Photo 17 Apr 180 notes glyphpoems:

problemglyphs:

[SPACE MUSE]


called to oracle. inthe dark morning tooalive to feign otherwise even for an hour. breedingmonsters like lilith. patronof untold empires. lettingthem remember you. the sphere of heaven andthe outermost firmament keptunder your tongue like asecret. writers write ofwriting with impossible pompbutwe are not wrongsometimes

glyphpoems:

problemglyphs:

[SPACE MUSE]

image

called to oracle. in

the dark morning too

alive to feign otherwise

even for an hour. breeding

monsters like lilith. patron

of untold empires. letting

them remember you.

the sphere of heaven and

the outermost firmament kept

under your tongue like a

secret. writers write of

writing with impossible pomp

but

we are not wrong

sometimes

via toxoplasm.
Quote 16 Apr 17,646 notes

The concern for overly exposed young bodies may be well-intentioned. With society fetishizing girls at younger and younger ages, girls are instructed to self-objectify and see themselves as sexual objects, something to be looked at. A laundry list of problems can come from obsessing over one’s appearance: eating disorders, depression, low self-worth. Who wouldn’t want to spare her daughter from these struggles?

But these dress codes fall short of being legitimately helpful. What we fail to consider when enforcing restrictions on skirt-length and the tightness of pants is the girls themselves—not just their clothes, but their thoughts, emotions, budding sexuality and self-image.

Instead, these restrictions are executed with distracted boys in mind, casting girls as inherent sexual threats needing to be tamed. Dress restrictions in schools contribute to the very problem they aim to solve: the objectification of young girls. When you tell a girl what to wear (or force her to cover up with an oversized T-shirt), you control her body. When you control a girl’s body—even if it is ostensibly for her “own good”—you take away her agency. You tell her that her body is not her own.

When you deem a girl’s dress “inappropriate,” you’re also telling her, “Because your body may distract boys, your body is inappropriate. Cover it up.” You recontextualize her body; she now exists through the male gaze.

Link 16 Apr 104 notes The Supreme Court just gutted another campaign finance law. Here’s what happened.»

demand-progress:

From Mother Jones:

The Supreme Court on Wednesday released its decision in McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission, the blockbuster money-in-politics case of the current term. The court’s five conservative justices all agreed that the so-called aggregate limit on the amount of money a donor can give to candidates, political action committees, and political parties is unconstitutional. In a separate opinion, conservative justice Clarence Thomas went even further, calling on the court to overrule Buckley v. Valeo, the 1975 decision that concluded it was constitutional to limit contributions to candidates.

In their dissent, the court’s four liberal justices called their colleagues’ logic “faulty” and said it “misconstrues the nature of the competing constitutional interests at stake.” The dissent continues, “Taken together with Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, today’s decision eviscerates our Nation’s campaign finance laws, leaving a remnant incapable of dealing with the grave problems of democratic legitimacy that those laws were intended to resolve.”

The decision is a boon for wealthy donors, a potential lifeline for the weakened Democratic and Republican parties, and the latest in a series of setbacks dealt by the Roberts court to supporters of tougher campaign laws. Here’s what you need to know.

How’d this happen?

In the 2012 election cycle, a wealthy Alabama businessman named Shaun McCutcheon tried to make donations in the amount of $1,776 to 27 right-leaning congressional candidates. Not so fast, replied the Federal Election Commission (FEC), the nation’s campaign finance watchdog.

Not only does the FEC cap the amount of money a donor can give to, say, Joe Schmo for Congress ($2,600 per election in 2013-14) or the Democratic National Committee ($5,000); the FEC also puts a ceiling on the number of within-the-limit donations a donor can make in a single election cycle. In the 2012 cycle, the aggregate limit for a donor like McCutcheon was $117,000 in donations to campaigns, PACs, and party committees. (To be clear, the PACs in this instance are of the traditional variety, the ones that have been around since the 1940s, not the super-PACs ushered in after the 2010 Citizens United decision.)

McCutcheon didn’t like the FEC telling him he could give $1,776 to 26 congressional candidates but not 27. (That would’ve exceeded the aggregate limit for candidate donations, which at that time was $46,200.) So he sued the FEC, and the Republican National Committee later joined his case as a co-plaintiff.

After this decision, how much can Shaun McCutcheon give?

Hypothetically, a single donor can now contribute as much as $3.5 million, to be divvied up between candidates, PACs, and political parties. No single entity could receive any more than the legal limits, and when you add up all the contributions a donor could potentially make without the aggregate limits, you get $3.5 million. (The overall aggregate limit was raised to $123,200 for the 2014 cycle.)

