Female Photographer Imagines Her Life with Dozens of Different Partners in 'Self Portraits with Men'
20140831
Female Photographer Imagines Her Life with Dozens of Different Partners in 'Self Portraits with Men'
is like whore..
Female Photographer Imagines Her Life with Dozens of Different Partners in 'Self Portraits with Men'
Female Photographer Imagines Her Life with Dozens of Different Partners in 'Self Portraits with Men'
20140829
20140826
Was Putin right about Syria? - The Washington Post
so, what?
Was Putin right about Syria? - The Washington Post
What a difference a year makes. Around this time last year, the West was gearing up for military action against the regime of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, who was accused of carrying out chemical weapons attacks on his own people. That intervention never came to pass, not least because domestic public opinion in countries such as Britain and the United States was opposed to further entanglements in the Middle East.
Now, the U.S. is contemplating extending airstrikes on Islamic State militants operating in Iraq in Syria — fighters belonging to a terrorist organization that is leading the war against Assad. The Islamic State's territorial gains in Iraq and continued repression and slaughter of religious minorities there and in Syria have rightly triggered global condemnation. "I am no apologist for the Assad regime," Ryan Crocker, a former U.S. ambassador to Syria, told NPR. "But in terms of our security, [the Islamic State] is by far the greatest threat."
The irony of the moment is tragic. But to some, it doesn't come as much of a surprise. Many cautioned against the earlier insistence of the Obama administration (as well as other governments) that Assad must go, fearing what would take hold in the vacuum.
One of those critics happened to be Russian President Vladimir Putin, who warned against U.S. intervention in Syria in a New York Times op-ed last September. He wrote:
A strike would increase violence and unleash a new wave of terrorism. It could undermine multilateral efforts to resolve the Iranian nuclear problem and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and further destabilize the Middle East and North Africa. It could throw the entire system of international law and order out of balance.
Some of the crises Putin catalogs have worsened anyway, no matter American action or inaction. But Putin's insistence was couched in a reading of the conflict in Syria that's more cold-blooded than the view initially held by some in Washington. "Syria is not witnessing a battle for democracy, but an armed conflict between government and opposition in a multireligious country," Putin wrote, suggesting that the nominally secular Assad regime, despite its misdeeds, was a stabilizing force preferable to what could possibly replace it.
Putin decried the growing Islamist cadres in the Syrian rebels' ranks:
Mercenaries from Arab countries fighting there, and hundreds of militants from Western countries and even Russia, are an issue of our deep concern. Might they not return to our countries with experience acquired in Syria?
That's a concern very publicly shared now by U.S. and European officials, who are alarmed by the considerable presence of European nationals among the Islamic State's forces. A British jihadist who spoke with a London accent is believed to have carried out the shocking execution of American journalist James Foley this week.
That Western attention has shifted so dramatically from the murders carried out by the Assad regime to those carried out by the militants fighting it is a sign of the overwhelming complexity of the war, which is collapsing borders and shaking up politics in countries across the Middle East.
Nor is it necessarily vindication for Putin, who in the past year has turned into the hobgoblin of the liberal world order. As my colleague Adam Taylor wrote this year, the Russian president's op-ed makes awkward reading for Moscow when held up against its own aggressive meddling in Ukraine. Putin's solemnizing over the integrity of international systems is hard to take seriously considering his government's controversial annexation of sovereign Ukrainian territory in March and continued obstruction of a diplomatic resolution to the Ukraine crisis in the U.N. Security Council.
Others skeptical of Putin's stance on Syria point to Moscow's vested interests in the Assad regime, which furnishes Russia access to a naval base on the Mediterranean and is a frequent buyer of Russian military hardware.
In March 2011, in the shadow of pro-democracy uprisings in Tunisia and Egypt, Syrian protesters took to the streets. Their largely peaceful demonstrations were met by heavy-handed, violent crackdowns by state security forces. Eventually, the upheaval turned into conflict and now a full-blown sectarian civil war that has claimed the lives of at least 191,000 people, according to the U.N. this week.
