#viva la pluto
VIVA LA PLUTO MOTHERFUCKERS!!!!
DO YOU SEE THIS? DO YOU? ALL OF YOU WHO HAD WRITTEN OFF PLUTO, WHO HAD CROSSED IT OFF YOUR PLANET LIST? REMEMBER HOW IT WAS ‘TOO SMALL” TO BE A PLANET? HOW NASA, IN COLLABORATION WITH THE INTERNATIONAL ASTRONOMICAL UNION REMOVED ITS PLANETARY STATUS AND CHANGED ITS NAME TO 134340? HOW EVERYONE THEN CONSIDERED THERE TO BE EIGHT PLANETS, NOT NINE?
BUT SOME OF US REMAINED LOYAL TO PLUTO. IT WAS NEVER FORGOTTEN. AND NOW HERE WE ARE, AND JUSTICE IS UPON US AFTER 8 YEARS.
BECAUSE GUESS WHAT? PLUTO HAS AT LEAST FIVE MOONS, A PRETTY BIG NUMBER FOR A ”DWARF-PLANET”, HUH? ESPECIALLY WHEN EARTH, QUITE BIGGER THAN PLUTO AND AN OFFICIAL PLANET ONLY HAS ONE. AND GUESS WHAT ELSE? ERIS, THE PLANET WHICH EVERYONE THOUGHT TO BE BIGGER THAN PLUTO, MAY NOT BE BIGGER AFTER ALL. AND THE BEST PART IS THAT PLUTO HAS AN ATMOSHPERE. THAT’S RIGHT, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, A SUPPOSEDLY NON-PLANET HAS AN ATMOSPHERE. AGAIN, ISN’T THAT IMPRESSIVE?
SO LOOK AT THIS. NEW FINDINGS, AND A NEW AGE FOR PLUTO. AN AGE OF RECOGNITION AND APPRECIATION. AND ALLOW ME TO CLOSE THIS -somewhat aggressive-PRESENTATION OF OPINION WITH THE MOTTO OF THE PLUTO APOLOGISTS: VIVA LA PLUTO!
(Source: lumos5001, via victhorias-secret)
"I’m just gonna bullshit it."
This is so beautiful.
“Abandoned by straight people.” Something homophobic people tend to over look
Love this campaign. Also, is that Shane Dawson?
as an added argument, aren’t homosexual couples actually a scientific advantage at this point? We, as a species, are becoming quite overpopulated. However, homosexual couples 1) do not add to the population, and 2) take care of children that would not be taken care of otherwise. This slows the rise in population, meaning that our species may even survive longer because of it.
HOMOSEXUALITY, FROM A SCIENTIFIC POINT OF VIEW, IS AN ADVANTAGE TO THE HUMAN RACE.
REBLOG IS CAUSE THEY BLOGED IT
I have been stating that argument for some time now. Glad someone else gets it.
(Source: iwatchforsasha, via carylstolemyheart)
On February 25, 2014, Orange is the New Black author Piper Kerman testified at the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee hearings on solitary confinement in Washington, DC. Unlike her fictional character, Kerman was never placed in solitary confinement. But she testified about the many women incarcerated alongside her who had:
While I was in prison, I saw many women sent to the SHU for minor infractions such as moving around a housing unit during a count, refusing an order from a correctional officer, and possession of low-level contraband like small amounts of cash (which is largely useless in prison) or having women’s underwear from the outside rather than prison-issued underwear. All of these infractions drew at least 30 days in solitary. Sometimes women are sent to the SHU immediately upon their arrival in prison because there aren’t any open beds.
Most politicians would rather ignore the reality of the problems with the prison system than address them head-on and risk being seen as “soft on crime.”Orange is the New Black—and Kerman’s determined attempt to link the peoples’ interest in the fictional story to real women’s suffering—has helped get Americans talking about prison in a way few pieces of pop culture have. It’s also a way to get people talking about women in the prison system rather than focusing the conversations around men. It’s also a sad truth that politicians and Americans in general are more likely to listen to a celebrity telling them about prison conditions than someone who didn’t become famous after being incarcerated. To her credit, Kerman (unlike some other celebrities who have experienced short stints behind bars) has been using her platform to advocate for change.
Read the article: Can “Orange is the New Black” Change the Way Congress Thinks About Prisons?