--> Flag Counter Egalitarian Bookworm Cannabis Religious Tolerance PLUR Atheist No Hate United States PRIDE Taoist End the terror war
July 24, 2014

exposethetpp: Good morning! 
 Please give this in-depth Ralph Nader interview a listen, then please share! http://ow.ly/wGhgX  Take action against “free trade” deals like the Trans-Pacific Partnership! #TPPwww.ExposeTheTPP.orgwww.SaveTheWorldStopFastTrack.com

exposethetppGood morning! 

Please give this in-depth Ralph Nader interview a listen, then please share! http://ow.ly/wGhgX

Take action against “free trade” deals like the Trans-Pacific Partnership! #TPP

www.ExposeTheTPP.org
www.SaveTheWorldStopFastTr
ack.com

July 23, 2014
"I wonder why Netanyahu falls into their devious plot. Why do you provide them with the telegenically dead Palestinians that they desire? It’s as if Hamas made them fire the missiles. No, no no. YOU made that decision. If you think its a devious plot by Hamas to make you look bad, well then don’t do it. BUT you do do it. So this whole idea of ‘no, no, no. It’s okay, it’s not us even though we pushed the button’, meant, for example four dead kids on the beach. Right? Having nothing to do with Hamas. There’s no tunnel underneath the beach, there’s no building where their firing the rockets from. Why did you hit the hospital? What, Hamas made you hit the hospital? Hamas made you kill the four kids on the beach? How did they MAKE YOU do it? Are you so pathetically weak, Prime Minister Netanyahu, that you let Hamas boss you around like that, and just drive all of your decision making? And to even drive killing innocent civilians, because Hamas made you do it? Well, that doesn’t seem very strong."

Cenk Uygur, in response to Netanyahu’s “we do it because Hamas wants ‘telegenically dead’ civilians”/”we are superior" argument.

Mediaite: Netanyahu: “Hamas wants telegenically dead Palestinians

July 23, 2014

jeast12 said: Why would redskins be offensive? .iam literally half Indian Apache my grandmother full biological grandmother at that she born in 1932 see to offense nor related full blood family ....I.a also African American and yes we are still labled as "blacks"

lastrealindians:

The term ‘redskin’ doesn’t merely refer to a red complexion. It’s a racial slur. Look it up in the dictionary. The term was also used to describe the skinning of Native men, women and children, and also the selling of those skins for a bounty. States like Minnesota paid white settlers money for Native scalps. Frankly, I’m hard pressed to think of anything more repulsive.

9:38pm
  
Filed under: Q&A lastrealindians racism 
July 23, 2014
letterstomycountry:

thepeoplesrecord:

fuckyeahmarxismleninism:

Remember that time the U.S. shot down an Iranian civilian airliner over Iranian airspace, killing all 290 on board, including 66 children, and then refused to apologize for doing it?
“I will never apologize for the United States. I don’t care what the facts are. I’m not an apologize-for-America kind of guy.”-Vice President (and then-presidential candidate) George H.W. Bush, commenting on the downed airliner, 8/2/1988

That quote makes me sick.

LTMC: I actually did not know about this.  My only defense is that I was 4 years old at the time, and the government apparently did a great job of glossing over the history books on this one. Also, that GHWB quote is solid gold, thought not as solid as the solid gold dancers.

I wasn’t even born in the 80’s. 
The unborn can’t join a national consensus on anything - including foreign policy decisions, seeing as they haven’t even left the womb and have no idea about the political world they were born into. 
Killing people in a civilian airliner just to thump your chest and be unapologetic about nationalism is absurd. Nobdoy “has to" die for the insecurities of politicians.

letterstomycountry:

thepeoplesrecord:

fuckyeahmarxismleninism:

Remember that time the U.S. shot down an Iranian civilian airliner over Iranian airspace, killing all 290 on board, including 66 children, and then refused to apologize for doing it?

I will never apologize for the United States. I don’t care what the facts are. I’m not an apologize-for-America kind of guy.”-Vice President (and then-presidential candidate) George H.W. Bush, commenting on the downed airliner, 8/2/1988

That quote makes me sick.

LTMC: I actually did not know about this.  My only defense is that I was 4 years old at the time, and the government apparently did a great job of glossing over the history books on this one. Also, that GHWB quote is solid gold, thought not as solid as the solid gold dancers.

