Funiculì Funiculà

I am a fledgling designer with a borderline-obnoxious obsession with typefaces and proper grammar; a love of cheap earrings, baking, and the color green; and far too much time to kill on the intertubes.

June 1, 2014 at 9:24pm
127,243 notes
Reblogged from redeyemaniac

thesylverlining:

redeyemaniac:

By the “not all men” logic, Russian Roulette is a perfectly safe game to play. Sure, one of the chambers has a bullet in it…

but not all chambers

Best one I’ve seen. Best one.

(via cleolinda)

January 16, 2014 at 10:52am
354,291 notes
Reblogged from tastefullyoffensive

tyleroakley:

CAN’T UNSEE.

(Source: tastefullyoffensive, via meghantonjes)

November 2, 2012 at 10:45pm
37,928 notes
Reblogged from cutemasterx3-deactivated2012070

(Source: weheartit.com, via kerririta)

July 4, 2012 at 8:20pm
712 notes
Reblogged from fuckyeahnumnums
Oh my GOD.

Oh my GOD.

(Source: fuckyeahnumnums, via thebroph)

April 15, 2012 at 10:52pm
18,008 notes
Reblogged from maxblum-deactivated20120820

panasonicyouth:

thestageisyours:

#rosario’s face is hilarious i grant you but all of their reactions are just great #roger is like gurl whatever if i was a woman in rubber i wouldn’t flirt with you #collins is debating whether this is too serious a moment to sip his drink #and his puppy dog eyes are all sweet and concerned #mimi is just enjoying this way too much #and angel is sitting there #classy as hell #because she is the queen of everything

this tag has just made my year

(via markdoesstuff)

April 14, 2012 at 1:00pm
435 notes
Reblogged from peirwin

(Source: peirwin, via liamdryden)

April 5, 2012 at 9:53pm
1,858 notes
Reblogged from geothebio
geothebio:

Because Tea. What’s why.

geothebio:

Because Tea. What’s why.

(via absolutelysorted)

April 4, 2012 at 11:48am
11,822 notes
Reblogged from barackobama

(Source: barackobama, via confusedtree-deactivated2013092)

March 28, 2012 at 9:02pm
82,845 notes
Reblogged from howlinfory0u

Friend: On a scale of 1 to 10, how obsessed are you with Harry Potter?
Me: Nine and three quarters
Friend:

February 4, 2012 at 11:25am
8 notes
Reblogged from fuckyeahriker
omg. perfect.

omg. perfect.

January 16, 2012 at 5:23pm
7,626 notes
Reblogged from copyx-deactivated20140125

kovaniy:

you know I wonder if back in the day when The Final Problem came out Victorians were sending out letters with “Dear sir, have you read the latest Holmes story yet? I simply cannot handle it. I have cried an unseemly amount of tears. I cannot. Oh God.” and then there’s just a big ink scribble because keysmashing wasn’t an option

little drawings of crying people in the margins

(via cleolinda)

January 3, 2012 at 3:31pm
31,469 notes
Reblogged from movieandtvshowgifs

meghantonjes:

shercocklocked:

sugarsweetsmiles:

luciferbox:

captain-crieff:

the184corner:

abitofholmesandwatson:

hazelinspace:

ceilingtheo:

After the most recent episode, I basically just decided that (while in my fanon mind John and Sherlock fuck like rabbits) in my interpretation of them in canon is:

  • John is a bi-romantic heterosexual
  • Sherlock is a bi- or homo-romantic asexual
  • They are in love with each other
  • (and kind of in a relationship)
  • Neither of them realizes any of this, because both of them base their interpretation of their orientation on the sexual side of it alone alone

So John keeps dating women, because he self defines as heterosexual, and keeps trying to assert that to himself. But because he’s monoamourous and is already in love with Sherlock, he just can’t make it work with any of the women he dates at all.

Sherlock, on the other hand, figured out he wasn’t interested in sex around the time everyone else in his age group got interested in it and he found the whole thing terribly tedious. He probably doesn’t even bother to self-identify as asexual, because he doesn’t even care enough about that sort of thing to bother labelling it. And then, because he’s already categorised any sort of couple relationship as sexual and therefore boring, and because he very rarely comes across anyone he considers worth spending any of his time with anyway, he doesn’t really realise he is capable of romantic attraction, either. He has so little experience of having friends that when John comes along he doesn’t have a comparison to realise that their relationship is romantic rather than purely friendship.