Some in Washington argue that if only the Obama administration had started arming and empowering the "moderate" Syrian opposition sooner, the extremist forces now in the news would not wield such influence and power. But that, as Middle East scholar Marc Lynch explains over at Monkey Cage, is a hopeful and naive assumption. It's hard to imagine any scenario where more direct U.S. involvement in the Syrian conflict, aimed at toppling Assad, would not somehow also play into the hands of the Islamist factions committed to the struggle.
More than three and a half years later, there is a lot of water — and blood — under the bridge. But it's worth considering what Putin's government insisted not long after the violence began. In his New York Times op-ed, Putin reminded readers that from "the outset, Russia has advocated peaceful dialogue enabling Syrians to develop a compromise plan for their own future." That "plan for the future," the Russians insisted, had to involve negotiation and talks between the government and the opposition, something which the opposition rejected totally at the time.
In November 2011, Putin's foreign minister Sergei Lavrov criticized other foreign powers, including the United States, for not helping pressure opposition forces to come to the table with the Assad regime. "We feel the responsibility to make everything possible to initiate an internal dialogue in Syria," Lavrov said at a meeting of APEC foreign ministers in Hawaii.
The Arab Spring was in full bloom and U.S. officials thought regime change in Syria was an "inevitable" fait accompli. That calculus appears to have been woefully wrong. Now, the conflict is too entrenched, too polarized, too steeped in the suffering and trauma of millions of Syrians, for peaceful reconciliation to be an option. Russia could very well have been window-dressing the Assad regime's crimes by parroting Damascus's calls for dialogue, which the opposition has long considered insincere. But the chance for that sort of earlier rapprochement, in hindsight, seems a thin ray of light in the darkness that has since engulfed Syria.
Was Putin right about Syria? - The Washington Post
What a difference a year makes. Around this time last year, the West was gearing up for military action against the regime of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, who was accused of carrying out chemical weapons attacks on his own people. That intervention never came to pass, not least because domestic public opinion in countries such as Britain and the United States was opposed to further entanglements in the Middle East.
Now, the U.S. is contemplating extending airstrikes on Islamic State militants operating in Iraq in Syria — fighters belonging to a terrorist organization that is leading the war against Assad. The Islamic State's territorial gains in Iraq and continued repression and slaughter of religious minorities there and in Syria have rightly triggered global condemnation. "I am no apologist for the Assad regime," Ryan Crocker, a former U.S. ambassador to Syria, told NPR. "But in terms of our security, [the Islamic State] is by far the greatest threat."
The irony of the moment is tragic. But to some, it doesn't come as much of a surprise. Many cautioned against the earlier insistence of the Obama administration (as well as other governments) that Assad must go, fearing what would take hold in the vacuum.
One of those critics happened to be Russian President Vladimir Putin, who warned against U.S. intervention in Syria in a New York Times op-ed last September. He wrote:
A strike would increase violence and unleash a new wave of terrorism. It could undermine multilateral efforts to resolve the Iranian nuclear problem and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and further destabilize the Middle East and North Africa. It could throw the entire system of international law and order out of balance.
Some of the crises Putin catalogs have worsened anyway, no matter American action or inaction. But Putin's insistence was couched in a reading of the conflict in Syria that's more cold-blooded than the view initially held by some in Washington. "Syria is not witnessing a battle for democracy, but an armed conflict between government and opposition in a multireligious country," Putin wrote, suggesting that the nominally secular Assad regime, despite its misdeeds, was a stabilizing force preferable to what could possibly replace it.
Putin decried the growing Islamist cadres in the Syrian rebels' ranks:
Mercenaries from Arab countries fighting there, and hundreds of militants from Western countries and even Russia, are an issue of our deep concern. Might they not return to our countries with experience acquired in Syria?