I wasn’t even born in the 80’s. 

The unborn can’t join a national consensus on anything - including foreign policy decisions, seeing as they haven’t even left the womb and have no idea about the political world they were born into. 

Killing people in a civilian airliner just to thump your chest and be unapologetic about nationalism is absurd. Nobdoy “has to" die for the insecurities of politicians.

9:03pm
  
Filed under: state terrorism Iran 
July 23, 2014

thelandofmaps: Countries in which it is illegal to deny the Holocaust [OC][2000x1027]

thelandofmaps: Countries in which it is illegal to deny the Holocaust [OC][2000x1027]

July 23, 2014

Anonymous said: Stop having kids when you can't afford to take care of them & the kids won't be taken away. Educate about protection

lastrealindians:

What an incredibly ignorant thing to say. Educate yourself about America’s genocidal history, federal government termination and assimilation policy enforced against Natives, reservations (including stats on sexual violence against Native women by non-Native men (1 in 3), lack of medical care and law enforcement, and high unemployment rates) imposed poverty, broken treaties, intergenerational trauma, and economic racism. Then you’ll have some basis to have an opinion on this subject.

July 23, 2014

shinobicyrus:

queerpropaganda:

"can men and women really be just friends??" straight people are so weird

It is a fact that bisexuals can’t make friends. There is only prey.

(Source: apollolras, via thecatamongwolves)

8:28pm
  
Filed under: I made a funny 
July 23, 2014
datablossom:

endtheterrorwar:

datablossom:


mapsontheweb: Countries that recognize the State of Palestine

[Countries that have the fewest numbers of Jews in their populous]
(Just a prediction I have)
(Or at least regionally speaking)
*Just noticed North Korea and had a bit of a chuckle.

Yeah, the presence of international anti-semitism against Jewish people does speak alot of the sorry state of our world - I wouldn’t be the kind of person to deny it’s existence, that would be illogical and unreasonable.
* I didn’t notice NK before either, thanks for pointing it out. We could be thankful that recognition of a new state on the geopolitical chessboard doesn’t necessitate an assembly line bringing together of repressive laws from the countries that afford such recognition.

I didn’t really follow any of that. Are you saying the highlighted countries are anti-semitic? (Also not clear on your North Korea comment) I wasn’t trying to imply anti-semitism (nor exclude it, I suppose), just process of elimination. South America - Catholic, Eastern Europe and Russia are Orthodox so far as I know, North Africa and Middle East (and of course, farther east by all ethnographic accounts I’ve heard [western pacific islands, etc.]) Muslim, Hindu and Buddhism in the sub-continent and east, and frankly I know nothing about central and southern African religious traditions. What’s left? North America, Australia, and western Europe. I don’t know if that speaks to anti-semitism, the small world population of Jewish individuals, the geopolitical traditions of these areas, or a combination of all of the above.
I just figure, generally, when a place like Palestine is partitioned the way it seems to be, the only people who wouldn’t recognize its practical independence would be allies of the ones trying to prevent its sovereignty from being actualized. I think the next logical assumption is that those allies have higher populations of those who sympathize with the ally country, i.e international Jews have influence in those countries.
I’ve never taken the time to familiarize myself with the detail and complexity of this kind of thing. Too many different people, different agendas, so on and so forth. It’d just be nice if we all got along.
This is at least a bit more comprehensive, though perhaps outdated:
2006

2012

There’s also a whole sleuth of diplomatic jargon such as the German Chancellor saying the country won’t recognize the state until it’s first recognized by Israel and I imagine a bunch of other such stipulations by other parties.

