shared reality.
As much as transgenderism is biophobia, extreme societal denial of physical reality, it can’t exist without the very real phenomenon of womb envy, which is to say the acknowledgement that women reproduce life and men play a less significant role in continuing humanity.
Women have emphasized repeatedly that the female ability to reproduce is what men seek to control when they oppress us.
Now, they demand our silence regarding our physical differences.
We are allowed a body, or a mind; never both at the same time.
When and if society at large realizes that this has been but a stepping stone towards transhumanism, the human merging and dependence on technology for survival, it will be too late; and undoubtedly, a man will receive credit for pointing out what is quite obvious to us as women.
“I know, the dominant narrative around climate change tells us that it’s our fault. We left the lights on too long and didn’t recycle our paper. I’m here to tell you that that is bullshit. If the light switch was connected to clean energy, who the hell cares if you left it on? And your scrap paper did not hasten the end of the world.
Don’t give into that shame. It’s not yours. The oil and gas industry is gaslighting you.
That same IPCC report revealed that a mere 100 companies are responsible for 71 percent of global climate emissions. These fuckers are locking you and everything you love into a tomb. You have every right to be pissed the fuck off. And we have to make them hear about it.”
