Celestial Map

RSS | Random | Archive

About Me

Blogs I follow:

Theme by: Miguel
  1. PETITION FOR GINA TORRES TO PLAY WONDER WOMAN

    amgkatt:

    BECAUSE
    imageimage

    AND ALSOimage
    image

    JUST
    image

    image
    LET ME JUST SAY

    image
    image
    IF YOU DON’T ALREADY THINK THIS WOMAN IS AN AMAZONIAN PRINCESS
    image
    image

    YOU ARE DOING IT TOO WRONG FOR WORDS.

  2. 29225 Notes
    Reblogged: bonesmakenoise
  3. rockinxxrio:

    mah lawd ppreeeeeachhhhh

    (Source: boosthouse)

  4. 73128 Notes
    Reblogged: zombie-rabbits
  5. faeries-everywhere:

    stupidandreckless:

    NOOOO NO NO NONO FUCK FUCK  FUCKIG CBS IS TELLING WOMEN NOT TO REPORT SEXUAL HARASSMENT BECAUSE IT WILL “DAMAGE THEIR CAREERS” and “HARASSMENT IS AN UNFORTUNATE PART OF CLIMBING THE LADDER” I AM SO ANGRY THEY ARE LITERALLY TURNING SEXUAL HARASSMENT INTO A NORM THIS IS NOT OKAY

    ”ordinary harassment”
    ?????????????????????

  6. 123638 Notes
    Reblogged: snickerdooble
  7. ittygittydiddynator:

    anderjak:

    toastradamus:

    Roger Rabbits special effects still fucking hold up by todays standards AND looks better than most films that come out NOW it was that ahead of its time

    I’m still amazed that Hoskins had that little to work with. Everything about this video is awesome.

    This made my day.

  8. 24036 Notes
    Reblogged: jicheshire
  9. "Thank god for Fan Fiction Writers"

    - Every Fandom Ever (via indefinitely-rad)
  10. 19580 Notes
    Reblogged: zombie-rabbits
  11. nextyearsgirl:

    stfuconservatives:

    ethiopienne:

    deliciouskaek:

    14kgoldnyc:

    sanityscraps:

    goldenheartedrose:

    soultired:

    goldenheartedrose:

    inflateablefilth:

    nothingaboutus-withoutus:

    artemispotter:

    Leviticus 20:13:

    If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They must be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads.

    Nice try, Colbert.

    Leviticus was written approximately 1400 years before Jesus’ birth.

    Nice try, artemispotter.

    Old Testament =/= New Testament. Seriously. Also, Leviticus also commands you to learn the Torah, which, if you’re getting Old and New confused, you clearly haven’t.

    Not to mention the other ridiculous laws in Leviticus (and Deuteronomy, as well), including the following:

    • No mixing of different types of fabric
    • No having sex with a woman on her period
    • Curse your mother or father? You must be killed
    • Disabled people cannot worship God 
    • Stubborn children should be stoned.

    So…. still want to argue how valid the OT is?

    Also, in the Bible!=Jesus said it, anyway.  Even in the NT, there are a lot of people who aren’t Jesus giving their opinions.

    Truth.  

    Only if the words are in red (in many translations) does it mean that Jesus said it.

    FWIW, the apostle Paul and I would not have been friends.  Mortal enemies is more like it.

    Hey, guys, remember that one time when Jesus declared Levitican law irrelevant?

    The former regulation is set aside because it was weak and useless (for the law made nothing perfect), and a better hope is introduced, by which we draw near to God.

    -Hebrews 7:18-19.

    Having been Jewish for, you know, ever, I am endlessly amused at the Christian Right’s reliance on Leviticus. Even I, who didn’t understand the theological difference between Catholics and Protestants until I took a course on Christianity in college, knew that Jesus was totes anti-Leviticus.