I guess I was just grasping for straws regarding your commentary on the number of Jews in any given country, but the logical conclusion that is derived from a small or nonexistent Jewish populous would be the presence of anti-semitic behavior by local non-Jewish people in the same country. It’s the whole narrative that defines the modern incarnation of Israel’s existence and Zionism: the international Jewish diaspora. 
(Regarding my NK comment: I was just saying that just because North Korea provides recognition to Palestine being a state, that doesn’t necessarily mean Palestinians will be following NK’s domestic example of an abusive autocracy in return for that recognition).
The geopolitical environment determines what happens to the world Jewish populace, it defines what countries have an anti-semitic consensus and which don’t, it speaks of whose driven by fear and hatred of Jews and whose looking forward to trade and positive relations. I don’t understand Judaism any more than the other Abrahamic religions, but I’m not going to start promoting harming any of their adherents (Jews, Muslims & Christians) due to that confusion and skepticism. A focal point of the post-WWII environment was the Zionist movement’s determination to feel secure in their own home away from Europe, and they chose Palestine due to their religious heritage and cultural connection to ancient Hebrews as derived by texts like the Tanakh, to say nothing of unfounded suspicions that grew in Christian Europe or Muslim fears regarding Jewish dominance over their own countries.
Being the secularist I am, I don’t disagree that we all can get along. 
A fair point, the diplomatic puzzle can shift back and forth instantaneously depending on other factors. Germany could just as easily sway itself away from Israel’s good graces since the alliance with Israel has been shaky and one-sided (in Israel’s favor) for the longest time between the two.

datablossom:

endtheterrorwar:

datablossom:

mapsontheweb: Countries that recognize the State of Palestine

[Countries that have the fewest numbers of Jews in their populous]

(Just a prediction I have)

(Or at least regionally speaking)

*Just noticed North Korea and had a bit of a chuckle.

Yeah, the presence of international anti-semitism against Jewish people does speak alot of the sorry state of our world - I wouldn’t be the kind of person to deny it’s existence, that would be illogical and unreasonable.

* I didn’t notice NK before either, thanks for pointing it out. We could be thankful that recognition of a new state on the geopolitical chessboard doesn’t necessitate an assembly line bringing together of repressive laws from the countries that afford such recognition.

I didn’t really follow any of that. Are you saying the highlighted countries are anti-semitic? (Also not clear on your North Korea comment) I wasn’t trying to imply anti-semitism (nor exclude it, I suppose), just process of elimination. South America - Catholic, Eastern Europe and Russia are Orthodox so far as I know, North Africa and Middle East (and of course, farther east by all ethnographic accounts I’ve heard [western pacific islands, etc.]) Muslim, Hindu and Buddhism in the sub-continent and east, and frankly I know nothing about central and southern African religious traditions. What’s left? North America, Australia, and western Europe. I don’t know if that speaks to anti-semitism, the small world population of Jewish individuals, the geopolitical traditions of these areas, or a combination of all of the above.

I just figure, generally, when a place like Palestine is partitioned the way it seems to be, the only people who wouldn’t recognize its practical independence would be allies of the ones trying to prevent its sovereignty from being actualized. I think the next logical assumption is that those allies have higher populations of those who sympathize with the ally country, i.e international Jews have influence in those countries.

I’ve never taken the time to familiarize myself with the detail and complexity of this kind of thing. Too many different people, different agendas, so on and so forth. It’d just be nice if we all got along.

This is at least a bit more comprehensive, though perhaps outdated:

2006

2012

There’s also a whole sleuth of diplomatic jargon such as the German Chancellor saying the country won’t recognize the state until it’s first recognized by Israel and I imagine a bunch of other such stipulations by other parties.

I guess I was just grasping for straws regarding your commentary on the number of Jews in any given country, but the logical conclusion that is derived from a small or nonexistent Jewish populous would be the presence of anti-semitic behavior by local non-Jewish people in the same country. It’s the whole narrative that defines the modern incarnation of Israel’s existence and Zionism: the international Jewish diaspora. 

(Regarding my NK comment: I was just saying that just because North Korea provides recognition to Palestine being a state, that doesn’t necessarily mean Palestinians will be following NK’s domestic example of an abusive autocracy in return for that recognition).

The geopolitical environment determines what happens to the world Jewish populace, it defines what countries have an anti-semitic consensus and which don’t, it speaks of whose driven by fear and hatred of Jews and whose looking forward to trade and positive relations. I don’t understand Judaism any more than the other Abrahamic religions, but I’m not going to start promoting harming any of their adherents (Jews, Muslims & Christians) due to that confusion and skepticism. A focal point of the post-WWII environment was the Zionist movement’s determination to feel secure in their own home away from Europe, and they chose Palestine due to their religious heritage and cultural connection to ancient Hebrews as derived by texts like the Tanakh, to say nothing of unfounded suspicions that grew in Christian Europe or Muslim fears regarding Jewish dominance over their own countries.

