Mariposa.

thesmallestactofkindness: If you think Angelina Jolie getting a double mastectomy is some publicity...

Wed, 15 May 2013 23:03:46 -0400

If you think Angelina Jolie getting a double mastectomy is some publicity stunt or you find it amusing to say things like “rip to angie’s boobs now brad’s gonna sleep with the nanny” and other bullshit like that then you literally have no idea what it’s like to live with someone who has suffered through cancer and you are not mature or intelligent enough to open your mouth and speak. I am really disgusted by people, even some that I know have equated breasts with being a “real” woman as if they’re the most important part of a woman’s existence. Think of the human being attached to the boobs you’re so keen on saving because her life is what matters not whether you can or can’t get off to her anymore. We need to “save the boobies” from the group of assholes out there that think a woman’s breasts are there for their entertainment and belong to them. That’s some real simple bitch shit. I swear sometimes I hate people.

Mon, 13 May 2013 21:02:42 -0400

travelingcolors: Burj Al Arab, Dubai | UAE (by Andras Horvath)

Mon, 06 May 2013 22:43:04 -0400

travelingcolors:

Burj Al Arab, Dubai | UAE (by Andras Horvath)

machistado: It doesn’t matter where you went to college after your first job. Jesus. Christ. No one...

Sun, 05 May 2013 18:53:05 -0400

machistado:

It doesn’t matter where you went to college after your first job. Jesus. Christ. No one gives a shit. No. One. All that matters after that is what you do and how much talent you have. The Ivies and what not provide you with more resources (generally), more opportunities, and connections. My professors use the exact same materials as the guys at Harvard do. Initially, Harvard graduates will have a leg up on me because of where they went to school but after just a few years (Princeton ran their own studies that confirmed this) it levels off. Why? No one gives a shit where you went to school. People don’t sit their diplomas out on their desks. What matters is how much talent you have and what you’ve done with it. In any organization, you’ll find people who went to Ivy League schools and community colleges working right alongside one another.

Anyone who tells you otherwise either doesn’t know how the world works or their head is so far up their ass they can’t see reality.

Stop worrying about where you go to school, Tumblr. It doesn’t matter. You can get a $5 library card and pick up the same talents as an Ivy League graduate who paid $250,000 in tuition.

I’m watching my baby nephew sleep. His chest falls up and down. If I lay near him, I can hear...

Sun, 05 May 2013 17:54:05 -0400

I’m watching my baby nephew sleep. His chest falls up and down. If I lay near him, I can hear his heartbeat. Occasionally, his eyes flicker. He is three days old. In this moment, my love for this tiny being overwhelms me.

Never let the opinion(s) of others dictate and influence how you feel about yourself. You need not...

Sat, 04 May 2013 00:23:28 -0400

Never let the opinion(s) of others dictate and influence how you feel about yourself. You need not the remarks of others to tell you your worth. You are who you define yourself as, not how others define you. You are strong, beautiful, and capable. Always remember that.

jayaprada: Everything You Always Wanted to Know about US Drone Strikes *but Were Afraid to Ask |...

Fri, 03 May 2013 22:30:54 -0400

jayaprada:

Everything You Always Wanted to Know about US Drone Strikes *but Were Afraid to Ask | Cora Currier

You might have heard about the “kill list.” You’ve certainly heard about drones. But the details of the U.S. campaign against militants in Pakistan, Yemen, and Somalia — a centerpiece of the Obama administration’s national security approach – remain shrouded in secrecy. Here’s our guide to what we know— and what we don’t know.

Where is the drone war? Who carries it out?

Drones have been the Obama administration’s tool of choice for taking out militants outside of Iraq and Afghanistan. Drones aren’t the exclusive weapon – traditional airstrikes and other attacks have also been reported. But by one estimate, 95 percent of targeted killings since 9/11 have been conducted by drones. Among the benefits of drones: they don’t put American troops in harm’s way.

The first reported drone strike against Al Qaeda happened in Yemen in 2002. The CIA ramped up secret drone strikes in Pakistan under President George W. Bush in 2008. Under Obama, they have expanded drastically there and in Yemen in 2011.

The CIA isn’t alone in conducting drone strikes. The military has acknowledged “direct action” in Yemen and Somalia. Strikes in those countries are reportedly carried out by the secretive, elite Joint Special Operations Command. Since 9/11, JSOC has grown more than tenfold, taking on intelligence-gathering as well as combat roles. (For example, JSOC was responsible for the operation that killed Osama Bin Laden.)

