If I were a historical figure, I'd most likely be Percy Shelley, in that allowing me to do things and interact with people was probably a bad idea.

Potential followers should be aware: I once rewrote Hamlet with strippers. You have been warned.

Call me Cat.

ao3 / other fic

Dear Diary, my teen-angst bullshit now has a body count.
—Henry Winter (via henrywintering)

image

can we get a movie made about your grandparents

today i ALSO found out that in addition to being kicked out of catholic school for reading richard wright and subsequently becoming a morbid rural california librarian slash witch, my grandmother was also probably pregnant when she married my grandfather

and that there’s a fairly high possibility that this pregnancy occurred when she was still married to her first husband (who was a dick)

also, that the piece of wisdom which my brother passed down to me recently, “never drink anything you can’t taste the alcohol in,” actually originates from her

(her cure for a sore throat was “tea with a squeeze of lemon and a lot of gin.” it is a miracle that she birthed 5 children.)

also, did i tell you guys that gene roddenberry said he admired my grandpa’s talents as a novelist

i am totally in concurrence, is what i am trying to say here


supercargautier:

cats are squishy cartoon friends that live in your house with you and do rad stunts. if they like you they vibrate at you very loudly. this is somehow a real animal


so today i found out that when my half-blind ginger train-stealing grandfather ran an advertising agency, he sublet space to ray bradbury

in other news my family


so, um, is anyone interested in betaing 15k of steve/bucky hipster au


theuppitynegras:

dynastylnoire:

hikergirl:

Here is the link to the City Lab article and the link to the actual website, Turn On Detroit’s Water.

h/t to amomenttothink for retweeting this.

boooooooooooooooooost

Please spread this around


okay but real talk how did it take ron, harry, and hermione seven years to realize they hadn’t grown up with the same fairy tales


Anonymous said: im confused? I thought the NSA was collecting a lot of data but not actually looking at it? And don't they have to get approval to actually read things and only if they are pertaining to terrorists? And if their foreign surveillance, why would they even want to read emails that they don't need to and out people? doesn't that cost a lot of time and money to do?

hey anon! this is a bunch of good questions and i’m going to try and break them down.

isn’t the nsa just collecting data but not looking at it?

i’m pretty sure what you’re referring to here is the practice of collecting “metadata”— data about data. (for example: a list of everyone you’ve called in the past week, though not the content of the calls.) actually, we know from the latest snowden reports that the nsa certainly does collect and look at plenty of your data (including, yes, your naked photos).

but the fact is, even if they did just collect metadata— anybody who says collecting metadata isn’t invasive has never called, for example, a doctor specializing in gonorrhea! or a person not their spouse, late at night.

or planned parenthood, twice in one week. or a rape crisis center, or a center for domestic abuse. or a suicide hotline.

metadata can very easily reveal things that you fuckin’ well have the right to keep private. it can build a pretty complete picture of your day-to-day activities. mass collection of it is fucked up.

not to mention: if you are a journalist, you can’t protect your sources. which has been recognized by international law as a human right! so, like, that’s a bit worrying.

but they only have permission to read your emails and things if you’re a terrorist!

this is all very well in theory but like, think about that for a second. the nsa does not have a long list of people labeled NOT TERRORISTS and a shorter list of people labeled DEFINITELY TERRORISTS. part of their job is to determine if you are of interest to them.

people like to compare the nsa’s job of tracking down potential terrorists to “finding a needle in a haystack”; currently, what they’re doing is collecting as big of a haystack as humanly possible, ostensibly because it’ll mean that the needle is at least somewhere in there.

also, a note about “getting approval” to read your shit: if the nsa wants to spy on someone, they will get a warrant to spy on that person. the court rubber-stamps them automatically.

(also also a note: the nsa answer to the question “who is a terrorist?” tends to be “definitely all muslims.” think carefully before you say “but it’s only terrorists under investigation!”)

why would they even want to go through your emails and shit? isn’t that a huge drain on time and money?

yes

yep

yes it definitely is

and yet they do it anyway

this despite the fact that collecting this data does not prevent terrorist attacks. this despite the fact that logically, when you are looking for a needle in a haystack, making the haystack bigger is a terrible idea. this despite the fact that evidence shows that dzhokar and tamerlan tsarnaev, who bombed the boston marathon, were on police radar before the attack— but the authorities didn’t have time to investigate them because they were too busy working their way through useless fucking data

mass surveillance isn’t just invasive, it isn’t just illegal— it’s incompetent as shit





THEME