Listen. I want to tell you guys about the Dollar Tree. If you ever need to rebuild your life fast, you want a dollar tree. Everything in a dollar tree costs one dollar. No exceptions. Nothing has a price tag. Everything is one dollar.
This is Dollar Tree not Dollar General.
Dollar Tree looks like this:
Their stuff is off-brand but decent quality.
Here are some things you can buy at the dollar tree for one dollar:
- any kind of makeup- foundation, eyeshadow, lipstick, lip gloss, mascara, etc
Basically? If you ever get kicked out of your house or find yourself with a couple bucks and nothing else, get thee to a dollar tree.
All the dollar tree stores I have been in have some sort of medical aisle too. Its actually where I went first when my tooth broke for some off brand orajel (Works much faster and better than orajel imo, longer too if you put it on a cotton ball and keep it in the area) And sometimes even emergency temp tooth repair kits, which are at least $7 elsewhere. Dollar tree is a miracle.
I love Dollar Tree. When I first moved out this place saved me.
Every 20-something individual needs a Dollar Tree nearby.
Dollar Tree also sells PREGNANCY TESTS and yes they work! Go in and buy like 5 of them, don’t spend $25 on three at CVS, not worth your money and honestly has saved me TONS of anxiety.
Dollar Tree also takes EBT. I nearly cried when I discovered that, because of my strict dietary needs.
Dollar Tree is good for greeting cards, as well. Don’t have a lot of money?
No problem!
They have a 50¢ section and a $1 section!
They literally have EVERY candy you’d get at a theater too, and way more. Their snack row is to DIE FOR.
Also–college kids! When my roommate stole all of my forks and bowls and then moved out unannounced in the middle of my freshman year, I went straight to Dollar Tree and got 2 packs of forks (each pack is 4 forks) for $1 each and some cute bowls that are still my favorite bowls in the house. Not only is their silverware sturdy, but their plates and bowls are really cute.
A few dollar tree stores near me have even added a cold foods section! So check your local Dollar Tree for a $1 bag of frozen chicken nuggets and get yourself a meal!
The Dollar Tree actually has quite a few name brand products now too!
$1 potstickers to save a life or at least get you through to next payday.
On this day, 24 January 1919, staff and patients barricaded themselves inside the Monaghan Lunatic Asylum in Ireland and declared a soviet.
The asylum staff had already shown militancy during a 1918 strike when they chased away visiting staff who attempted to cross the picket line.
By 1919, attendants and nurses were working a 93-hour week and earning just £60-£70 per annum. They invited Peadar O'Donnell, a leading militant in the Irish Transport and General Workers Union, to negotiate on their behalf. And when negotiations failed to resolve their grievances, they hoisted the red flag and ran the asylum in cooperation with the patients.
O’Donnell implemented a 48-hour working week and locked one attendant in a padded cell for “defeatism.” The staff and patients showed extraordinary resolve to maintain the occupation even when surrounded by 125 armed police.
Unusually, no great animosity seems to have existed between police and strikers, and during the occupation they co-organised dances and football matches. Nevertheless, when a rumour circulated that military police were about to force entry, the occupiers sealed windows, barricaded corridors, swapped clothes with patients (to confuse the attackers), and attempted to arm themselves with shovels, spades, and pitchforks.
When authorities offered to meet wage demands for male workers only, the occupiers refused to concede, insisting on parity for women workers.
In the end, the standoff was resolved peacefully, with the total capitulation of the Asylum Committee. The occupiers held a victory dance in one of the dining halls, which was attended by many local townspeople as well as some of the police force. The following morning, February 4th, they returned to work.
If you value our content, please consider supporting our work researching and promoting people’s history like this on patreon: https://patreon.com/workingclasshistoryhttps://www.facebook.com/workingclasshistory/photos/a.296224173896073/1332532606931886/?type=3
The Hague-based International Court of Justice has ordered Myanmar to take emergency measures to prevent genocide of the Rohingya.
In a unanimously-ruled order issued by a panel of 17 judges, and read by presiding Judge Abdulaqawi Ahmed Yusuf, the court upheld the provisions of the 1948 Genocide Convention - saying Myanmar had “caused irreparable damage to the rights of the Rohingya”.
According to the Statute of the ICJ, the court has the power to order provisional measures when “irreparable prejudice could be caused to rights which are the subject of judicial proceedings”. The court found that the condition of urgency had been met in this case.
In November the Gambia filed a suit against Myanmar alleging it was committing “an ongoing genocide against its minority Muslim Rohingya population” and violating the 1948 Genocide Convention.
Provisional measures are steps to take aimed at preventing further harm and comes as the first step in the legal case.
Judge Yusuf took care to emphasise the ordering of provisional measures did not “prejudge” the case. As Mike Becker, adjunct lecturer at Trinity College in Dublin and a former legal officer at the ICJ, emphasises: “This is a preliminary decision that is without prejudice to the merits of the case.”
