iLovePalestine.com Political Nighties

Political Nighties

Look a Tagline!

1,873 notes

Lifestyle feminism ushered in the notion that there could be as many versions of feminism as there were women. Suddenly the politics was being slowly removed from feminism. And the assumption prevailed that no matter what a woman’s politics, be she conservative or liberal, she too could fit feminism into her existing lifestyle. Obviously this way of thinking has made feminism more acceptable because its underlying assumption is that women can be feminists without fundamentally challenging or changing themselves or the culture.
bell hooks (Feminism is for Everybody)

(Source: littleforestbats, via gtfothinspo)

3,394 notes

socialistexan:

motherjones:


Map: Transgender Employment Rights
MJ intern Gavin Aronsen reports:
A landmark survey of 6,450 trans and gender non-conforming people released in February by the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force revealed some disturbing numbers:
Ninety percent of responders reported facing discrimination at work.
Unemployment rates were double the national average.
More than a quarter said they had been fired due to their gender identity.
Those who had lost their jobs were four times as likely to be homeless and 70 percent more likely to abuse drugs and alcohol.
And, perhaps most remarkably (and most related to Monday’s post), a full 41 percent of responders admitted to having attempted suicide.

Hey look, info trans* people have been putting out there for years! Hurray!
It should also be noted that these numbers affect trans women (especially trans women of color) more than trans men/AMAB trans*, and that typically trans men actually see an INCREASE in employability and pay post-transition, while the opposite is true of trans women. http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/lgbt/news/2012/04/16/11494/the-gay-and-transgender-wage-gap/
It also doesn’t just hurt trans* people, it hurts pretty much everyone else too: http://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/research/transgender-issues/the-cost-of-employment-discrimination-against-transgender-residents-of-massachusetts-2/

socialistexan:

motherjones:

Map: Transgender Employment Rights

MJ intern Gavin Aronsen reports:

A landmark survey of 6,450 trans and gender non-conforming people released in February by the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force revealed some disturbing numbers:

  • Ninety percent of responders reported facing discrimination at work.
  • Unemployment rates were double the national average.
  • More than a quarter said they had been fired due to their gender identity.
  • Those who had lost their jobs were four times as likely to be homeless and 70 percent more likely to abuse drugs and alcohol.

And, perhaps most remarkably (and most related to Monday’s post), a full 41 percent of responders admitted to having attempted suicide.

Hey look, info trans* people have been putting out there for years! Hurray!

It should also be noted that these numbers affect trans women (especially trans women of color) more than trans men/AMAB trans*, and that typically trans men actually see an INCREASE in employability and pay post-transition, while the opposite is true of trans women. http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/lgbt/news/2012/04/16/11494/the-gay-and-transgender-wage-gap/

It also doesn’t just hurt trans* people, it hurts pretty much everyone else too: http://williamsinstitute.law.ucla.edu/research/transgender-issues/the-cost-of-employment-discrimination-against-transgender-residents-of-massachusetts-2/

(via setscarylazerstomaximumcaptain-)

5,785 notes

myjourneymythoughts:

stfuhypocrisy:

callingoutsexists:

swagandpassion:

iaminkwellj:

sirwhindleton:

6dogs9cats:

Hey, Internet. 
This is Todd Kincannon, ex-executive director of the South Carolina GOP and founder of the conservative Twitter mob, TGDN. I’m just leaving thishere for you in case you want to do anything with it like share it everywhere possible and make sure to mention his ties to the GOP.

see
i just…
smh

he. should. be. hanged.

https://twitter.com/ToddKincannon/status/298251890783830016
His twitter is real. I thought it was a troll account. Sigh.

ABSOLUTELY NOT

jfc

And this asshole can go set himself on fire.

myjourneymythoughts:

stfuhypocrisy:

callingoutsexists:

swagandpassion:

iaminkwellj:

sirwhindleton:

6dogs9cats:

Hey, Internet.

This is Todd Kincannon, ex-executive director of the South Carolina GOP and founder of the conservative Twitter mob, TGDN. I’m just leaving thishere for you in case you want to do anything with it like share it everywhere possible and make sure to mention his ties to the GOP.

see

i just…

smh

he. should. be. hanged.

https://twitter.com/ToddKincannon/status/298251890783830016

His twitter is real. I thought it was a troll account. Sigh.

