lily; wanderer, wonderer, dreamer.
- November 27 -
Guys. This is a fully grown Golden Cocker Retriever. In other words, a forever puppy.
It would stay that cute foreveeeer. Not that I think other grown dogs aren’t cute, I’m just saying that some aren’t. Hahaha!
(Mine are though, my two adorable Akitas, but the judgement is biased. LOL.)
Kate please can we get one please please please?
Kate please can you get one please please please?
yes to both of you
TUMBLR YOU ARE WRONG. THIS IS JUST A GOLDEN RETRIEVER PUPPY LOOK I PROMISE THIS IS THE DOG HE GROWS INTO: (CLICKY CLICK TO THE LINK I FOUND WITH THE MAGIC OF THE INTERNET AND SET AS CLICK-THROUGH FOR THE ORIGINAL PIC IF YOU DON’T BELIEVE ME.)
DO NOT BE FOOLED. NO SUCH THING AS A FOREVER PUPPY. PUPPIES GROW INTO DOGS THAT NEED A HOME FOR LIFE. VISIT YOUR LOCAL SHELTER #HIGHHORSE
PS THIS IS WHAT A FULL GROWN GOLDEN RETRIEVER X COCKER SPANIEL LOOKS LIKE:
(FROM: http://www.dogbreedinfo.com/g/goldencockerretriever.htm)
(Me right now.)
(Source: yrthebossapplesauce)
- November 12 -
Anonymous asked: Not only do I like your blog (haha I found it) but I also am OBSESSED with you secretly. Ok here we go.. I got this idea from a Tumblr spam I got once lol.. I think you like me too and you were always too shy to admit it :3 go to crushmatches(dòt)com (wtf it wont let me link regular) and make an account there. Then look up the profile 'gottagetme19' (me obviously) I left body pictures.. if you can guess who I am hit me up and we'll hang soon. You need a C C but its free
Seems legit.
2 notes link- June 27 -
“You say that you love rain, but you open your umbrella when it rains. You say that you love the sun, but you find a shadow spot when the sun shines. You say that you love the wind, but you close your windows when wind blows. This is why I am afraid, you say that you love me too.”
126 notes linkFun fact for the LGBT community!
- June 18 -
mjec:
Because the government has yet to rectify the “non-violent Homosexual Advance Defence” loophole in murder legislature. Basically, if you make advances upon someone of the same sex, and they don’t like it, the law states that they must be looked upon less harshly if they murder you. All they have to do in court is say, and to a degree, prove that you were trying to pick them up (the law specifically states that they only need be “non-violent advances”) and their murder charge will become manslaughter.
NB: This issue was brought to my attention by this article, which was linked to me from GetUp!’s Twitter feed.
This is not true.
Quick googling will reveal that there was in fact a death, prosecution, sentencing and appeal. However the conviction was for manslaughter and the appeal was on the grounds of undue harshness. The conviction was sound on the basis that there was a brawl that “got out of hand.” While the victim allegedly made sexual advances to the perpetrators, he was not gay, nor was this a factor in sentencing.
There is certainly no defence which allows you to get away with murder because you’re retaliating against a sexual advance - even against a violent sexual advance killing is usually a disproportionate response (and therefore not a defence to murder).
In sentencing (not in deciding whether or not to convict) a judge may take into account mitigating factors, including provocation. Provocation is not specifically defined but can be construed broadly. That is has been construed to include non-violent homosexual sexual advances in the past is probably true, but this does not mean it’s binding. There’s certainly no legislative provision creating a defence as claimed. In addition, that is merely one factor considered in sentencing. If a crime is motivated by hatred for a particular group (for example, a person reacts disproportionately because they are homophobic) that will count against them.
In short: I call bullshit.
In the Queensland Criminal Code, provocation is a legislated, partial defence to murder (also some assault charges, but it’s applied differently) which, if successful, mitigates the conviction to manslaughter.
The case this principle comes from is Green v R (1997) 191 CLR 334.
(Source: baruchsbalthamos)
31 notes linkFun fact for the LGBT community!
If you are a homosexual, bisexual, or transgendered person living in Queensland or New South Wales, you may want to start wearing Kevlar vests when you try to pick up someone of the same sex.