That's a concern very publicly shared now by U.S. and European officials, who are alarmed by the considerable presence of European nationals among the Islamic State's forces. A British jihadist who spoke with a London accent is believed to have carried out the shocking execution of American journalist James Foley this week.
That Western attention has shifted so dramatically from the murders carried out by the Assad regime to those carried out by the militants fighting it is a sign of the overwhelming complexity of the war, which is collapsing borders and shaking up politics in countries across the Middle East.
Nor is it necessarily vindication for Putin, who in the past year has turned into the hobgoblin of the liberal world order. As my colleague Adam Taylor wrote this year, the Russian president's op-ed makes awkward reading for Moscow when held up against its own aggressive meddling in Ukraine. Putin's solemnizing over the integrity of international systems is hard to take seriously considering his government's controversial annexation of sovereign Ukrainian territory in March and continued obstruction of a diplomatic resolution to the Ukraine crisis in the U.N. Security Council.
Others skeptical of Putin's stance on Syria point to Moscow's vested interests in the Assad regime, which furnishes Russia access to a naval base on the Mediterranean and is a frequent buyer of Russian military hardware.
In March 2011, in the shadow of pro-democracy uprisings in Tunisia and Egypt, Syrian protesters took to the streets. Their largely peaceful demonstrations were met by heavy-handed, violent crackdowns by state security forces. Eventually, the upheaval turned into conflict and now a full-blown sectarian civil war that has claimed the lives of at least 191,000 people, according to the U.N. this week.
Some in Washington argue that if only the Obama administration had started arming and empowering the "moderate" Syrian opposition sooner, the extremist forces now in the news would not wield such influence and power. But that, as Middle East scholar Marc Lynch explains over at Monkey Cage, is a hopeful and naive assumption. It's hard to imagine any scenario where more direct U.S. involvement in the Syrian conflict, aimed at toppling Assad, would not somehow also play into the hands of the Islamist factions committed to the struggle.
More than three and a half years later, there is a lot of water — and blood — under the bridge. But it's worth considering what Putin's government insisted not long after the violence began. In his New York Times op-ed, Putin reminded readers that from "the outset, Russia has advocated peaceful dialogue enabling Syrians to develop a compromise plan for their own future." That "plan for the future," the Russians insisted, had to involve negotiation and talks between the government and the opposition, something which the opposition rejected totally at the time.
In November 2011, Putin's foreign minister Sergei Lavrov criticized other foreign powers, including the United States, for not helping pressure opposition forces to come to the table with the Assad regime. "We feel the responsibility to make everything possible to initiate an internal dialogue in Syria," Lavrov said at a meeting of APEC foreign ministers in Hawaii.
The Arab Spring was in full bloom and U.S. officials thought regime change in Syria was an "inevitable" fait accompli. That calculus appears to have been woefully wrong. Now, the conflict is too entrenched, too polarized, too steeped in the suffering and trauma of millions of Syrians, for peaceful reconciliation to be an option. Russia could very well have been window-dressing the Assad regime's crimes by parroting Damascus's calls for dialogue, which the opposition has long considered insincere. But the chance for that sort of earlier rapprochement, in hindsight, seems a thin ray of light in the darkness that has since engulfed Syria.
20140825
20140824
The New Era of Feminism - All Men Should Be Castrated? - International "Castration Day"
http://web.archive.org/web/20120420123910/http://thefemitheist.blogspot.com/2012/04/allow-me-to-introduce-myself.html
http://femitheistreborn.blogspot.com.es/2012/09/international-castration-day-refined.html
http://femitheistreborn.blogspot.com.es/2013/09/how-remiss-of-me-tuesday-clarifications.html
All Men Should Be Castrated? - International "Castration Day"
Some Feminists have considered this as an option. It is highly controversial.
Allow me to introduce myself...
My name is Krista, otherwise known as "The Femitheist". I am a female, a feminist, and someone who believes strongly in True Equality.