ABSOLUTELY NOT

jfc

And this asshole can go set himself on fire.

Filed under tw: racism this is in fact his real twitter and not a racist troll jesus CHRIST

155 notes

As the Senate and the White House turn their focus to comprehensive immigration reform, little attention has been given to who would be negatively impacted by any move to fix the country’s broken immigration system and provide a path to citizenship for the estimated 11 million illegal immigrants living in the United States.

Perhaps no one has a bigger interest in maintaining the status quo than private prisons, a billion dollar industry built largely on contracts with federal agencies, including Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (ICE).
Private Prisons Will Get Totally Slammed By Immigration Reform - Business Insider (via sinidentidades)

(via sinidentidades)

110 notes

jayaprada:

Pakistanis hate the drone war: The proof is in the data via DAWN

Writing for the Atlantic, three American academics posed a challenge in their article titled: “You Say Pakistanis All Hate the Drone War? Prove It.” I thought I did prove it a few weeks ago. But I welcome the opportunity to elaborate even further.
The American academics are convinced that a large number of Pakistanis are ignorant of drone strikes, and that another sufficiently large number of Pakistanis support the American drone strikes on Pakistani territory. The academics have relied on a data set by Pew Global Attitudes Project to reach these conclusions. I have demonstrated in an earlier submission that their conclusions are not supported by data. I further illustrate here that the data set is deficient in answering questions of such wide implications.
Let me begin by answering the question, “how many Pakistanis support drone strikes?” Using the same data set as the one used by the American academics I found no more than the 20 respondents out of the 2,000 (i.e., 1 per cent) surveyed by the Pew Global Attitudes Project who truly supported the drone war. Let me explain: if we consider only those respondents who were aware of the drone strikes and who considered drones to be a good thing and went ahead with supporting the drone strikes, they add up to only 20, which is a much smaller number than the one estimated by the American academics.
I would also like to mention that Pew’s questionnaire is deficient in several ways. For instance, some key questions about drones are convoluted while other questions force respondents to either support or oppose the drone attacks. The questionnaire does not allow respondents to declare indifference, i.e., neither support nor oppose drone strikes, which may be the reason why so many chose the option ‘Don’t Know’ or refused to answer the question. I am of the view that the ‘Don’t know’ option in the data set is capturing ignorance of, indifference to, and the refusal to answer questions about drone attacks. Thus, the data set imposes restrictions on one’s ability to infer from it.
Let me first make it clear that my opposition to drone attacks is not a disguised support for the Taliban. I consider Taliban to be murderous thugs who pose a clear and present danger to Pakistani people and the State. I am, however, also convinced that the American drone attacks weaken the efforts by the Pakistani State and the civil society to confront the menace head-on.
Data analysis is somewhat similar to being interrogated by an intelligence agency in the dungeons of the Lahore Fort. Given enough servings of torture, eventually the suspect, in our case the data, will say whatever the interrogator wants.  The American academics have also acted like Punjab Police. First, they have tortured data enough to ensure it sang their ideological song. Second, just like the Pakistani Police, they have discarded useful evidence that contradicted their assumptions.
The Pew data is not sufficient to support the conclusions drawn by the American academics. In addition to the data deficiencies I have mentioned in my earlier blog, let me explain my additional concerns about the data and the methods used. The Pew Centre’s questionnaire posed a convoluted question about the support for drone attacks, which suggested to the respondents that the drones will be managed by the Pakistani authorities and not the Americans. Even with a highly misleading question, only 23 per cent reported the support for drone attacks whereas another 32 per cent registered outright opposition to the drone attacks (see the table below).
[…..]
One of the basic tenets of good detective work or data mining is not to discard evidence that does not support your hunch. The American academics have regrettably ignored evidence that showed limited support for drone attacks in Pakistan. Let me explain. Apart from the question about supporting drone attacks, the questionnaire first asked the respondents to report if they knew of the drone strikes that have taken place in Pakistan. It turned out that a large number of those who reported no knowledge of the drone strikes in Pakistan later registered their support for the same in the future.
The following figure (above) illustrates the dilemma that would have confronted the American academics if they had looked at the data more carefully. Of the 454 who reported support for the drone attacks, the majority (234) did not know of drone strikes in the past. They are more in number than the 220 who knew of drone attacks and registered support for the same. This suggests that the American academics have equated the support of those who are knowledgeable of drone strikes with that of those who are ignorant. To me it appears more of a support of the ignorant than that of highly educated and internet savvy Pakistanis with a taste for English.
Another key piece of the puzzle was also hiding in the very same data set. The survey asked Pakistanis if they thought drone strikes were a good or a bad thing. An overwhelming majority of the respondents considered drone strikes a bad thing.  Of the 454 who reported support for drone strikes in Pakistan, only 20 considered the drone strikes to be a good thing. The rest who supported drone strikes either considered them to be a bad thing or they were not asked the question by the Pew surveyors.
So here is my proof with the same data set. No more than 20 out of the 2000 respondents both supported the drone strikes and considered drones a good thing. They constitute a mere 1 per cent of the sample and not a sizeable segment of the population, as the American academics suggest.
While the American academics and the US government may be trying to convince Pakistanis to support the illegal and immoral drone war, the United Nations has recently announced a probe into the US drone attacks in Pakistan and other places. Calls to convince Pakistanis of the utility of drone attacks will soon be replaced by a smear campaign against the UN who have woken up from a long slumber to look into the summary executions of armed combatants and their families.