Because of the gravity of the crimes of which Myanmar has been accused, Becker and other legal experts described the case as an “historic legal challenge”.
Urgent measures requested and ordered
In its application to the court, the Gambia requested six provisional measures requiring Myanmar to act “with immediate effect” to prevent further genocide of the Rohingya group and to take steps not to destroy or render inaccessible any evidence already described in the application.
The Gambia also urged both sides not to take any action which might aggravate the dispute or render it more difficult to resolve, and to provide a report to the court on implementing such measures.
The Gambia later also requested Myanmar cooperate with United Nations bodies that seek to investigate the alleged acts.
Judge Yusuf said the court was not constrained to ordering the measures requested by the Gambia and that it had the power to order additional measures. Yusuf further said that, in ordering provisional measures in this case, it was not necessary to decide on the question of the presence of genocidal intent, as claimed by Myanmar.
Two years ago, Pennsylvania’s supreme court dealt a blow to state Republicans when it said they had unconstitutionally rigged congressional elections in the state. Republicans fumed and threatened to impeach four of the justices, but the map was redrawn, and voters elected an even split of Democrats and Republicans to Congress in 2018. Now, Republicans are weaponizing a new tactic – a move that seems designed to increase their power on the state’s highest court.
The Republican proposal overhauls the way that court justices are elected in a state that can swing both red and blue. The justices on the court, where Democrats hold a 5-2 majority, are currently appointed through statewide elections, but the new plan would make it so the justices are elected from districts throughout the state. The change would probably hurt Democratic candidates – four of the current justices are from the Pittsburgh area and one is from Philadelphia, both urban areas that tend to skew blue.
If the proposal is successful, it could offer a roadmap for Republicans elsewhere to undermine state courts. That’s significant after last year’s supreme court decision that determined federal courts couldn’t stop gerrymandering – the partisan redistricting of state maps – but that nothing stopped state courts from acting. State courts responded swiftly: a state court in North Carolina followed Pennsylvania and struck down electoral districts as unconstitutional gerrymanders there. And a slew of gerrymandering lawsuits are expected when districts are next redrawn in 2021.
“With the Pennsylvania supreme court having struck down the general assembly’s gerrymandering, the general assembly is now clearly trying to gerrymander the Pennsylvania supreme court itself,” said Daniel Jacobson, an attorney who helped represent the plaintiffs in the gerrymandering case. “It only goes to show the lengths that the general assembly leaders will go when they feel that their grip on power is threatened.”
The Republican effort also comes as state lawmakers across the country have moved to weaken the independence of state courts, said Douglas Keith, who studies courts across the country at the Brennan Center for Justice. Some states do elect supreme court justices by districts and there can be good reasons for doing so, Keith said. But, unjustified efforts to change the composition of state courts can weaken public confidence in judges.
“If the calls for geographic diversity are just a thin veil on an effort to make the court more political, or capture more seats for a political party or ideology, then there’s a problem and a misunderstanding of what judges’ responsibility in our democracy are,” Keith said.
Then-President-elect Donald Trump and his daughter Ivanka were warned in 2016 that the family business was overcharging the nonprofit presidential inaugural committee — and let it happen anyway, according to a suit filed Wednesday by the Washington, D.C., attorney general.
In the civil complaint, Attorney General Karl Racine charged the Trump inaugural committee and the Trump Organization with using around $1 million of charitable funds to improperly enrich the Trump family.
An experienced event planner who was working for the inaugural, Stephanie Winston Wolkoff, raised concerns directly with Donald and Ivanka Trump that the Trump International Hotel in Washington was trying to overcharge the inaugural committee.
“Winston Wolkoff met with President-elect Trump and Ivanka Trump and discussed these concerns with both individuals,” the suit says. “The President-elect acknowledged these concerns and directed that Ivanka Trump would handle this issue.”
The complaint accuses three entities — the Trump Organization, the inaugural committee and the Trump hotel — of subverting the public purpose of a charity for the Trump family’s private benefit.
At the center of the complaint is a four-day rental agreement for the downtown Washington hotel’s ballroom and adjacent spaces. The hotel, and by extension the Trump family, was paid far above market rate, according to internal documents the attorney general obtained by subpoena.
Documents uncovered by the D.C. attorney general contradict earlier statements by spokespeople for the Trumps that they had little or no involvement in the negotiations.
“The president was focused on the transition during that time and not on any of the planning for the inauguration,” Sarah Huckabee Sanders said in December 2018.
Peter Mirijanian, a spokesman for Ivanka Trump’s ethics lawyer, told WNYC and ProPublica in 2018 that Ivanka had only been contacted once about inauguration spending at Trump’s hotel: “Ms. Trump was not involved in any additional discussions.”