Now, I will begin explaining this entry before I post the actual article... for your discussion, of course.
Women MUST and WILL have equality, and this is the ONLY way to achieve TRUE equality. The testicles of all males, which produce the majority of their testosterone, are the primary cause of their violent behavior. The testicles also attribute greatly to many of the health problems men experience later in life (such as prostate cancer and, of course, testicular cancer).
~:The Solution... International Castration Day.:~
It is my belief (which I consider factual based on my research) that all men SHOULD be castrated. Not only for their own safety, but for the safety of all innocent women and children.
And, to achieve this...
The entire world should have an international holiday known as: "Castration Day"
Males of all ages will be brought to the public squares of their cities nude, to stand together in a circle, as they await castration by a woman known as "The Castrator", who will be a woman chosen from the public much like a juror.
Girls of all ages will attend, lining the streets to cheer and applaud the males as they join the rest of civilized society.
It will be a free vacation for any working woman. And, young girls will be able to leave school to attend this glorious ceremony.
The males will then have one hour to get to know their Castrator. Their female "spouse" will also be able to choose whether or not they would like to milk the male in order to retain a sperm sample.
If the male is too young for a "spouse", their mother or closest female relative will decide.
After this, the men will be given anesthetics. They will be placed on a table, where their Castrator will then slice open their ball-sack, remove their testicles, and the excess skin, stitch them up and clean them up.
They will be given thirty minutes to rest after the procedure.
Once the males have all been castrated, they will be grouped together again for one last look before walking nude back to their homes.
The women will then return to their jobs, schools, et cetera, and rejoice in the completion of yet another successful ceremony.
Any man who tries to evade this holiday, "Castration Day", should be murdered wherever they are found (treated as a criminal, as it will be a crime not to attend). Or, forced to attend. Regardless of age.
Any woman who disagrees should be provided therapy in order to free her from misogynistic indoctrination.
This holiday should replace the day known currently as "Father's Day".
If this practice were adopted officially all across the world, all war, crime, and violence would end.
We would have a true Eutopia, where peace reigns, and men do only what they exist for...
Breed.
Labor.
SERVE.
Die.
Likewise, the change of their hormones would make them less aggressive, and thus less likely to rape. It would also provide them with better health throughout their life, as the testicles are a major cause of health issues in males as they age.
All will profit from this...
And, I believe this will come to be someday soon.
Thanks for your consideration!
==========
Due to current events, I am writing this post for the sake of clarification, as I’ve recently been lambasted by the icy-whip of some dreadful thought-moderation. I suppose that I should have done this before now anyway, as there has been much confusion lately in relation to where I stand on a few things among those who are averse to me and even among those who follow me.
This post will contain the absolute truth for the purposes of total transparency and intellectual honesty.
So, let us begin.
1) ICD (International Castration Day) has been rescinded. I once advocated it, and now I no longer do, as it conflicts with our and/or my primary end-goal(s). I oppose [unnecessary] offensive [violence], and because ICD could be considered unnecessary offensive violence, I dropped it. It will never be promoted by me, or anyone who follows me, ever again.
I wish to leave the ICD post up on this Blog as being rescinded, as it has already been disseminated thoroughly across the internet, and so my removing it here would not erase it from those places. I want people to know, when they come to this Blog, that we no longer advocate it, so that I do not have to continuously inform people of this when they inquire about it.
2) I absolutely do not, in any way, shape or form, advocate killing anyone, harming anyone, or committing acts of violence against anyone, female or male. Period. Anyone who asserts that this is the case is incorrect. Anyone who claims that I have stated that I want to commit “genocide” or that I want to “kill all men” is mistaken, as I do not support either of those things; they confuse their words with mine.
3) I do advocate the creation of a new humanity, a New World, and a 90:10 (female-male) ratio, but I do not endorse achieving this by engaging in any sort of killing, genocide, or any other enactments of violence against anyone. Period.
