Photoset

ruf1oh-n1tram:

Remember that episode of courage the cowardly dog where a furry bunny runs away from abusive dog dude to be with her lesbian cat lover

because that is all you need to remember

(via fourofthem)

Photo
thebananalordofcannibals:

I woke up my cat laughing at this

thebananalordofcannibals:

I woke up my cat laughing at this

(via caffeinatedfeminist)

Photo
sarsparillo:

steve-spaghetti:

renirabbit:

pizzalecki:

pkmnbreederbrianna:

togamijail:

chandra75:

im-sherlocked-in-my-mindpalace:

socially-awkward-supervillian:

Fun fact: Cheetahs only attack prey that runs

jesus that is good to know.

Yup, that’s the point you just stay still and let it do whatever the fuck it wants that doesn’t involved you getting eaten. 

REALLY FUN FACT for big cats cheetahs are fucking docile as shit
my grandfather ran a cheetah sanctuary in south africa and he’d just lie with them and sleep among them and they’d rub against him and chirp at him they’re big fucking babies

Another Fun Fact: Cheetahs are incredibly nervous animals. One of the (many) reason’s they’re going extinct is that cheetahs are so sensitive and nervous, some of them are literally too nervous to breed. Others will breed, but stress themselves out so much, they’ll lose their cubs. So zoos with breeding programs had to figure out how to make cheetahs comfortable enough to first of all, get laid and secondly - not spazz themselves into miscarrying.So what’d they do? They gave the cheetah’s their very own Service Dogs!The dogs make them feel safe, protected and secure!

AJHHHHFDDGHH SO PRECIOUS

this post just got so much better

THIS IS OFFICIALLY MY FAVOURITE POST


i love cheetahs

sarsparillo:

steve-spaghetti:

renirabbit:

pizzalecki:

pkmnbreederbrianna:

togamijail:

chandra75:

im-sherlocked-in-my-mindpalace:

socially-awkward-supervillian:

Fun fact: Cheetahs only attack prey that runs

jesus that is good to know.

Yup, that’s the point you just stay still and let it do whatever the fuck it wants that doesn’t involved you getting eaten. 

REALLY FUN FACT for big cats cheetahs are fucking docile as shit

my grandfather ran a cheetah sanctuary in south africa and he’d just lie with them and sleep among them and they’d rub against him and chirp at him they’re big fucking babies

Another Fun Fact: Cheetahs are incredibly nervous animals. One of the (many) reason’s they’re going extinct is that cheetahs are so sensitive and nervous, some of them are literally too nervous to breed. Others will breed, but stress themselves out so much, they’ll lose their cubs.

So zoos with breeding programs had to figure out how to make cheetahs comfortable enough to first of all, get laid and secondly - not spazz themselves into miscarrying.

So what’d they do?
They gave the cheetah’s their very own Service Dogs!


The dogs make them feel safe, protected and secure!

AJHHHHFDDGHH SO PRECIOUS

this post just got so much better

THIS IS OFFICIALLY MY FAVOURITE POST

i love cheetahs

(Source: 4gifs)

Photoset

aneternalscoutandabrownie:

jamesmdavisson:

So far, I have been enjoying the Adventures of Business Cat a great deal, possibly more than is appropriate for an adult human. (All of these are from the webcomic Happy Jar)

UPDATE: Now with more Business.

YES ALL THE BUSINESS CAT STRIPS IN ONE PLACE

(via politicalmachine)

Photo
jungwildeandfree:

sueslayer:

 
This is actually really funny if you think about it. I mean, there was totally some sort of ghost or demon about to kill her but then that sheet blew straight into its face and it was so embarrassed that it decided to disappear.

Tremble, mortal, for I am Zerendikos, and I will drag your howling soul to—
*flump*
AH SHIT WHAT THE FUCK IS THIS IT’S ALL OVER MY FACE
FUCK 
WHAT IS THAT SMELL
IS THAT FUCKING FEBREEZE
FUCK DAMMIT SHIT FORGET THIS I’M OUT 

jungwildeandfree:

sueslayer:

 

This is actually really funny if you think about it. I mean, there was totally some sort of ghost or demon about to kill her but then that sheet blew straight into its face and it was so embarrassed that it decided to disappear.

Tremble, mortal, for I am Zerendikos, and I will drag your howling soul to—

*flump*

AH SHIT WHAT THE FUCK IS THIS IT’S ALL OVER MY FACE

FUCK 

WHAT IS THAT SMELL

IS THAT FUCKING FEBREEZE

FUCK DAMMIT SHIT FORGET THIS I’M OUT 

(Source: theconjuringmovie, via sarsparillo)

Video

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.

(via not-quite-normal)

Photo
togifs:

[video]
Text

orgyporgy:

Like when women hate men it’s frustrating at worst, maybe it hurts someone’s feelings, but when men hate women they are shamed, abused, patronized, demeaned, objectified, raped, and murdered, ya feel me, so even if I WAS a raging misandrist like worst case scenario I’d be a bummer at parties, meanwhile a girl somewhere literally can’t leave her house because it’s dark outside.