    Seriously, people…

    ^^^^^^^

    Ugh thank you. Fellow Christian here. I’ve literally NEVER understood this logic. “hey guys let’s pick one arbitrary part of leviticus to harp on and ignore the fact that 99% of the new testament explicitly tells us the old covenants/laws no longer hold true”

    I love it when self-professed “Christians” don’t know the ABSOLUTELY MOST SIMPLE basics of the difference between the Old and New Testament. If you are against gay marriage because of Leviticus, you should also keep kosher and be against tattoos. Otherwise you’re just another FLAMING HYPOCRITE.

    -Jess

    This is an enormous chain and I’m sorry, but I need to say this:

    The laws in the Old Testament were set forth by god as the rules the Hebrews needed to follow in order to be righteous, to atone for the sin of Adam and Eve and to be able to get into Heaven. That is also why they were required to make sacrifices, because it was part of the appeasement for Original Sin.

    According to Christian theology, when Jesus came from Heaven, it was for the express purpose of sacrificing himself on the cross so that our sins may be forgiven. His sacrifice was supposed to be the ultimate act that would free us from the former laws and regulations and allow us to enter Heaven by acting in his image. That is why he said “it is finished” when he died on the cross. That is why Christians don’t have to circumcise their sons (god’s covenant with Jacob), that is why they don’t have to perform animal sacrifice, or grow out their forelocks, or follow any of the other laws of Leviticus.

    When you quote Leviticus as god’s law and say they are rules we must follow because they are what god or Jesus wants us to do, what you are really saying, as a Christian, is that Christ’s sacrifice on the cross was invalid. He died in vain because you believe we are still beholden to the old laws. That is what you, a self-professed good Christian, are saying to your god and his son, that their plan for your salvation wasn’t good enough for you.

    So maybe actually read the thing before you start quoting it, because the implications of your actions go a lot deeper than you think.

    /An atheist who understands Christian theology better than Bible-thumpers do.

    (Source: drunkonstephen)

  12. 553512 Notes
    Reblogged: saltysalmonella
  13. marialuisa-pr:

    gynocraticgrrl:

    Jessica Rey presents the history of the evolution of the swimsuit including the origins of its design, how it has changed overtime and the post-feminist association of the bikini symbolizing female empowerment. She refers to neuro-scientific studies revealing how male brains react to images of scantily clad women versus images of women deemed modest and what the implications of the results are for women in society.

    (Note: As the OP, I disagree with Rey’s approach to putting the onus on women to alter ourselves rather than to alter the male perception of women – brain wiring has plenty to do with socialization and if we worked against the culture that fuels men’s objectification of women, women’s clothing choices would matter far less in terms of how men perceive us and determine how to interact with us).

    Jessica Rey - The Evolution of the Swim Suit

    bolding mine

  14. 57467 Notes
    Reblogged: saltysalmonella
  15. http://aobanii.tumblr.com/post/83318656011/mojomomo-i-like-seeing-characters-of-people

    mojomomo:

    I like seeing characters of people like me but most of the time it’s a stereotype, usually a Hijabi Muslim Brown Arab Woman. Let’s address this one at a time:

    Hijabi

    The hijab’s popularity among Muslim Arabs of today is a modern phenomenon that was largely viewed as a protest…