We (my partner Evey and I) are currently working on a book to expound upon what I just mentioned in point number three. There will be no calls for or endorsements of killing, genocide and/or violence towards anyone, female or male, in said book, and there will be no expressed abhorrence and/or contempt towards or for anyone, female or male, in said book. Period.
Anything that I have previously written will be obsolete and/or discarded once that book is complete, and I want to reiterate again for the purpose of being entirely clear:
There will be no calls for violence in the book that we are writing, and/or expressions of hatred towards anyone, female or male. Period. Any posts that remain as of right now, including my manifestos, which should have been revised long ago (there is no point in revising them now), are no longer in use, and are out-of-date.
I have only two videos on my YouTube channel which mention the 90:10 (female-male) ratio directly (IIRC), and there were no references to violence and/or killing and/or genocide in the first video, and in the second video, I specifically stated: “No violence, no killing.”
All of these retractions and/or clarifications are available elsewhere throughout my content, but due to the fact that people did not want to take the time to look them up, or because people wished for me to state all of these things directly and clearly, I have amalgamated all of these points into this single post.
I have already removed about ten of my older Blog posts. As far as I know, nothing else needs to be removed. And, I am not going to remove anything else, because this post should elucidate everything well enough.
I hope that this fulfills the request(s) of all those who wished to know.
Thank you all for reading.
Well played, MRAs. Well played.
Sincerely,
FD
P.S. I am certain that there are individuals out there who wish for me to say "I'm sorry", or "I apologize" for some of the things that've been said and/or written in the past, and this is my response to that:
I did not apologize before as I see no reason to apologize for things written online, as apologizing for anything is typically a fruitless endeavor on the internet, and I dropped these things due to the fact that they conflicted with what our and/or my primary focus is, which is opposing [unnecessary] offensive [violence] -- Our primary end-goal being the creation of a better world for all.
ICD could fall under that (unnecessary offensive violence), so I rescinded it, and I urged people to stop discussing it, not just it in relation to me, but the entire post in general, because it is a waste of time.
I am not going to apologize now or remove anything else beyond the 10+ posts that I've already removed, because I know that the response to that will be: "Well, she just removed [items] because of this article!" - I also leave things up due to the fact that I prefer to publicly catalog the timeline. And, believe it or not, there are those - some who agree, some who find it detestable - that do enjoy my older content.
It's as simple as that.
If there are any individuals out there now who desire an apology simply because one has been requested, then they should ask themselves first if they would truly care whether I apologized or not, because from what I've seen, I doubt that very many would.
20140823
20140822
When Boris Yeltsin went grocery shopping in Clear Lake
When Boris Yeltsin went grocery shopping in Clear Lake
09/16/1989 - Boris Yeltsin and a handful of Soviet companions made an unscheduled 20-minute visit to a Randall's Supermarket after touring the Johnson Space Center. At the check-out counter, an employee showed the Soviet politician how a computer scans each item and totals the bill automatically.
It was September 1989 and Yeltsin, then newly elected to the new Soviet parliament and the Supreme Soviet, had just visited Johnson Space Center.
At JSC, Yeltsin visited mission control and a mock-up of a space station. According to Houston Chronicle reporter Stefanie Asin, it wasn’t all the screens, dials, and wonder at NASA that blew up his skirt, it was the unscheduled trip inside a nearby Randall’s location.
Yeltsin, then 58, “roamed the aisles of Randall’s nodding his head in amazement,” wrote Asin. He told his fellow Russians in his entourage that if their people, who often must wait in line for most goods, saw the conditions of U.S. supermarkets, “there would be a revolution.”
Shoppers and employees stopped him to shake his hand and say hello. In 1989, not everyone was carrying a phone and camera in their pocket so Yeltsin “selfies” weren’t a thing yet.