Being the secularist I am, I don’t disagree that we all can get along. 

A fair point, the diplomatic puzzle can shift back and forth instantaneously depending on other factors. Germany could just as easily sway itself away from Israel’s good graces since the alliance with Israel has been shaky and one-sided (in Israel’s favor) for the longest time between the two.

July 23, 2014
"Police violence against racial minorities may never stop. Racism has been an indelible feature of American society and police-minority relations since slavery. Indeed, police arms, chains, and ropes are not new to the necks of black men, as well as black women and Latino/as. The killing of Eric Garner not only symbolizes the tight hold racism has on our society and individual psyches, but it is also a reminder of how normalized violence against non-white bodies is in the media and across racial/ethnic groups."

A history of police brutality against people of color. (via salon)

5:25pm
  
Filed under: quote police state racism slavery 
July 23, 2014
datablossom:


mapsontheweb: Countries that recognize the State of Palestine

[Countries that have the fewest numbers of Jews in their populous]
(Just a prediction I have)
(Or at least regionally speaking)
*Just noticed North Korea and had a bit of a chuckle.

Yeah, the presence of international anti-semitism against Jewish people does speak alot of the sorry state of our world - I wouldn’t be the kind of person to deny it’s existence, that would be illogical and unreasonable.
* I didn’t notice NK before either, thanks for pointing it out. We could be thankful that recognition of a new state on the geopolitical chessboard doesn’t necessitate an assembly line bringing together of repressive laws from the countries that afford such recognition.

datablossom:

mapsontheweb: Countries that recognize the State of Palestine

[Countries that have the fewest numbers of Jews in their populous]

(Just a prediction I have)

(Or at least regionally speaking)

*Just noticed North Korea and had a bit of a chuckle.

Yeah, the presence of international anti-semitism against Jewish people does speak alot of the sorry state of our world - I wouldn’t be the kind of person to deny it’s existence, that would be illogical and unreasonable.

* I didn’t notice NK before either, thanks for pointing it out. We could be thankful that recognition of a new state on the geopolitical chessboard doesn’t necessitate an assembly line bringing together of repressive laws from the countries that afford such recognition.

July 23, 2014
Blacklisted: The Secret Government Rulebook For Labeling You a Terrorist

antigovernmentextremist:

A single senior level Obama administration official has the authority to classify you as a terrorist to be placed on a watchlist.

July 23, 2014
REBLOG if your pan/bi/asexual

legacyofthetimewar: Let’s show them we exist guys

(via mashkwi)

5:59am
  
Filed under: pansexual about me 
July 23, 2014
MUST Read for all political bloggers: UK Watchdog Warns Country’s Terrorism Laws Could Be Used to Criminalize Newspapers as Terrorists

