skunkbear:

The recent release of “Dawn of the Planet of the Apes" reminded me of one of my favorite ape vs. man films – this 1932 video that shows a baby chimpanzee and a baby human undergoing the same basic psychological tests.

Its gets weirder – the human baby (Donald) and the chimpanzee baby (Gua) were both raised as humans by their biological/adopted father Winthrop Niles Kellogg.  Kellogg was a comparative psychologist fascinated by the interplay between nature and nurture, and he devised a fascinating (and questionably ethical) experiment to study it:

Suppose an anthropoid were taken into a typical human family at the day of birth and reared as a child. Suppose he were fed upon a bottle, clothed, washed, bathed, fondled, and given a characteristically human environment; that he were spoken to like the human infant from the moment of parturition; that he had an adopted human mother and an adopted human father.

First, Kellogg had to convince his pregnant wife he wasn’t crazy:

 …the enthusiasm of one of us met with so much resistance from the other that it appeared likely we could never come to an agreement upon whether or not we should even attempt such an undertaking.

She apparently gave in, because Donald and Gua were raised, for nine months, as brother and sister. Much like Caesar in the “Planet of the Apes” movies, Gua developed faster than her “brother,” and often outperformed him in tasks. But she soon hit a cognitive wall, and the experiment came to an end. (Probably for the best, as Donald had begun to speak chimpanzee.)

You can read more about Kellogg’s experiment, its legacy, and public reaction to it here.

My entire bucket list now consists of getting to tickle a baby chimp.

(via npr)

21,212 notes

(Source: misstanwyck, via bestworstideaever)

1,191,605 notes

breakingnews:

Judge rules California death penalty is unconstitutional
NBC Bay Area: A US District Court judge ruled Wednesday that California’s death penalty is unconstitutional.
Photo: California’s San Quentin State Prison (Getty Images via NBC Bay Area)

WHOAAAAAA.

breakingnews:

Judge rules California death penalty is unconstitutional

NBC Bay Area: A US District Court judge ruled Wednesday that California’s death penalty is unconstitutional.

Photo: California’s San Quentin State Prison (Getty Images via NBC Bay Area)

WHOAAAAAA.

316 notes

sizvideos:

Video

(via bestworstideaever)

413,834 notes

I love this series.

2 notes

So if you can, be less female. Or not at all. Talk to your doctor about being female to find out if being female is right for you.

So if you can, be less female. Or not at all. Talk to your doctor about being female to find out if being female is right for you.

7 notes

huffingtonpostwomen:

beyoncevoters… thank you.

This is a quality Tumblr, people.

huffingtonpostwomen:

beyoncevoters… thank you.

This is a quality Tumblr, people.

56 notes

jennwitte:

broke a couple of sticks of chalk on this one

jennwitte:

broke a couple of sticks of chalk on this one

(via halffiction)

67,911 notes

Why the Contraception Debate Is Absolutely An Issue of Religious Freedom

lindsaykatai:

Let me just get this first glaringly obvious point out of the way: the reason to cover contraception in health care plans is that 1) it regulates hormones, which is vitally important to female health and well-being in many cases and 2) the financial burden of responsible sexual intercourse in relation to family planning falls unfairly on women in this country. And no one seems to be talking about that second point in this contraception debate.

However, what I want to rant about is the Right’s otherworldly idea of what constitutes religious freedom in relation to health care.

Why should religious institutions suddenly decry their ability to “practice their religion” when it comes to contraception and health care, when in fact we have myriad laws restricting their religious bias in every aspect of our lives? That is the originating point of this country. People left an entire continent just to be free from religious dogma. In the 1600s. In a boat. To a land they hadn’t even seen. To face dangers they couldn’t then conceive. The very real threat of death was upon them and they went, “Hmmm, probable death? Or this guy telling me I have to live according to his personal idea of God?” And they chose probable death.

The religious right doesn’t get to tell us we can’t take birth control in much the same way we can’t tell them that they are required to take birth control. Providing for faith-based decisions in health care on the part of the employer instead of the employee would open the door to some ridiculous possibilities. I mean, religious freedom? SERIOUSLY? Well, my religion is secularism and these lying, base-angering, ulterior-motive-having motherfuckers are not leaving me free to practice it. They want to talk Constitution? Great. Let’s talk Constitution. Specifically, let’s talk about the fact that they haven’t a word of that thing to stand on. The Constitution provides for the opposite of what they’re talking about.

The situation is that I can afford to take birth control because my plan covers it with a copay and because I have the religious freedom to do so. The situation is not that I can’t afford birth control because my boss has the religious freedom to deny its affordability. As my friend David put it when Prop 8 was passed, “A minority right that can be overturned by a simple majority vote is like a sandwich that is not a sandwich.” We live in a federal constitutional republic damnit. AND CONSERVATIVES ARE CONTINUALLY TRYING TO MAKE THIS SANDWICH NOT A SANDWICH. And I’m having none of it. I’m having none of this non-sandwich.

ANGRY KATAI OUT.

Reblogging MYSELF from two years ago because the Supreme Court really got it wrong today.

51 notes

HELLS YES.

4 notes