The drone war is carried out remotely, from the U.S. and a network of secret bases around the world. The Washington Post got a glimpse – through examining construction contracts and showing up uninvited – at the base in the tiny African nation of Djibouti from which many of the strikes on Yemen and Somalia are carried out. Earlier this year, Wired pieced together an account of the war against Somalia’s al-Shabaab militant group and the U.S.’s expanded military presence throughout Africa.

The number of strikes in Pakistan has ebbed in recent years, from a peak of more than 100 in 2008, to an estimated 46 last year. Meanwhile, the pace in Yemen picked up, with more than 40 last year. But there have been seven strikes in Pakistan in the first ten days of 2013.

How are targets chosen?

A series of articles based largely on anonymous comments from administration officials have given partial picture of how the U.S. picks targets and carries out strikes. Two recent reports – from researchers at Columbia Law School and from the Council on Foreign Relations– also give detailed overviews of what’s known about the process.

The CIA and the military have reportedly long maintained overlapping “kill lists.” According to news reports last spring, the military’s list was hashed out in Pentagon-run interagency meetings, with the White House approving proposed targets. Obama would authorize particularly sensitive missions himself.

This year, the process reportedly changed, to concentrate the review of individuals and targeting criteria in the White House. According to the Washington Post, the reviews now happen at regular interagency meetings at the National Counterterrorism Center. Recommendations are sent to a panel of National Security Council officials. Final revisions go through White House counterterror adviser John Brennan to the president. Several profiles have highlighted Brennan’s powerful and controversial role in shaping the trajectory of the targeted killing program. This week, Obama nominated Brennan to head the CIA.

At least some CIA strikes don’t have to get White House signoff. The director of the CIA can reportedly green-light strikes in Pakistan. In a 2011 interview, John Rizzo, previously the CIA’s top lawyer, said agency attorneys did an exhaustive review of each target.

Doesn’t the U.S. sometimes target people whose names they don’t know?

Yes. While administration officials often have frequently framed drone strikes as going after “high-level al Qaeda leaders who are planning attacks” against the U.S., many strikes go after apparent militants whose identities the U.S. doesn’t know. The so-called “signature strikes” began under Bush in early 2008 and were expanded by Obama. Exactly what portion of strikes are signature strikes isn’t clear.

At various points the CIA’s use of signature strikes in Pakistan in particular have caused tensions with the White House and State Department. One official told the New York Times about a joke that for the CIA, “three guys doing jumping jacks,” was a terrorist training camp.

In Yemen and Somalia, there is debate about whether the militants targeted by the U.S. are in fact plotting against the U.S. or instead fighting against their own country. Micah Zenko, a fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations who has been critical of the drone program, toldProPublica that the U.S. is essentially running “a counterinsurgency air force” for allied countries. At times, strikes have relied on local intelligence that later proves faulty. The Los Angeles Times recently examined the case of a Yemeni man killed by a U.S. drone and the complex web of allegiances and politics surrounding his death.

How many people have been killed in strikes?

The precise number isn’t known, but some estimates peg the total around 3,000.

A number of groups are tracking strikes and estimating casualties:

·         The Long War Journal covers Pakistan and Yemen.

·         The New America Foundation covers Pakistan.

·         The London Bureau of Investigative Journalism covers Yemen, Somalia, and Pakistan, as well as statistics from on drone strikes carried out in Afghanistan.

How many of those killed are have been civilians?

It’s impossible to know.

There has been considerable back-and-forth about the tally of civilian casualties. For instance, the New America Foundation estimates between 261 and 305 civilians have been killed in Pakistan; The Bureau of Investigative Journalism gives a range of 475 – 891. All of the counts are much higher than the very low numbers of deaths the administration claims. (We’ve detailed inconsistencies even within those low estimates.) Some analyses show that civilian deaths have dropped proportionally in recent years.

The estimates are largely compiled by interpreting news reports relying on anonymous officials or accounts from local media, whose credibility may vary. (For example, the Washington Post reported last month that the Yemeni government often tries to conceal the U.S.’ role in airstrikes that kill civilians.)

The controversy has been compounded by the fact that the U.S. reportedly counts any military-age male killed in a drone strike as a militant. An administration official told ProPublica, “If a group of fighting age males are in a home where we know they are constructing explosives or plotting an attack, it’s assumed that all of them are in on that effort.” It’s not clear what if any investigation occurs after the fact.

Columbia Law School conducted an in-depth analysis of what we know about the U.S.’s efforts to mitigate and calculate civilian casualties. It concluded that the drone war’s covert nature hampered accountability measures taken in traditional military actions. Another report from Stanford and NYU documented “anxiety and psychological trauma” among Pakistani villagers.

