vivatvintage:

Maurice Gibb and Lulu, 1969

thomas roma. sunset park.

© 1998. new york city.

"here a camera becomes an instrument of a sharply knowing lyrical poetry that draws its energy from a late-twentieth-century urban scene; and here, as consequence, a poignant vitality and unassuming humanity are rescued from the flow of life’s events."

— robert coles

englishprof:

I hope I am as well, as lively, as smart, and as passionate when I am 94 as former Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens is.
Here he is criticizing the Court’s recent campaign finance decision, McCutcheon v. FEC:

Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. started his controlling opinion with a characteristically crisp and stirring opening sentence: “There is no right more basic in our democracy than the right to participate in electing our political leaders.”
But that was misleading, Justice Stevens said. “The first sentence here,” he said, “is not really about what the case is about.”
The plaintiff, Shaun McCutcheon, an Alabama businessman, had made contributions to 15 candidates in the 2012 election. He sued so he could give money to 12 more. None of the candidates in the second group were running in Alabama.
Mr. McCutcheon was not trying to participate in electing his own leaders, Justice Stevens said. “The opinion is all about a case where the issue was electing somebody else’s representatives,” he said.
“The opinion has the merit of being faithful to the notion that money is speech and that out-of-district money has the same First Amendment protection as in-district money,” he said. “I think that’s an incorrect view of the law myself, but I do think there’s a consistency between that opinion and what went before.”

englishprof:

I hope I am as well, as lively, as smart, and as passionate when I am 94 as former Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens is.

Here he is criticizing the Court’s recent campaign finance decision, McCutcheon v. FEC:

Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. started his controlling opinion with a characteristically crisp and stirring opening sentence: “There is no right more basic in our democracy than the right to participate in electing our political leaders.”

But that was misleading, Justice Stevens said. “The first sentence here,” he said, “is not really about what the case is about.”

The plaintiff, Shaun McCutcheon, an Alabama businessman, had made contributions to 15 candidates in the 2012 election. He sued so he could give money to 12 more. None of the candidates in the second group were running in Alabama.

Mr. McCutcheon was not trying to participate in electing his own leaders, Justice Stevens said. “The opinion is all about a case where the issue was electing somebody else’s representatives,” he said.

“The opinion has the merit of being faithful to the notion that money is speech and that out-of-district money has the same First Amendment protection as in-district money,” he said. “I think that’s an incorrect view of the law myself, but I do think there’s a consistency between that opinion and what went before.”

me0606:

Does she work for the people I work for

me0606:

Does she work for the people I work for

herbackrowkings:

lalondes:

>teenage actress’s private nudes get leaked

>teenage actress is reviled as a slut and a whore and a bad role model

>james franco asks a seventeen-year-old girl if he can meet her in a private hotel room

>james franco gets to go on saturday night live and joke about what a silly doofus he is for soliciting sex from a girl literally half his age

DO NOT DARE OVERLOOK THIS POST

If you succeed in cheating someone, don’t think that person is a fool. Realize that the person trusted you more than you deserved.
(via ohlovequotes)
itstimeforfeminism:

calendar—girl:

girlsgetbusyzine:

writeswrongs:

cumaeansibyl:

coffeeandconlangs:

Unnecessary “fillers” in our speech. I’d rather have “like” than up-talking, though (if we had to choose one, that is). Ewwww, up-talking. Then again, a combination of the two would render me homicidal maniac.


Like, did you ever notice? That, like, the speech patterns people, like, think are stupid?  Are, like, commonly associated with, like, women?
And, like, there’s this thing? Where, like, women aren’t supposed to be, like, assertive? So they, like, qualify their speech? Because, like, we’re not supposed to, like, stand by our opinions?

1) humiliate women so they don’t feel qualified to speak authoritatively about anything
2) humiliate women for speaking in such a way that reflects how you treat her
3) laugh, you are superior because you don’t use words like “like.”  It isn’t as if being a huge stupid asshole has ever made you worse than a woman who speaks with verbal tics.  

The nail. It is hit on the head.

itstimeforfeminism:

calendar—girl:

girlsgetbusyzine:

writeswrongs:

cumaeansibyl:

coffeeandconlangs:

Unnecessary “fillers” in our speech. I’d rather have “like” than up-talking, though (if we had to choose one, that is). Ewwww, up-talking. Then again, a combination of the two would render me homicidal maniac.

Like, did you ever notice? That, like, the speech patterns people, like, think are stupid?  Are, like, commonly associated with, like, women?

And, like, there’s this thing? Where, like, women aren’t supposed to be, like, assertive? So they, like, qualify their speech? Because, like, we’re not supposed to, like, stand by our opinions?

1) humiliate women so they don’t feel qualified to speak authoritatively about anything

2) humiliate women for speaking in such a way that reflects how you treat her

3) laugh, you are superior because you don’t use words like “like.”  It isn’t as if being a huge stupid asshole has ever made you worse than a woman who speaks with verbal tics.  

The nail. It is hit on the head.