assangistan: by Kevin Gosztola via firedoglake

The official in the United Kingdom, who is tasked with reviewing terrorism legislation, has released a report warning about the breadth of terrorism laws and how they could be used to criminalize journalism. Citing the case of David Miranda, journalist Glenn Greenwald’s husband who was detained at Heathrow Airport under the UK’s Terrorism Act of 2000 last year, David Anderson QC recommended changing the definition of terrorism in the law. Miranda was stopped on August 18, 2013, and held in detention for nearly nine hours under a section of the Terrorism Act. MI5 believed that Miranda was “involved in espionage activity which has the potential to act against the interests of UK national security.” In less sensational terms, British intelligence believed he was carrying documents from NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden. The police initially did not think MI5 had clearly justified that “there was a lawful basis” to use this law to detain Miranda. MI5 adjusted its reason for stopping Miranda: ”We assess that MIRANDA is knowingly carrying material, the release of which would endanger people’s lives. Additionally the disclosure, or threat of disclosure, is designed to influence a government, and is made for the purpose of promoting a political or ideological cause. This therefore falls within the definition of terrorism and as such we request that the subject is examined under Schedule 7.” Miranda has been pursuing a legal challenge to his detention, which is currently on appeal. As a result, Anderson indicated his reluctance to comment in more detail on Miranda’s case and its implications. Nevertheless, Anderson appropriately notes what he calls the “true issue” - ”whether it was lawful to use counterterrorism law” for the purpose of stopping Miranda on “the basis of the sort of intelligence they were given” on Miranda. “By validating that course, on the basis of orthodox principles of construction, the Divisional Court highlighted the remarkable (and some would say alarming) breadth of the UK’s current definition of terrorism,” Anderson suggests. Most alarmingly, the Miranda judgment revealed “the publication (or threatened publication) of words may equally constitute terrorist action,” according to Anderson’s review. That is because the “writing of a book, an article or a blog” could be terrorism under the law if it was published “‘for the purpose of advancing a political, religious, racial or ideological cause’, ‘designed to influence the government’ and liable to endanger life or create a serious risk to health or safety.” Anderson contends that “possession of any article for a purpose connected with the publication” or of any “documents likely to be useful to persons publishing material of that kind” could result in someone being sentenced to prison for ten to fifteen years. “Acts preparatory to publication” could result in “life imprisonment.” So, for example, someone in the UK who did what Snowden did could be imprisoned for life for intending to have this information published. “Anyone who encouraged the writing of similar articles or circulated such encouragement to others could be imprisoned for up to seven years,” according to Anderson. Even more remarkable, the news organization involved could be considered an “organization concerned in terrorism,” making it a “criminal offense to be employed by it or to fund it.” In other words, anyone employed or funding could be accused of “material support for terrorism.” “Both the newspaper and its journalists could be designated under the asset-freezing legislation, rendering it a criminal offense to make funds, financial services or economic resources available to them without a license, if the Treasury judged this necessary to protect the public from similar ‘terrorist’ activities,” Anderson further suggests. It does not matter if no persons in the British government would use the law in this totalitarian manner to target media organizations right now. Anderson points out, “To bring activities such as journalism and blogging within the ambit of “terrorism” (even if only when they are practiced irresponsibly) encourages the ‘chilling effect’ that can deter even legitimate enquiry and expression in related fields.” Anderson recommends that the “terrorist label” be reserved for actions “aimed at coercing or undermining the government” and not for those acts aimed at influencing government for “political reasons.” This includes publications the government is convinced will “jeopardize life, health or safety.” He also recommends that the government narrow the definitions of “terrorist activity” and “terrorism-related activity” in two of the country’s recent statutes. The definition employed currently is “unduly restrictive of political expression” to Anderson. “Influencing governments, whether at home or abroad, is the legitimate aim of all political activity including demonstrations, marches, writing and speech.” “It is unsafe to allow politically-motivated actions to be classed as terrorism merely on the basis that someone in authority considers them liable to endanger life or create a serious risk to the health or safety of the public,” Anderson declares. “Such a broad definition assists nobody, save the true terrorists whose constituency of sympathizers is swelled by a law which can be easily portrayed as excessive.” Once again, as Anderson recognizes, “Even if the strong anti-terrorism powers are never used up to their limits, uncertainty as to where those limits lie, coupled with understandable fearfulness of being branded a terrorist, could deter people even from activity falling outside their range.” “When those people are journalists, bloggers or simply outspoken citizens, the consequence is to chill the free expression of political opinion - the lifeblood of a free society,” Anderson adds In conclusion, Anderson’s review clearly shows anyone engaged in journalism on sensitive “national security” issues will want to avoid the United Kingdom entirely when traveling and refuse to visit the country because doing so may risk the possibility of being inappropriately targeted under terrorism law. 

One quick note about the United States should be made when considering the powers in this terrorism law. None of what Anderson raises in his review will be viewed as objectionable by President Barack Obama’s administration. There will be no expressions of concern. The NSA and other US intelligence agencies appreciate the lengths to which the UK government will go to protect their interests by targeting individuals like Miranda. The Associated Press reported recently on emails they obtained through the Freedom of Information Act, which showed the NSA considered itgood newsthat GCHQ had the hard drives of The Guardian destroyed. Director of National Intelligence James Clapper was updated before the destruction took place. No matter how the United Kingdom seeks to apply its broad terrorism laws, it will stand firmly behind the UK because the country is following the example of the US and waging the kind of unrestrained war on terrorism the government seeks to maintain each and every day, even when there are political concerns that require some restrictions to be adopted.

(Source: dissenter.firedoglake.com)

July 23, 2014

mapsontheweb: Countries that recognize the State of Palestine

mapsontheweb: Countries that recognize the State of Palestine

(via bringiton911)

1:26am
  
Filed under: mapsontheweb Palestine