  16. 213 Notes
    Reblogged: aobanii
  17. "Date a girl who reads but not someone who has strong opinions she must be educated but you must be smarter than she is, sleep with whomever you want but bring only the virgin home to mom, make sure she’s funny wild wacky but not too energetic not too loud, give her a dark side but only one that’s easily cured she’s got to love video games but you have to be better at them make sure she’s a writer make sure at least once you break a poet’s heart, it makes you immortal when she spills your history onto pages filled with her pain - be sure to call her insane to your friends, shake your head, wonder aloud what the fuck is wrong with her for loving someone, for loving you, drag her name through the mud just because she was stupid enough to believe everything you told her - make sure she has good fashion sense and tasteful makeup but isn’t obsessed with it just so you can show her off to your friends but at the same time be sure she’s still attractive in sweats measure her waist with your fingers to ensure she is skinny but only naturally so, don’t you know bones are for dogs but too many curves and she’s not good at all, feel free to make fun of her salads and yogurts and granola, disregard the idea that she’s doing this all for you and she wants to sit around and eat cake instead of impress you, make sure she has some kind of cause but never one that shouts too loud, a girl who likes art a girl who likes math a girl who likes anything just as long as it isn’t too much that’s just annoying, a girl who likes to cook and will take “get back in the kitchen” as a joke, who likes to clean but doesn’t mind your mess, who is calm but passionate but exercises good judgement but is willing to take a risk who wants kids but only when you suggest them who is practical but believes in magic who is gentle but fucks hard who is pious unless you are in private who bends her knees for god but also to suck your dick who responds to your every touch like she is made thoughtless by it but still has some kind of mysteriousness who is obedient but independent loving but hard to get caring but not clingy talented but willing to give up her passions for you - but no, don’t worry about who you are or how you act. She’ll change to please you. You don’t have to be a good husband, she will believe she has to be perfect no matter what happens. The only flaws she is allowed are tiny ones. Girls need to be capable, honest, needing. Who cares if a girl like this doesn’t exist. We’ll convince them all to read our requirements and make themselves fit."

    -

    Society’s recipe for the impossible girl my brother should marry (part 2/2 of a series) /// r.i.d  (via communistmanipesto)

    this is pretty much my dad and mom.

    (via launturnforest)

  18. 3627 Notes
    Reblogged: bonesmakenoise
  19. http://callmekitto.tumblr.com/post/83382891730/stupidswampwitch-masooood-safeidgul-why

    stupidswampwitch:

    masooood:

    safeidgul:

    Why can’t there be a male hooter’s equivalent where male servers are shirtless and highly sexualized for their bodies and looks

    Male Strip clubs. You’re thinking of male strip clubs.

    No. Not a male strip club. A strip club is a strip…

  20. 57433 Notes
    Reblogged: callmekitto
  21. ambientheif:

    jackthemother:

    So this happened on facebook today….

    BOOM

  22. 153125 Notes
    Reblogged: bonkalore
  23. lintott:

    no one ever likes me as much as i like them 

  24. 559132 Notes
    Reblogged: zombie-rabbits
  25. leatherharness:

    i don’t think anyone actually likes me

  26. 69550 Notes
    Reblogged: zombie-rabbits
  27. nevver:

Free Speech
  28. 7539 Notes
    Reblogged: bonesmakenoise
  29. thebicker:

aka14kgold:

arbitrary-mask:

