1. nbcsnl:

    so instead of writing a sketch we’re gonna recreate her video for “call your girlfriend”. x

    Happy birthday to our pal, Taran. Hope today gives you reason to flaunt your magnificent dance moves.

    My favorite thing ever.

    (Source: sebsastianstan)

  2. aljazeeraamerica:

    Army Gen. Sinclair avoids jail time in sexual assault case

    An Army general who carried on a three-year affair with a captain under his command, and who had two other inappropriate relationships with subordinates, has avoided jail time and was instead reprimanded and docked $20,000 in pay Thursday, in one of the military’s most closely watched courts-martial.

    Brig. Gen. Jeffrey A. Sinclair, the former deputy commander of the storied 82nd Airborne Division,was believed to be the highest-ranking U.S. military officer ever court-martialed on sexual assault charges, but earlier this week those charges were dropped when he pleaded guilty to inappropriate relationships with the three women.

    Continue reading

    (Photo: Davis Turner/Getty Images)

    The rage headache I have from reading this entire article is overwhelming. 

  3. sogaysoalive:

    "Do not look down on something that you don’t understand"


  4. "“There is no such thing as a true tale. Truth has many faces and the truth is like to the old road to Avalon; it depends on your own will, and your own thoughts, whither the road will take you.”
    ― Marion Zimmer Bradley, The Mists of Avalon"
  5. chakrabot:







    "My body, my choice" only makes sense when someone else’s life isn’t at stake.

    Fun fact: If my younger sister was in a car accident and desperately needed a blood transfusion to live, and I was the only person on Earth who could donate blood to save her, and even though donating blood is a relatively easy, safe, and quick procedure no one can force me to give blood. Yes, even to save the life of a fully grown person, it would be ILLEGAL to FORCE me to donate blood if I didn’t want to.

    See, we have this concept called “bodily autonomy.” It’s this….cultural notion that a person’s control over their own body is above all important and must not be infringed upon. 

    Like, we can’t even take LIFE SAVING organs from CORPSES unless the person whose corpse it is gave consent before their death. Even corpses get bodily autonomy. 

    To tell people that they MUST sacrifice their bodily autonomy for 9 months against their will in an incredibly expensive, invasive, difficult process to save what YOU view as another human life (a debatable claim in the early stages of pregnancy when the VAST majority of abortions are performed) is desperately unethical. You can’t even ask people to sacrifice bodily autonomy to give up organs they aren’t using anymore after they have died. 

    You’re asking people who can become pregnant to accept less bodily autonomy than we grant to dead bodies. 

    reblogging for commentary 

    But, assuming the mother wasn’t raped, the choice to HAVE a baby and risk sacrificing their “bodily autonomy” is a choice that the mother made. YOu don’t have to have sex with someone. Cases of rape aside, it isn’t ethical to say abortion is justified. The unborn baby has rights, too. 

    First point: Bodily autonomy can be preserved, even if another life is dependent on it. See again the example about the blood donation. 

    And here’s another point: When you say that “rape is the exception” you betray something FUNDAMENTALLY BROKEN about your own argument.

    Because a fetus produced from sexual assault is biologically NO DIFFERENT than a fetus produced from consensual sex. No difference at all.

    If one is alive, so is the other. If one is a person, so is the other. If one has a soul, then so does the other. If one is a little blessing that happened for a reason and must be protected, then so is the other. 

    When you say that “Rape is the exception” what you betray is this: It isn’t about a life. This isn’t about the little soul sitting inside some person’s womb, because if it was you wouldn’t care about HOW it got there, only that it is a little life that needs protecting.

    When you say “rape is the exception” what you say is this: You are treating pregnancy as a punishment. You are PUNISHING people who have had CONSENSUAL SEX but don’t want to go through a pregnancy. People who DARED to have consensual sex without the goal of procreation in mind, and this is their “consequence.” 

    And that is gross. 

    This has been added to since I last saw it, so reblogging again.

    Busted wide open.

    (via wilwheaton)

  7. caninotexsistforawhile:




    but then again, its kind like putting a meat suit on and telling a shark not to eat you

    We (men) are not fucking sharks!

    We are not rabid animals living off of pure instinct

    We are capable of rational thinking and understanding. 

    Just because someone is cooking food doesn’t mean you’re entitled to eat it. 

    Just because a banker is counting money doesn’t mean you’re being given free money.

    Just because a person is naked doesn’t mean you’re entitled to fuck them. 

    You are not entitled to someone else’s body just because it’s exposed. 

    What is so fucking difficult about this concept?

    How can you not reblog something like this


    thedarkchocolatedandy FTW.

    (Source: wildcatmary, via latinolonewolf-deactivated20140)


  8. "If you think you know the answers
    then you’ve got a lot of gall
    I guess it gives you satisfaction
    knowing nothing at all
    i don’t care anymore
    i don’t wanna find out what i left there for"
    — Indigo Girls, I Don’t Wanna Know - 1989

  9. "Sometimes you climb out of bed in the morning and you think, I’m not going to make it, but you laugh inside — remembering all the times you’ve felt that way."
    — Charles Bukowski  (via newyorkcallingu)

    (Source: indicio, via hannahyears)

  10. theatlantic:

    Thurgood Marshall: The Constitution Had to Be ‘Corrected’

    Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall gave very, very few interviews in his lifetime. 

    Marshall, biographer Charles Zelden explains, “felt that it was a conflict of interest for a sitting judge to speak out publicly on the issue that might come before the Court.” 

    But in 1987, Marshall broke his silence in a candid, one-hour interview with journalist Carl Rowan of WHUT (Howard University Television) in Washington, D.C. It is perhaps one of only two televised interviews he gave while on the Court (the only other, to my knowledge, is a 1990 conversation with ABC’s Sam Donaldson, which does not seem to be available online).

    The WHUT interview ran for an hour, and it has recently been digitized by the American Archive of Public Broadcasting. The digital files will be available on-site at WGBH in Boston and at the Library of Congress by the end of October of this year, and may someday be available online, if the legal rights can be cleared.

    For now, the AAPB and WHUT have made a portion of it available to The Atlantic, a small hint of what must be a remarkable program in full.

    Read more. [Image: AP]

    This is so flipping cool. I’d give anything to have been able to speak with Justice Marshall.