Latest Tweets:

rifa:

oessa:

Saturna Island, Canada 48°47’05.0”N 123°02’42.0”W

I  knew this at a glance Im so happy to see such an obscure island on my dash

(via do-you-have-a-flag)

(Source: zoiodlula, via pureocean-s)

zooophagous:

prokopetz:

skittles-n-gravy:

perpetual-galaxies:

Jack is hardcore as fuck

scare me like one of your french girls

For money money, the most interesting thing about this confrontation is how completely it inverts the final scenes of a typical Disney film. In most cases, the hero is physically and/or supernaturally outmatched, and triumphs through determination and ingenuity; here, the villain spends the the whole fight running scared, while the protagonist casually no-sells everything that’s thrown at him. And there’s no ironic Disney Death keeping the protagonist’s hands clean, either. Jack just straight-up murders Oogie with malice aforethought while Oogie is running away - and by having Santa Claus himself strike the final blow, the film legitimises Jack’s killing of Oogie as the morally correct course of action.

You don’t fuck around with the motherfucking pumpkin king

zooophagous:

prokopetz:

skittles-n-gravy:

perpetual-galaxies:

Jack is hardcore as fuck

scare me like one of your french girls

For money money, the most interesting thing about this confrontation is how completely it inverts the final scenes of a typical Disney film. In most cases, the hero is physically and/or supernaturally outmatched, and triumphs through determination and ingenuity; here, the villain spends the the whole fight running scared, while the protagonist casually no-sells everything that’s thrown at him. And there’s no ironic Disney Death keeping the protagonist’s hands clean, either. Jack just straight-up murders Oogie with malice aforethought while Oogie is running away - and by having Santa Claus himself strike the final blow, the film legitimises Jack’s killing of Oogie as the morally correct course of action.

You don’t fuck around with the motherfucking pumpkin king

(via personally-victimized-by-reedus)

torrilla:

Tom Hiddleston at the ‘Thor: The Dark World’ premiere in Seoul on October 14, 2013 (x)

(via loki-of-sassgaard)

"

The ubiquitous forms of address for women ‘Mrs’ and ‘Miss’ are both abbreviations of ‘mistress’. Although mistress is a term with a multiplicity of meanings, in early modern England the mistress most commonly designated the female equivalent of master–that is, a person with capital who directed servants or apprentices.

Prior to the mid eighteenth century, there was only Mrs (or Mris, Ms, or other forms of abbreviation). Mrs was applied to any adult woman who merited the social distinction, without any marital connotation. Miss was reserved for young girls until the mid eighteenth century. Even when adult single women started to use Miss, Mrs still designated a social or business standing, and not the status of being married, until at least the mid nineteenth century.

This article demonstrates the changes in nomenclature over time, explains why Mrs was never used to accord older single women the same status as a married woman, and argues that the distinctions are important to economic and social historians.

"

Abstract from Mistresses and Marriage: or, a Short History of the Mrs, also known as the most interesting article I’ve read all day.

Full text is available here, but if you remember one thing, how about that Jane Austen in 1811 is the earliest citation that the author can find for the “Mrs Man” form, e.g. “Mrs John Dashwood”? 

(via estelendur)

(Source: allthingslinguistic, via bemusedlybespectacled)

thepredatorblog:

Happy brothers after being rescued from a circus [video]

dON’T FUCKING CRY

(Source: ylvisfaen, via theywillliveagaininfreedom)

"

There’s this great myth out there that we call the “Over-consumption Myth,” which goes: If you earn a decent income, and you’re in trouble financially, it must be because you’re blowing all your money at the Gap, and TGIF. The myth is so powerful, it almost seems like heresy to question it. But when we actually looked into the data on what real families actually spend, it’s just not true. An average family of four actually spends less on clothing than their parents did a generation ago, adjusted for inflation. That includes all the Tommy Hilfiger sweatshirts and all the Nike sneakers. How does this work? Well we forget all the things we don’t spend money on anymore — how many kids have leather shoes for Sunday school anymore? How many people dress up in wool suits for work everyday?

The point is that families today are spending their money no more foolishly than their parents did. And yet they’re five times more likely to go bankrupt, and three times more likely to lose their homes. Families are going broke on the basics —housing, health insurance, and education. These are the kind of bills that you can’t just trim around the edges in the event of a downturn.

"

Amelia Tyagi (via moontyger)

(via assassinationtipsforladies)