Ok so, this is SUPER COOL!
…This would be more attractive if the food on Amtrak wasn’t so awful. …I wonder if we could sweet-talk DB or the SBB into doing something like this…?
ETA: Oh wait. Amtrak then wants all rights to what you write on this poorly-catered jaunt? I DON’T THINK SO.
Goddamnit Amtrak wants the rights to your application materials. NOT what you write while on the train. I don’t see how writing something new (all of 500 words max) for an application for a free cross country trip is unreasonable considering what it normally costs.
Screw it, y’all don’t apply, I will. More room for me.
yeah…. it’s just what you use to apply. read all the words, people.
So I saw a post, and it had a valid thing to say, but in memory of this awesome post by Crommunist, I kinda want to change the wording around a bit. So I give you:
If you’re not upset about Katniss, Tonto, or Khan being played by white people, but you are upset about Annie being played by a black girl [x], you should probably think about why that is and work on changing it, because that’s definitely a double standard steeped in racism.
In a couple of recent interviews, Mads Mikkelsen charmingly described Hannibal as “a happy little duckling”. The image was so delightfully incongruous that shaddicted suggested I might like to draw it. So I did…
back back in the day
apparently the key to happiness is to have a long and shitty winter
and if you can’t have that, surround yourself with deadly wildlife
or maybe these countries have free or reasonably priced health care, good education and costs nothing or very little, marriage equality(not all do however on the list but they at least aren’t extremely homophobic either), decent minimum wages, stable economies, low crime rates and so forth and also deadly wildlife because we protect our environment
I love the use of that gif.
The first pictures of Richard III’s funeral crown have been released. It is an open crown made of base metal that will later be plated with gold and set with white roses, pearls, garnets, and sapphires.
The “Procession and Reception of Remains” will be between the 4th and 25th of May 2014, and a Memorial Service will be between the 8th and 29th of May 2014
Imagine Hiram McDaniels performing Bohemian Rhapsody at the Night Vale Karaoke Night.
It’s not against the law in Massachusetts to secretly take photos up a woman’s skirt, the state’s highest court ruled Wednesday. The court dismissed charges against Michael Robertson, who was arrested by Boston transit police for taking photos and videos up multiple women’s skirts or dresses on the subway.
The judges sympathized with the notion that a woman should be able to have a reasonable expectation not to have secret photos taken up her skirt when she goes out in public, but ruled that current state law does not address that. Massachusetts’ “Peeping Tom” laws, as written, only protect women from being photographed in dressing rooms or bathrooms when they are undressed. Since upskirt photos are taken of fully clothed women in public, they don’t count, according to the court.
“A female passenger on a MBTA trolley who is wearing a skirt, dress, or the like covering these parts of her body is not a person who is ‘partially nude,’ no matter what is or is not underneath the skirt by way of underwear or other clothing,” the court wrote.
Robertson’s lawyers defended his actions by arguing the photos were a matter of free speech.
Upskirt photos are becoming increasingly common with the spread of camera phones, but the law is slow to catch up with new technologies. Under most voyeurism laws, women must have a “reasonable expectation of privacy,” which is difficult to prove when she is in public. The Massachusetts court is hardly the first to acquit men who take these photos; perpetrators in Oklahoma, Indiana, and Washington have all been cleared by judges because the laws on the books did not apply. In response to one case in which a man legally took upskirt photos of a 10-year-old girl, Indiana lawmakers passed an upskirt ban in 2011. Other states have considered but not passed similarly updated voyeurism laws.
ew ew ewwwww
I strongly suggest you actually read the ruling (politely linked, also read the footnotes). The court did what they had to do, which is interpret the law in front of them which DID NOT APPLY TO THE SITUATION AT ISSUE. They also did so in a way that laid out for the legislature EXACTLY what needed to be covered in a new law which was passed the day after this ruling was handed down, and was signed in to law the day after that. (Seriously they could have stopped at “nope, partially nude doesn’t mean someone in a skirt” (and do you want it to? Really?) and not gone into “why expectation of privacy doesn’t apply here” but they did. They laid it out very very clearly for the legislature and did everything short of saying “PASS THIS.”
I know that doesn’t fit into the narrative of “god, this court is just terrible” but hey, sometimes things aren’t that black and white.