thepeoplesrecord:
The 1% wants to ban sleeping in cars - it hurts their ‘quality of life’April 16, 2014
Across the United States, many local governments are responding to skyrocketing levels of inequality and the now decades-long crisis of homelessness among the very poor … by passing laws making it a crime to sleep in a parked car.
This happened most recently in Palo Alto, in California’s Silicon Valley, where new billionaires are seemingly minted every month – and where 92% of homeless people lack shelter of any kind. Dozens of cities have passed similar anti-homeless laws. The largest of them is Los Angeles, the longtime unofficial “homeless capital of America”, where lawyers are currently defending a similar vehicle-sleeping law before a skeptical federal appellate court. Laws against sleeping on sidewalks or in cars are called “quality of life” laws. But they certainly don’t protect the quality of life of the poor.
To be sure, people living in cars cannot be the best neighbors. Some people are able to acquire old and ugly – but still functioning – recreational vehicles with bathrooms; others do the best they can. These same cities have resisted efforts to provide more public toilet facilities, often on the grounds that this will make their city a “magnet” for homeless people from other cities. As a result, anti-homeless ordinances often spread to adjacent cities, leaving entire regions without public facilities of any kind.
Their hope, of course, is that homeless people will go elsewhere, despite the fact that the great majority of homeless people are trying to survive in the same communities in which they were last housed – and where they still maintain connections. Americans sleeping in their own cars literally have nowhere to go.
Indeed, nearly all homelessness in the US begins with a loss of income and an eviction for nonpayment of rent – a rent set entirely by market forces. The waiting lists are years long for the tiny fraction of housing with government subsidies. And rents have risen dramatically in the past two years, in part because long-time tenants must now compete with the millions of former homeowners who lost their homes in the Great Recession.
The paths from eviction to homelessness follow familiar patterns. For the completely destitute without family or friends able to help, that path leads more or less directly to the streets. For those slightly better off, unemployment and the exhaustion of meager savings – along with the good graces of family and friends – eventually leaves people with only two alternatives: a shelter cot or their old automobile.
However, in places like Los Angeles, the shelters are pretty much always full. Between 2011 and 2013, the number of unsheltered homeless people increased by 67%. In Palo Alto last year, there were 12 shelter beds for 157 homeless individuals. Homeless people in these cities do have choices: they can choose to sleep in a doorway, on a sidewalk, in a park, under a bridge or overpass, or – if they are relatively lucky – in a car. But these cities have ordinances that make all of those choices a criminal offense. The car is the best of bad options, now common enough that local bureaucrats have devised a new, if oxymoronic, term – the “vehicularly housed”.
People sleeping in cars try to find legal, nighttime parking places, where they will be less apparent and arouse the least hostility. But cities like Palo Alto and Los Angeles often forbid parking between 2am and 5am in commercial areas, where police write expensive tickets and arrest and impound the vehicles of repeat offenders. That leaves residential areas, where overnight street parking cannot, as a practical matter, be prohibited.
One finds the “vehicularly housed” in virtually every neighborhood, including my own. But the animus that drives anti-homeless laws seems to be greatest in the wealthiest cities, like Palo Alto, which has probably spawned more per-capita fortunes than any city on Earth, and in the more recently gentrified areas like Los Angeles’ Venice. These places are ruled by majorities of “liberals” who decry, with increasing fervor, the rapid rise in economic inequality. Nationally, 90% of Democrats (and 45% of Republicans) believe the government should act to reduce the rich-poor gap.
It is easy to be opposed to inequality in the abstract. So why are Los Angeles and Palo Alto spending virtually none of their budgets on efforts to provide housing for the very poor and homeless? When the most obvious evidence of inequality parks on their street, it appears, even liberals would rather just call the police. The word from the car: if you’re not going to do anything to help, please don’t make things worse.
Source

“Their hope, of course, is that homeless people will go elsewhere…”
HOW? WITH WHAT FUNDS? FOR WHOSE BENEFIT? TO WHERE?
Our society’s approach to its most vulnerable members: I don’t want to see them suffer—so get them out of my sight!

I live in Los Angeles. Unlike most places, our housing economy bounced back, and fast - home prices are up 20 percent just in the past year. Renting is only marginally less expensive than buying a house. I know people whose rent went up by more than $200/month in a single year.
Homeless shelters are like telephone poles: We need them, but no one wants to live near one. It’s cruel and inhumane.

    thebicker:

    aka14kgold:

    arbitrary-mask:

    thepeoplesrecord:

    The 1% wants to ban sleeping in cars - it hurts their ‘quality of life’
    April 16, 2014

    Across the United States, many local governments are responding to skyrocketing levels of inequality and the now decades-long crisis of homelessness among the very poor … by passing laws making it a crime to sleep in a parked car.

    This happened most recently in Palo Alto, in California’s Silicon Valley, where new billionaires are seemingly minted every month – and where 92% of homeless people lack shelter of any kind. Dozens of cities have passed similar anti-homeless laws. The largest of them is Los Angeles, the longtime unofficial “homeless capital of America”, where lawyers are currently defending a similar vehicle-sleeping law before a skeptical federal appellate court. Laws against sleeping on sidewalks or in cars are called “quality of life” laws. But they certainly don’t protect the quality of life of the poor.