This fall, the U.N. announced an investigation into the civilian impact – in particular, allegations of “double-tap” strikes, in which a second strike targets rescuers.

Why just kill? What about capture?

Administration officials have said in speeches that militants are targeted for killing when they pose an imminent threat to the U.S. and capture isn’t feasible. But killing appears to be is far more common than capture, and accounts of strikes don’t generally shed light on “imminent” or “feasible.” Cases involving secret, overseas captures under Obama show the political and diplomatic quandaries in deciding how and where a suspect could be picked up.

This fall, the Washington Post described something called the “disposition matrix” – a process that has contingency plans for what to do with terrorists depending where they are. The Atlantic mapped out how that decision-making might happen in the case of a U.S. citizen, based on known examples. But of course, the details of the disposition matrix, like the “kill lists” it reportedly supplants, aren’t known.

What’s the legal rationale for all this?

Obama administration officials have given a series of speeches broadly outlining the legal underpinning for strikes, but they never talk about specific cases. In fact, they don’t officially acknowledge the drone war at all.

The White House argues that Congress’ 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force as well as international law on nations’ right to self-defense provides sound legal basis for targeting individuals affiliated with Al Qaeda or “associated forces,” even outside Afghanistan. That can include U.S. citizens.

“Due process,” said Attorney General Eric Holder said in a speech last March, “takes into account the realities of combat.”

What form that “due process” takes hasn’t been detailed. And, as we’ve reported, the government frequently clams up when it comes to specific questions – like civilian casualties, or the reasons specific individuals were killed.

Just last week, a federal judge ruled that the government did not have to release a secret legal memo making the case for the killing of Anwar al-Awlaki, a U.S. citizen. The judge also ruled the government did not have to respond to other requests seeking more information about targeted killing in general. (In making the ruling, the judge acknowledged a “Catch-22,” saying that the government claimed “as perfectly lawful certain actions that seem on their face incompatible with our Constitution and laws while keeping the reasons for their conclusion a secret.”)

The U.S. has also sought to dismiss a lawsuit brought by family members over Awlaki’s death and that of his 16-year-old son – also a U.S. citizen — who was killed in a drone strike.

When does the drone war end?

The administration has reportedly discussed scaling back the drone war, but by other accounts, it is formalizing the targeted killing program for the long haul. The U.S. estimates there Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula has a “few thousand” members; but officials have also said the U.S. cannot “capture of kill every last terrorist who claims an affiliation with al Qaeda.”

The State Department’s legal counsel, Jeh Johnson, who just stepped down as general counsel for the Pentagon, gave a speech last month gave a speech last month entitled, “The Conflict Against Al Qaeda and its Affiliates: How Will It End?” He didn’t give a date.

John Brennan has reportedly said the CIA should return to its focus on intelligence-gathering. But Brennan’s key role in running the drone war from the White House has led to debate about how much he would actually curtail the agency’s involvement if he is confirmed as CIA chief.

What about backlash abroad?

There appears to be plenty of it. Drone strikes are deeply unpopular in the countries where they occur, sparking frequent protests. Despite that, Brennan said last August that the U.S. saw,”little evidence that these actions are generating widespread anti-American sentiment or recruits.”

General Stanley McChrystal, who led the military in Afghanistan, recently contradicted that, saying, “The resentment created by American use of unmanned strikes … is much greater than the average American appreciates. They are hated on a visceral level, even by people who’ve never seen one or seen the effects of one.” The New York Times recently reported that Pakistani militants have carried out a campaign of brutal reprisals against locals, accusing them of spying for the U.S.

As for international governments: Top U.S. allies have mostly kept silent. A 2010 U.N. report raised concerns about the precedent of a covert, boundary-less war. The President of Yemen, Abdu Hadi, supports the U.S. campaign, while Pakistan maintains an uneasy combination of public protest and apparent acquiescence.

"More recently, the media has speculated that Adam Lanza was motivated by bullying he experienced..."

Fri, 03 May 2013 22:10:19 -0400

“More recently, the media has speculated that Adam Lanza was motivated by bullying he experienced during his time as a student at Sandy Hook Elementary. Conversely, not a single person has inquired about the mental wellbeing of the Boston Bombing suspects. Experts in psychology, violence and mass murder haven’t appeared on cable news or written op-eds for the New York Times and Washington Post with insight into what causes people to snap. No one has speculated about bullying that Tamerlan and Dzhokhar’s may have experienced, particularly Tamerlan, who was in middle school when he immigrated to the United States, an age when bullying is at its peak. Of course, all of these questions are rhetorical since we already know the answer: Adam Lanza and James Holmes are Christian white males whose names have the appropriate number of consonants. Dzhokhar and Tamerlan Tsarnaev are Muslim (which cancels out white) males who immigrated to the US from a region of the world where names are difficult to pronounce (for us).”