Who benefits from the decision?

This one’s easy: Politically motivated rich people, the types who can afford to cut six- or seven-figure checks.

We have a pretty good idea who these people are. An analysis by the Sunlight Foundation identified 20 donors of so-called hard money (campaign donations made within federal limits) who might be “most likely to exceed” if the Supreme Court ruled in favor of McCutcheon. They include Stephen Bechtel, the retired chairman of the contracting firm Bechtel Corporation; investor Charles Schwab; leveraged buyout billionaire John W. Childs; and Ellen Susman, a Texas-based donor and fundraiser backing President Obama.

The people who stand to benefit from McCutcheon are also the wealthy few who bankroll super-PACs on both sides of the aisle. According to the left-leaning think tank Demos, almost 60 percent of all super-PAC funding in the last election cycle came from 159 donors—that’s two coach buses of people—who’d given $1 million or more. The casino magnate Sheldon Adelson alone reportedly gave $150 million in the 2012 election cycle. This Million-Dollar Donors Club rules the world of super-PACs, and critics of the McCutcheon ruling fear they’ll now rule the world of candidates, PACs, and political parties, too.

What’s more, the parties and Congress itself could benefit from the ruling. Since the 2010 Citizens United decision, super-PACs and political nonprofits (and the consultants who run them) have gorged on million-dollar donations because they can raise and spend unlimited cash. Political parties cannot rake in the cash so freely, and they’ve struggled as a result. University of California–Irvine law professor Rick Hasen, who did not support McCutcheon’s cause, nonetheless has argued that the decision could reinvigorate the parties and maybe scale back the gridlock crippling Congress.

What are the reactions to the McCutcheon decision?

Campaign finance reformers fear the ruling will lead to more political corruption and more dependence—within Congress and on the campaign trail—on the very wealthiest Americans. They also worry that this is another bad precedent that could lead to the erosion of what’s left of the nation’s campaign finance laws. “The Supreme Court majority voted in McCutcheon today to license the further corruption of our democracy,” says Fred Wertheimer, president of the pro-regulation group Democracy 21. ”The Court re-created the system of legalized bribery today that existed during the Watergate days.”

Those who supported Shaun McCutcheon hailed the decision as a step in the right direction. Reince Priebus, the chair of the Republican National Committee, tweeted, “Today’s McCutcheon decision from the Court is important 1st step toward restoring the voice of candidates and party committees.” And Dan Backer, a conservative attorney who first persuaded Shaun McCutcheon to challenge the aggregate limits, tweeted: “FREEEEDOMMMMM!!!!”

What comes next?

Although the court’s majority opinion in McCutcheon, written by Roberts, blew up the FEC’s aggregate limits, it did not take a broader swipe at campaign finance restrictions in general. Court-watchers feared a decision in McCutcheon that would open the door to future legal assaults on the bedrock of campaign finance law: direct contribution limits, such as the $2,600 limit to candidates, the $5,000 limit to PACs and party committees, and so on.

Ever since the passage of those limits in the wake of the Watergate scandal, conservatives have wanted to repeal them. They argue that such limits infringe on individuals’ right to free speech as guaranteed by the First Amendment. Supreme Court precedent says that contribution limits are constitutional so long as they serve a governmental interest—namely, preventing corruption and the appearance of corruption. The high court has typically struck a balance between the First Amendment and combating corruption and its appearance.

However, for now, Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, and Samuel Alito have chosen not to question those basic contribution limits. Only Thomas, in his separate opinion, argued for overruling Buckley v. Valeo, which said those basic limits were constitutional. The question going forward is whether Thomas can convince his fellow conservatives to join his cause and demolish the bedrock of modern campaign finance laws.

(Source: justinspoliticalcorner)

Photo 16 Apr 7,880 notes nedahoyin:

suchalezbian:

godfortune:

girljanitor:

phenomenon-intervention:

salviprince:

This asshole.

See, this is what’s going on here: Colbert thinks he’s making fun of Washington Redskins’ owner Dan Snyder and his open letter announcing a new charity to “make a real, lasting positive impact on Native American quality of life,” all the while defending the team’s name. With this little quip (which was also featured as a segment on his show, apparently), Colbert and his liberal white audience believe themselves to be SO OBVIOUSLY above and beyond racism to the point where they can ironically deploy racist slurs to ostensibly insult fellow white people’s ignorance, oblivious to the very real and still quite literal hurt that those slurs continue to evoke for its targets. Because, you see, the joke is not for Asian people. Here, Asians are just collateral damage in the service of white liberals enjoying the freedom to mock the people they deem the REAL racists (by racially mocking the people racists supposedly mock, funny how that works). And according to Colbert’s supporters, Asian people should understand that our role here is to swallow our discomfort and be appreciative that our pain was used as a comedic device for the greater goal of self-congratulatory “progressive” white entertainment.