    To be sure, people living in cars cannot be the best neighbors. Some people are able to acquire old and ugly – but still functioning – recreational vehicles with bathrooms; others do the best they can. These same cities have resisted efforts to provide more public toilet facilities, often on the grounds that this will make their city a “magnet” for homeless people from other cities. As a result, anti-homeless ordinances often spread to adjacent cities, leaving entire regions without public facilities of any kind.

    Their hope, of course, is that homeless people will go elsewhere, despite the fact that the great majority of homeless people are trying to survive in the same communities in which they were last housed – and where they still maintain connections. Americans sleeping in their own cars literally have nowhere to go.

    Indeed, nearly all homelessness in the US begins with a loss of income and an eviction for nonpayment of rent – a rent set entirely by market forces. The waiting lists are years long for the tiny fraction of housing with government subsidies. And rents have risen dramatically in the past two years, in part because long-time tenants must now compete with the millions of former homeowners who lost their homes in the Great Recession.

    The paths from eviction to homelessness follow familiar patterns. For the completely destitute without family or friends able to help, that path leads more or less directly to the streets. For those slightly better off, unemployment and the exhaustion of meager savings – along with the good graces of family and friends – eventually leaves people with only two alternatives: a shelter cot or their old automobile.

    However, in places like Los Angeles, the shelters are pretty much always full. Between 2011 and 2013, the number of unsheltered homeless people increased by 67%. In Palo Alto last year, there were 12 shelter beds for 157 homeless individuals. Homeless people in these cities do have choices: they can choose to sleep in a doorway, on a sidewalk, in a park, under a bridge or overpass, or – if they are relatively lucky – in a car. But these cities have ordinances that make all of those choices a criminal offense. The car is the best of bad options, now common enough that local bureaucrats have devised a new, if oxymoronic, term – the “vehicularly housed”.

    People sleeping in cars try to find legal, nighttime parking places, where they will be less apparent and arouse the least hostility. But cities like Palo Alto and Los Angeles often forbid parking between 2am and 5am in commercial areas, where police write expensive tickets and arrest and impound the vehicles of repeat offenders. That leaves residential areas, where overnight street parking cannot, as a practical matter, be prohibited.

    One finds the “vehicularly housed” in virtually every neighborhood, including my own. But the animus that drives anti-homeless laws seems to be greatest in the wealthiest cities, like Palo Alto, which has probably spawned more per-capita fortunes than any city on Earth, and in the more recently gentrified areas like Los Angeles’ Venice. These places are ruled by majorities of “liberals” who decry, with increasing fervor, the rapid rise in economic inequality. Nationally, 90% of Democrats (and 45% of Republicans) believe the government should act to reduce the rich-poor gap.

    It is easy to be opposed to inequality in the abstract. So why are Los Angeles and Palo Alto spending virtually none of their budgets on efforts to provide housing for the very poor and homeless? When the most obvious evidence of inequality parks on their street, it appears, even liberals would rather just call the police. The word from the car: if you’re not going to do anything to help, please don’t make things worse.

    Source

    Their hope, of course, is that homeless people will go elsewhere…”

    HOW? WITH WHAT FUNDS? FOR WHOSE BENEFIT? TO WHERE?

    Our society’s approach to its most vulnerable members: I don’t want to see them suffer—so get them out of my sight!

    I live in Los Angeles. Unlike most places, our housing economy bounced back, and fast - home prices are up 20 percent just in the past year. Renting is only marginally less expensive than buying a house. I know people whose rent went up by more than $200/month in a single year.

    Homeless shelters are like telephone poles: We need them, but no one wants to live near one. It’s cruel and inhumane.

  30. 8794 Notes
    Reblogged: unbadger