- James Holmes, Adam Lanza, Dzhokhar Tsarnaev and Double Standards

"You’re so calm and quiet, you never say. But there are things inside you. I see them sometimes,..."

Fri, 03 May 2013 20:56:31 -0400

“You’re so calm and quiet, you never say. But there are things inside you. I see them sometimes, hiding in your eyes.”

- Tracy Chevalier, Girl with a Pearl Earring

sprezzatura-di-castiglione: Sayyidah Zaynab Mosque, Damascus,...

Fri, 03 May 2013 19:58:43 -0400

sprezzatura-di-castiglione:

Sayyidah Zaynab Mosque, Damascus, Syria.

By http://rawii.deviantart.com/

blueejay: Under the canopy of olive trees was once the musicof heartbeats. But we brewed silence...

Sun, 28 Apr 2013 00:26:08 -0400

blueejay:

Under the canopy of olive trees
was once the music
of heartbeats.

But we brewed silence
and blood to create
flat lines.

Slaughter peace.
Bomb repetition
of history.

The war never ended;
it just goes by a different name
every generation.

Now, to reach the olives
you have to cross checkpoints,
walk over ceilings
and 5 year old shoes.

“Which side are you on?”
Humanity.
There was a mother this morning
and all she wanted was naan
to feed her family for breakfast,
instead she received bodies.
We may have lost its meaning
if we are talking sides.

Today, funeral
tomorrow monument.

There can be sadness
without reason.

"Because the world is so full of death and horror, I try again and again to console my heart and pick..."

Wed, 24 Apr 2013 21:01:50 -0400

“Because the world is so full of death and horror, I try again and again to console my heart and pick the flowers that grow in the midst of Hell.”

- Hermann Hesse

travelingcolors: Brasov at night | Romania (by Barbu...

Wed, 24 Apr 2013 01:12:24 -0400

travelingcolors:

Brasov at night | Romania (by Barbu Seabastian)

Tue, 23 Apr 2013 21:51:08 -0400

Photo

Mon, 22 Apr 2013 21:18:25 -0400

Natalia Vodianova photographed by Steven MeiselVogue US, May...

Sun, 21 Apr 2013 23:11:41 -0400

Natalia Vodianova photographed by Steven Meisel
Vogue US, May 2009

spittingonhegel: In Greece, whenever someone does or says something stupid we call it an...

Sun, 21 Apr 2013 19:44:06 -0400

spittingonhegel:

In Greece, whenever someone does or says something stupid we call it an “amerikania” or “merikania” (plural: amerikanies, merikanies). For example, mistaking the Czech Republic for Chechnya and then calling for its invasion.

Photo

Sun, 21 Apr 2013 19:41:21 -0400

"It is important to recall that other, far more lethal recent events, including the mass shootings in..."

Sun, 21 Apr 2013 13:37:35 -0400

“It is important to recall that other, far more lethal recent events, including the mass shootings in Aurora, Colorado and the school massacre at Sandy Hook, Connecticut have not been termed “terrorism,” nor their perpetrators labeled “terrorist” by the government. Why? [T]he suspects’ identification as ethnic Chechens and Muslims, even though there is no evidence that they acted either in relation to events in their ancestral homeland or were motivated by any Islamist ideology. […] True, Obama did switch to calling the Boston attack “terrorism” before any facts were known about the identities or backgrounds of the suspects, but it was also before any new relevant facts were known. Once those identities became known, Obama’s statements have only fed careless, prejudiced assumption so common on cable television: they’re Muslims, so they must be “terrorists.””

- Ali Abunimah

Perhaps the first serious consequence of labeling Boston a “terrorist” attack was the Obama administration’s decision to deprive the suspect who was captured of his constitutional right to receive a Miranda warning on arrest, a further thinning of the already threadbare pretense of “rule of law” in post 11 September 2001 America.

You all can stop thinking the Tsarnaev Brothers will enjoy white privilege in mainstream media now. They’re ethnic Chechens and Muslim - they fit one of the most stereotypical descriptions of “bad, evil Muslims.” Read the whole article.

"You will not enter Paradise until you believe and you will never believe until you love each other."

Sat, 20 Apr 2013 23:54:10 -0400

“You will not enter Paradise until you believe and you will never believe until you love each other.”

- Sahih Muslim