Which is why everyone keeps pointing out that they’re a couple, but both of them just react by thinking “No, because we’re not having sex.” rather than noticing that they are in love with each other.

YES.

PERFECT

Precisely.

EXACTLY.

Headcanon, right here, yep.

Irene represents us Tumblr people! <3 Someone re-make this scene but with a Tumblr logo on her face please? :P 

omg it’s beautiful it’s totally correct

yep. fucking real.

Yes.

This is perfect.

Because sex is not a requirement for a romantic relationship when will you realize this John and Sherlock.

(Source: movieandtvshowgifs)

December 21, 2011 at 12:19pm
6,438 notes
Reblogged from smeagoled

codyshuttleworth:

YES

ASLKJDFL:JKFLKJSDFL:JKSDFL:KJSDFL:KJSDLKFJSD:KFJ

(Source: , via absolutelysorted)

December 9, 2011 at 9:34am
1,264 notes
Reblogged from jessicavalenti

jessicavalenti:

“Barack Obama says that as the father of two daughters, he wants the government to “apply common sense” to rules about over the counter medications. Well, I too have a daughter, and so many many pro-choice women. Who died and made Barack Obama daddy in charge of teenage girls? Would he really rather that Sasha and Malia get pregnant rather than buy Plan B One-Step at CVS? And excuse me, Mr. President, thanks to your HHS, acquiring Plan B is prescription-only not just for 11 year olds but for the 30 percent of teenage girls between 15 and 17 who are sexually active, and is a cumbersome process for all women, who have to ask a pharmacist for it and, as many news stories have reported, be subjected to fundamentalist harangues and objections. Apparently it’s okay with you if Michelle is treated like a sixth-grader. I’m trying to think if there are any laws or regulations affecting only men in which unfounded fears about middle-school boys deny all men normal adult privileges. Needless to say no one suggests that underage boys get a prescription if they want to use condoms, or that grown men have to ask the pharmacist for them and maybe get a lecture about the evils of birth control and promiscuity.”

—Katha Pollitt on the HHS overruling the FDA on Plan B access. 

"I’m trying to think if there are any laws or regulations affecting only men in which unfounded fears about middle-school boys deny all men normal adult privileges."

THIS.

November 23, 2010 at 9:35pm
10 notes
Reblogged from chimericalness

Lovely Debacle: Opinion: Calm down please! →

jeannr:

debacle:

Honestly, this whole TSA Scanner debacle is irritating me to no end.

So, is my gynecologist violating my rights too? Should I be scared that they’re getting off on poking my privates?

[more…]

I wasn’t going to blog about the whole TSA thing ‘cause I keep reading the same things about it over and over again, but I’m going to go ahead and do that now because there are a lot of points that don’t necessarily occur to people. I might regret my delivery, since I’m a little tired and a little cranky, but the points I make are ones that I think are perfectly valid.

I’m by no means an expert on air travel or security, but I come from a multicultural/multinational background and have spent my entire life flying at least once a year. My family still lives overseas, so flight is how I visit them for Christmas. I won’t appreciate being treated like a criminal at my airports, and here are the reasons why:

1. Girl, be real. That TSA officer is not your gynecologist. You know your gynecologist, you get to choose your gynecologist, and you can safely assume that your gynecologist has had years and years of studying and training. Also, your gynecologist is taking your money, and probably wants your vagina to be healthy. On the other hand, that TSA officer is probably not going to care much about your vagina’s well-being. That TSA officer is probably concerned with finding whatever it is you’ve potentially hidden up your cooch.

2. TSA screens are not consistent across US airports, and in the past 3-or-so years I’ve been traveling alone, they never have been. I’ve been able to travel with gigantic sewing scissors; I’ve had tweezers taken away. I’ve heard stories about really nice TSA officers at certain airports, and I’ve heard stories about real assholes who take advantage of their uniforms. Basically, TSA policy appears to be a hot-ass mess that isn’t necessarily enforced depending on whether or not your officer has had her coffee that morning. Or whether or not you’re a “cutie.”