Yeltsin asked customers about what they were buying and how much it cost, later asking the store manager if one needed a special education to manage a store. In the Chronicle photos, you can see him marveling at the produce section, the fresh fish market, and the checkout counter. He looked especially excited about frozen pudding pops.
“Even the Politburo doesn’t have this choice. Not even Mr. Gorbachev,” he said.
The fact that stores like these were on nearly every street corner in America amazed him. They even offered free cheese samples. According to Asin, Yeltsin didn’t leave empty-handed, as he was given a small bag of goodies to enjoy on his trip.
About a year after the Russian leader left office, a Yeltsin biographer later wrote that on the plane ride to Yeltsin’s next destination, Miami, he was despondent. He couldn’t stop thinking about the plentiful food at the grocery store and what his countrymen had to subsist on in Russia.
In Yeltsin’s own autobiography, he wrote about the experience at Randall’s, which shattered his view of communism, according to pundits. Two years later, he left the Communist Party and began making reforms to turn the economic tide in Russia. You can blame those frozen Jell-O Pudding pops.
“When I saw those shelves crammed with hundreds, thousands of cans, cartons and goods of every possible sort, for the first time I felt quite frankly sick with despair for the Soviet people,” Yeltsin wrote. “That such a potentially super-rich country as ours has been brought to a state of such poverty! It is terrible to think of it.”
Yeltsin died in 2007 at the age of 76. The Randall’s he visited, just off El Dorado Boulevard and Highway 3, is now a Food Town location.
20140821
Mum tries out NeXTSTEP 3.3 (1995)
Finally she's trying out an operating system that isn't a Linux distro or something made by Microsoft or Apple. NeXTSTEP was developed by NEXT Computers until it was bought out by Apple in 1997. NeXTSTEP was used as a base for Mac OSX so see if you can pick out some elements (e.g. The Dock) in NeXTSTEP that are similar to what we have today in Mac OSX. She may like Mac but NeXTSTEP was terrible in my mum's opinion. This just goes to show that apple did a good job with OSX ;)
Tasks Given:
- What time is it?
- Write, save and open a text document
- What's 129+342
- Change Icon Spacing
- Add a program to the dock
- Explore the operating system yourself
- Turn off your computer
The mother in this video uses Windows XP (2001) as her main OS. Would you like to see her try out Linux, Mac, Windows, OS/2 or other operating systems
through history such as AmigaOS? Then give your suggestions in the comments section. Give this video lots of likes, views, favorites and comments if you want my mum to try out other operating systems. I am open to any operating system suggestions you give especially if these videos go semi-viral (over 100,000 views). This channel is dedicated to me "introducing" people (mum, dad, me) to different operating systems they have never used before and leaving them to suffer in confusion struggling to do anything in an unknown computer environment... or see if these other operating systems are better than Microsoft Windows.
20140820
Mum tries out AmigaOS Workbench 1.1 (1985)
Moving away from Windows, Mac and Linux once again Diana visits another windows/mac competitor in 1985: Amiga. This noisy system runs of a floppy disc and comes with barely any applications out of the box. She prefers this to a text based operating system but would prefer to use Mac OS System 1 made in 1984.
Tasks Given:
- What time is it?
- Write, save and open a text document
- What's 2856/68
- Change the appearance of the computer
- Change the appearance of the pointer
- Turn off your computer
More Info On Amiga OS Here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amiga_Wo...
The mother in this video uses Windows XP (2001) as her main OS. Would you like to see her try out Linux, Mac, Windows, OS/2 or other operating systems through history such as AmigaOS? Then give your suggestions in the comments section. Give this video lots of likes, views, favorites and comments if you want my mum to try out other operating systems. I am open to any operating system suggestions you give especially if these videos go semi-viral (over 100,000 views). This channel is dedicated to me "introducing" people (mum, dad, me) to different operating systems they have never used before and leaving them to suffer in confusion struggling to do anything in an unknown computer environment... or see if these other operating systems are better than Microsoft Windows.
20140819
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)