Because the government has yet to rectify the “non-violent Homosexual Advance Defence” loophole in murder legislature. Basically, if you make advances upon someone of the same sex, and they don’t like it, the law states that they must be looked upon less harshly if they murder you. All they have to do in court is say, and to a degree, prove that you were trying to pick them up (the law specifically states that they only need be “non-violent advances”) and their murder charge will become manslaughter.
Now, obviously, most people who know about the loophole wouldn’t at all support the idea that same-sex flirting is a reasonable grounds for murdering someone, but that doesn’t change the fact that this archaic law still exists.
There’s a petition online about the issue you can fill out here. And it’s not one of those not-likely-to-make-a-difference-e-petition, like so many that sadly do nothing; the petition was started by Brisbane MP Grace Grace (whose name I love) and should, I hope, have an impact and be key to getting rid of this, frankly terrifying legal loophole.
NB: This issue was brought to my attention by this article, which was linked to me from GetUp!’s Twitter feed.
Um, shit.
To be fair, anyone claiming provocation as a defence for murder definitely has to do far, far more than simply proving you were trying to pick them up - this defence to murder, provocation, is complex and is not as simple as it is presented here.
That said, though, there is still a totally unfair difference in the law between treatment of non-violent heterosexual and non-violent homosexual advances in regards to provocation, and if you wanna read a great legal argument on why the law is bollocks, read Justice Kirby’s dissenting argument on the case Green v The Queen.
The law should undoubtedly be changed, it is certainly unequal, but I kind of hate it when people are rallied around a gross oversimplification of an issue.
/rant
(Source: baruchsbalthamos)
31 notes link- June 16 -
“
The following day, I attended a workshop about preventing gender violence, facilitated by Katz. There, he posed a question to all of the men in the room: “Men, what things do you do to protect yourself from being raped or sexually assaulted?”
Not one man, including myself, could quickly answer the question. Finally, one man raised his hand and said, “Nothing.” Then Katz asked the women, “What things do you do to protect yourself from being raped or sexually assaulted?” Nearly all of the women in the room raised their hand. One by one, each woman testified:
“I don’t make eye contact with men when I walk down the street,” said one.
“I don’t put my drink down at parties,” said another.
“I use the buddy system when I go to parties.”
“I cross the street when I see a group of guys walking in my direction.”
“I use my keys as a potential weapon.”
The women went on for several minutes, until their side of the blackboard was completely filled with responses. The men’s side of the blackboard was blank. I was stunned. I had never heard a group of women say these things before. I thought about all of the women in my life — including my mother, sister and girlfriend — and realized that I had a lot to learn about gender.
” 41,977 notes link- June 10 -
It’s so cold I’m wearing two blankets over my Snuggie.
Dad still holds the belief that if he isn’t cold, no one can be.
Brrr.
- May 7 -
Because hand-made Mothers’ Day cards are totally legit when you’re almost 20, right?
Oh hey, blog.
I stood on my watch this morning and shattered the face of it. Serves me right for putting it on the bathroom floor.
I must have an essay to do.
linkToday I was;
- April 9 -
a) unproductive.
b) not very productive.
c) not reproductive.
d) all of the above.
1 note link 
Farmers Union Iced Coffee
First launched in 1977 when “Farmers Union” was a co-operative of South Australian dairy farmers, the brand has achieved iconic status in South Australia. The drink is made with coffee, glucose, and homogenised reduced fat milk and milk solids. In the past Farmers Union Iced Coffee’s labelling also made mention of “iced confection” as an ingredient.
Farmers Union Iced Coffee outsells Coca-Cola in South Australia, making it the only place in the world where a milk drink outsells a cola product, and one of the few places where Coca-Cola is not the most popular locally consumed bottled beverage.South Australians are so cool.
Yeah, I’m South Australian.
We know we’re better than the rest of you, we just don’t like to brag. While Victoria and New South Wales fight about theatre productions and music festivals and politics, we’re busy being one of the most progressive, forward-thinking states in the world.
*cough*
Only colony founded entirely by free settlers, second place in the world for women to have the right to vote, advanced public transport, awesome environmental program, our Labor Party supports gay marriage etc.
Yeah, I imagine it would be hard not being South Australian.
Pity the only real city you guys have is Adelaide.
TROLOLOLOL.
(JK I’ve never been to Adelaide and I’m sure it’s really pretty. And I love Farmer’s Union.)
(via hisamusingworld)
- March 23 -
Instead of doing my tute questions, I made myself into a princess. Productivity win.