(via mscoolcat)

Quote
"More than anything, I think that the relationship between Cap and Widow is one that becomes a friendship and that is way more interesting than a romantic relationship. We don’t really know yet if she’s really even capable of that. Black Widow has so many trust issues that the last thing on her mind is like, “Man, I wish I had a boyfriend.” Steve Rogers is an attractive guy but I think she’s learning how to be herself —whoever herself is. This friendship is the catalyst that helps her to understand other events with Fury and helps her to understand what she wants because she’s probably never really asked herself that. That’s what we see more of developing; between the two of them is a friendship that allows her to be self-reflective."

— Scarlett Johansson’s response to a question about “a hint at a romance” between Natasha & Steve in CA:TWS [X]  (via brambleberrycottage)

(Source: chujo-hime, via jeanndarc)

Quote
"

For many of these women, the reading experience begins from a place of seething rage. Take Sara Marcus’ initial impression of Jack Kerouac: “I remember putting On the Road down the first time a woman was mentioned. I was just like: ‘Fuck. You.’ I was probably 15 or 16. And over the coming years I realized that it was this canonical work, so I tried to return to it, but every time I was just like, ‘Fuck you.’” Tortorici had a similarly visceral reaction to Charles Bukowski: “I will never forget reading Bukowski’s Post Office and feeling so horrible, the way that the narrator describes the thickness of ugly women’s legs. I think it was the first time I felt like a book that I was trying to identify with rejected me. Though I did absorb it, and of course it made me hate my body or whatever.” Emily Witt turned to masculine texts to access a sexual language that was absent from books about women, but found herself turned off by their take: “many of the great classic coming-of-age novels about the female experience don’t openly discuss sex,” she says in No Regrets. “I read the ones by men instead, until I was like, ‘I cannot read another passage about masturbation. I can’t. It was like a pile of Kleenex.”



This isn’t just about the books. When young women read the hyper-masculine literary canon—what Emily Gould calls the “midcentury misogynists,” staffed with the likes of Roth, Mailer, and Miller—their discomfort is punctuated by the knowledge that their male peers are reading these books, identifying with them, and acting out their perspectives and narratives. These writers are celebrated by the society that we live in, even the one who stabbed his wife. In No Regrets, Elif Bautman talks about reading Henry Miller for the first time because she had a “serious crush” on a guy who said his were “the best books ever,” and that guy’s real-life recommendation exacerbated her distaste for the fictional. When she read Miller, “I felt so alienated by the books, and then thinking about this guy, and it was so hot and summertime … I just wanted to kill myself. … He compared women to soup.”

"

In No Regrets, women writers talk about what it was like to read literature’s “midcentury misogynists.” (via becauseiamawoman)

Here’s a fun thing you learn when you study literature: the western canon is not universally beloved. Those books are not the Truth any more than the New York Post is skilled journalism. The main reason they’re held in such high esteem is because they were written by boring white dudes with rage fantasies and boring white dudes with rage fantasies also happen to be largely in charge of deciding which books are deemed classics and taught forever in the American school system.
So if your boyfriend tells you he loves Kerouac then you tell your boyfriend Kerouac was a fucking second rate hack who wrote Beat style because he didn’t have the skill or talent to write any other way, which is probably also why he just copied every adolescent male wanderlust story since the beginning of time. That shit’s derivative and boring.

(via saintthecla)

(via caffeinatedfeminist)

Photo
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

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

(via reagan-was-a-horrible-president)

Photo
thelesbianguide:

hotrufftrade:

sonofbaldwin:

#Facts

Think about this shit.

This is the third time the bill has failed, following defeats in 2010 and 2012.
The Paycheck Fairness Act would require employers to disclose payment and demographic information and prevent them from punishing workers who discuss their salaries. It would also allow civil pay discrimination lawsuits to be filed against employers.
Republicans opposed the bill, arguing it would encourage “frivolous” lawsuits and deprive women of workplace flexibility.- MSNBC

thelesbianguide:

hotrufftrade:

sonofbaldwin:

#Facts

Think about this shit.

This is the third time the bill has failed, following defeats in 2010 and 2012.

The Paycheck Fairness Act would require employers to disclose payment and demographic information and prevent them from punishing workers who discuss their salaries. It would also allow civil pay discrimination lawsuits to be filed against employers.

Republicans opposed the bill, arguing it would encourage “frivolous” lawsuits and deprive women of workplace flexibility.
- MSNBC

(via reagan-was-a-horrible-president)

Quote
"People run from rain but
sit
in bathtubs full of
water."

Charles Bukowski (via bittersweetsongs)

Wow bukowski so profound do you also bathe fully clothed you dickhead. “Oohh isn’t it funny that a person will eat when they’re hungry but will duck if you throw an apple at their face”

(via coolestpriest)

(Source: cachaemic, via sarsparillo)

Photo
corgisandboobs:

mrwhaite:

Dance, magic dance…


I had to look at it, so you do too.

corgisandboobs:

mrwhaite:

Dance, magic dance…

I had to look at it, so you do too.

(via sarsparillo)

Photo