Bolded- because that sums up my entire feelings about the Colbert Report and my criticisms of it. The whole, “I’m so above racism that it’s funny when I say racist things because I’m so OBVIOUSLY NOT-RACIST” thing needs to die ASAP.


And this is the issue I’ve always had with racial satire.Just because you are giving [it] a new name and branding it as a joke doesn’t discount the  history of pain behind it.

Hipster racists at it again.

^^^^could not have said that shit better myself..

nedahoyin:

suchalezbian:

godfortune:

girljanitor:

phenomenon-intervention:

salviprince:

This asshole.

See, this is what’s going on here: Colbert thinks he’s making fun of Washington Redskins’ owner Dan Snyder and his open letter announcing a new charity to “make a real, lasting positive impact on Native American quality of life,” all the while defending the team’s name. With this little quip (which was also featured as a segment on his show, apparently), Colbert and his liberal white audience believe themselves to be SO OBVIOUSLY above and beyond racism to the point where they can ironically deploy racist slurs to ostensibly insult fellow white people’s ignorance, oblivious to the very real and still quite literal hurt that those slurs continue to evoke for its targets. Because, you see, the joke is not for Asian people. Here, Asians are just collateral damage in the service of white liberals enjoying the freedom to mock the people they deem the REAL racists (by racially mocking the people racists supposedly mock, funny how that works). And according to Colbert’s supporters, Asian people should understand that our role here is to swallow our discomfort and be appreciative that our pain was used as a comedic device for the greater goal of self-congratulatory “progressive” white entertainment.

Bolded- because that sums up my entire feelings about the Colbert Report and my criticisms of it. The whole, “I’m so above racism that it’s funny when I say racist things because I’m so OBVIOUSLY NOT-RACIST” thing needs to die ASAP.

And this is the issue I’ve always had with racial satire.

Just because you are giving [it] a new name and branding it as a joke doesn’t discount the history of pain behind it.

Hipster racists at it again.

^^^^could not have said that shit better myself..

Text 16 Apr 19,583 notes

youdontlooklikeafeminist:

facebooksexism:

feminismisprettycool:

When dudes are like, “Oh, I believe in equal pay because I have a daughter,” like they could not imagine that women were worth equal pay before they had one they cared about. Jesus. Fucking. Christ.

Ah, the narcissistic father type. 

image

Mmmmmhm.

Women - only worth anything if they’re worth something to some man somewhere. 

Video 16 Apr 4,968 notes

hellotailor:

katvongrimm:

buzzfeed:

saintkitten:

so you guys should definitely watch patrick stewart and ian mckellen play the newlywed game and take it very, very seriously and do very, very badly

They tried, though! And honestly, who could hold anything against these men?

this is perfect, when they reveal and go “ahhhh yes i forgot” it’s almost like they know each other better than they know themselves? iunno I am just having a lot of Best Buds feelings

oh my god when they dissolve into pure english luvvyism at the end. perfection. i would watch a hundred interviews of these guys talking about, “oh, remember when i understudied for that old chap in 1966…?”

I wanted that to never end.

Also, I was really hoping the answer to the last question for Patrick was “Spider Jerusalem.”

Text 16 Apr 5,016 notes

ennuijolras:

okay so alan tudyk is at new orleans comic con 

and someone asked him one of his favorite memories from filming firefly and he told the best story from filming “objects in space”

so basically since wash and zoe and most of the crew are locked in their rooms for the episode, all alan had to do was lay in bed for filming

so he got there early so he could sleep on set and he was about to fall asleep when gina came in and went “damn it. looks like we had the same idea. okay, scoot over.” and they napped together 

how fucking cute is that

Text 15 Apr 400,317 notes

the-real-goddamazon:

ghdos:

kristel234:

accioguitardis:

cyberunfamous:

trillow:

how much do islands cost i want one

Less than a college education

image

what the fuck

are you telling me i can create and rule my own nation for less than the price of college

I would never guess.

Why did I buy my stupid car?

I could have had my own island in Nova fucking Scotia!

Huh.

Text 15 Apr 46,839 notes

amaloli:

fun tip: say ‘another gender’ instead of ‘the opposite gender’ and crush the binary beneath your feet

(Source: 26px)

Link 15 Apr 38 notes 10 Poverty Myths, Busted»

ruckawriter:

By Erika Eicheilberger, originally published at Mother Jones.


Design crafted by Prashanth Kamalakanthan. Powered by Tumblr.