3. Terrorists are not dumb. As though, in the age of the wireless world, terrorists are still going to be trying to smuggle weapons onto planes. The aim of the terrorist is to use terror to sabotage our nation. It’s right there in the word “terrorist.” Keeping us afraid is exactly what they want. It’s not about kills, it’s about the fear generated.

4. For that matter, how many terrorist attacks has the TSA prevented? Slate published an article late last week asking the same question, and telling the story of army vet Kevin Brown (emphases mine):

In April 2008, the TSA touted the arrest of U.S. Army veteran Kevin Brown at Orlando International Airport as a victory for its behavioral detection program. Brown was arrested after trying to check luggage containing pipe-bomb-making materials. Airline officials insisted passengers were never in danger, since Brown didn’t intend to assemble the bomb on the plane. Moreover, he did not have ties to organized terrorism, and it’s not apparent what he wanted to do with the hazardous materials after arriving at his destination. Brown fits into the category of troublemakers that [security expert Bruce] Schneier says the TSA does catch: random nut jobs. (Not professional terrorists with thought-out plans.)

The Bruce Schneier mentioned in that quote coined the term “security theater” to describe the TSA. Security theater is the concept of making people feel safer while doing very little to actually improve safety. Security, as manifested in American airports, is an illusion (tricks are what a whore does for money). If it were to disappear, and if we were to go back to the simple metal detectors and passport checks of pre-9/11 travel, how much less safe do you think our airports would get? Does it make you feel safer as an American to be seen naked or have your genitals touched by a stranger?

5. Actually, being groped or seen naked is a big deal to many Americans. For survivors of sexual abuse, for instance, these things can be emotional triggers. Transgender people, especially during transition, often have a very tough time letting anyone see them naked or touch their genitals, let alone strangers at an airport. If you’ve survived a disease, you may have prosthetics (like this breast cancer survivor/flight attendant does) or other devices that help you function more easily (like this bladder cancer survivor who carries a urostomy bag). Do we want these survivors to be humiliated in a public setting just so that the rest of us can feel a little bit safer?

6. It’s 2010, and “just don’t fly” is, for many, not an option. The world is only getting smaller, and people have family all over the word. My family lives in Tokyo, which is on the other side of the Earth from Boston, where I am now; believe it or not, Greyhound will not bus my fat white ass there. I’ve had people suggest I travel by boat or just Skype with them. To which I say fuck right off and don’t come back until you’ve recognized your privilege. I recognize my privileges that I get to experience a multi-national identity, and that I get to come to the United States (with full citizenship, no less) and try and make a better life for myself than I personally would have gotten in Japan. Now recognize your privilege that you don’t need to travel for 24 hours to be with your family.

8. Nobody likes these new policies—neither the travelers nor the TSA. Air travel blogger Steven Frischling recently got in touch with 17 TSA officers (he contacted 20; 17 replied), and each expressed deep discomfort with what they were now being forced to do at their jobs. The responses include language like “I felt like vomiting,” “painful and demoralizing,” and “I do not want to be here all day touching penises.” I feel these reactions from the TSA officers are totally valid—the same way I feel travelers’ reactions to the TSA screening procedures are totally valid. Nobody wants their genitals touched/seen by strangers, and nobody wants to touch/see a stranger’s genitals. And all this is happening, again, just to make us feel safer.

I know it’s cheesy and passé to be quoting founding fathers (like, those guys have been dead for a hundred years, you know? They lived in a pre-9/11 world, what do they know about America) but that long-haired dude on our $100 bills wrote, “They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.” We can’t keep giving up our civil liberties for the temporary feeling or illusion of safety; soon, there’ll be no civil liberties left to give. The Fourth Amendment of the Bill of Rights promises us guard against unreasonable search and seizure. Is a choice between being seen naked by a stranger and being groped by a stranger reasonable? Are the new TSA screening procedures constitutional?

The refrain of our national anthem christens our nation “the land of the free and the home of the brave.” What’s free and brave about security theater? What’s free and brave about making sure people stay in their homes, afraid to see the world?

THIS.

(Source: chimericalness)