On Tuesday, attorney George Conway, a frequent Trump critic and husband of White House Special Counsel Kellyanne Conway, pointed out that three years into Trump’s first term as president, the national debt increased by $3 trillion, bringing it to over $23 trillion now. Conway cited figures from the National Debt Tweets in his tweet.
As a Republican presidential candidate, Trump said he would eliminate the national debt in eight years, which was $19 trillion in 2016, according to The Washington Post. Asked by journalist Bob Woodward if that would involving raising taxes to ease the problem, Trump responded: “I don’t think I’ll need to. The power is trade. Our deals are so bad.”
But as of January, President Trump signed $4.7 trillion more into the debt until 2029, according to the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget (CRFB).
At a private dinner with wealthy donors last Friday, just days before the third anniversary of his inauguration, the president brushed off critics amid concerns of his spending and growing national debt. “Who the hell cares about the budget? We’re going to have a country,” he said, as reported by The Washington Post.
The national debt has increased significantly under both the Bush and Obama administrations, increasing about 101 percent from the end of Clinton’s administration to the end of Bush’s. Republicans criticized Obama for doubling debt by nearly $9 trillion.
According to CRFB President Maya McGuineas, the deficit would have increased under Trump, even if he hadn’t signed any legislation. But the new policies he signed beginning in 2017 reflect further spending, which is unusual during a period of economic growth.
“Just like the economic performance isn’t totally attributable to the president, the existing policies that are baked into the cake don’t reflect Trump’s initiative,” MacGuineas told Newsweek. “The laws he’s signed, though, do. And in this case, he’s signed into law two major tax cuts–the one that everybody notices.”
The two pieces of legislation that added the most to the national debt are the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) and the 2018 and 2019 Bipartisan Budget Acts (BBA), according to CRFB. In addition to these, the ACA Tax Repeal and other legislation–which included disaster relief, emergency spending, and ACA tax delays, signed in December 2019–added a combined total of about $665 billion.
MacGuineas also said that laws Trump has signed have increased spending, without revenue increasing enough to maintain it, creating more debt than expected. “There were a number of increases that were already on track that came from our growing healthcare and retirement cost. But President Trump massively exacerbated that problem with the laws he signed, which included creating lower revenues and higher spending. And obviously, because of the laws of math, that means we’re left with much larger borrowing,” she said. “What’s unusual is that during a period of economic expansion the borrowing would be increasing from year to year, but that’s what’s been happening under President Trump.”
Brazilian prosecutors have charged controversial American journalist Glenn Greenwald with cybercrimes after he published hacked text messages exposing corruption among public officials.
Greenwald, the co-founder of The Intercept and a former columnist for Salon and the Guardian, was accused of being part of a “criminal organization” that hacked the phones of multiple public officials and prosecutors in a 95-page criminal complaint on Tuesday, The New York Times reports. Prosecutors alleged that he aided the hackers, which Greenwald denied.
Greenwald, a staunch critic of far-right Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro, published conversations involving Brazilian Justice Minister Sérgio Moro that showed Moro had coordinated with prosecutors while he was a judge overseeing a wide-ranging corruption allegation that led to the conviction of former President Luis Inácio Lula da Silva, paving the way for Bolsonaro’s election. Moro, himself a popular far-right figure in the country, now serves in Bolsonaro’s cabinet.
Prosecutors alleged in the complaint that Greenwald played a “clear role in facilitating the commission of a crime” because he urged the hackers to delete archives they shared with The Intercept Brasil to cover their tracks, according to the Times. Prosecutors said Greenwald spoke with the hackers while they were monitoring private chats. Six other people were charged in the complaint, including four who were detained last year in connection with the hacks.
Supreme Court Justice Gilmar Mendes issued an order last year banning the federal police from investigating Greenwald’s role in the hacks. Prosecutors said on Tuesday they complied with the order but found new messages they claimed implicated Greenwald. The charges come after Brazilian federal police had issued a report clearing Greenwald of criminal conduct in the hacks.
“The one thing I could not do is give direction,” Greenwald told the Times. “That’s crossing a line. I was very careful.”
Greenwald, who previously published National Security Agency documents leaked by Edward Snowden, suggested that he was concerned he was being charged in retaliation for his reporting last year, according to The Times. Bolsonaro himself has attacked Greenwald for being gay and said he may “do jail time in Brazil” last year.
Greenwald, who lives in Brazil and is married to Brazilian congressman David Miranda, told the Times that the charges were “an obvious attempt to attack a free press in retaliation for the revelations we reported about Minister Moro and the Bolsonaro government.”
once i forgot to take maps down in the back of the room for a geography quiz once so to prevent cheating i stood in the back with a hugeass nerf gun and dared anyone to peek.
This blog is mostly so I can vent my feelings and share my interests. Other than that, I am nothing special.
If you don't like Left Wing political thought and philosophy, all things related to horror, the supernatural, the grotesque, guns or the strange, then get the fuck out. I just warned you.