Murtaza Haider 

jayaprada:

Pakistanis hate the drone war: The proof is in the data via DAWN

Writing for the Atlantic, three American academics posed a challenge in their article titled: “You Say Pakistanis All Hate the Drone War? Prove It.” I thought I did prove it a few weeks ago. But I welcome the opportunity to elaborate even further.

The American academics are convinced that a large number of Pakistanis are ignorant of drone strikes, and that another sufficiently large number of Pakistanis support the American drone strikes on Pakistani territory. The academics have relied on a data set by Pew Global Attitudes Project to reach these conclusions. I have demonstrated in an earlier submission that their conclusions are not supported by data. I further illustrate here that the data set is deficient in answering questions of such wide implications.

Let me begin by answering the question, “how many Pakistanis support drone strikes?” Using the same data set as the one used by the American academics I found no more than the 20 respondents out of the 2,000 (i.e., 1 per cent) surveyed by the Pew Global Attitudes Project who truly supported the drone war. Let me explain: if we consider only those respondents who were aware of the drone strikes and who considered drones to be a good thing and went ahead with supporting the drone strikes, they add up to only 20, which is a much smaller number than the one estimated by the American academics.

I would also like to mention that Pew’s questionnaire is deficient in several ways. For instance, some key questions about drones are convoluted while other questions force respondents to either support or oppose the drone attacks. The questionnaire does not allow respondents to declare indifference, i.e., neither support nor oppose drone strikes, which may be the reason why so many chose the option ‘Don’t Know’ or refused to answer the question. I am of the view that the ‘Don’t know’ option in the data set is capturing ignorance of, indifference to, and the refusal to answer questions about drone attacks. Thus, the data set imposes restrictions on one’s ability to infer from it.

Let me first make it clear that my opposition to drone attacks is not a disguised support for the Taliban. I consider Taliban to be murderous thugs who pose a clear and present danger to Pakistani people and the State. I am, however, also convinced that the American drone attacks weaken the efforts by the Pakistani State and the civil society to confront the menace head-on.

Data analysis is somewhat similar to being interrogated by an intelligence agency in the dungeons of the Lahore Fort. Given enough servings of torture, eventually the suspect, in our case the data, will say whatever the interrogator wants.  The American academics have also acted like Punjab Police. First, they have tortured data enough to ensure it sang their ideological song. Second, just like the Pakistani Police, they have discarded useful evidence that contradicted their assumptions.

The Pew data is not sufficient to support the conclusions drawn by the American academics. In addition to the data deficiencies I have mentioned in my earlier blog, let me explain my additional concerns about the data and the methods used. The Pew Centre’s questionnaire posed a convoluted question about the support for drone attacks, which suggested to the respondents that the drones will be managed by the Pakistani authorities and not the Americans. Even with a highly misleading question, only 23 per cent reported the support for drone attacks whereas another 32 per cent registered outright opposition to the drone attacks (see the table below).

[…..]

One of the basic tenets of good detective work or data mining is not to discard evidence that does not support your hunch. The American academics have regrettably ignored evidence that showed limited support for drone attacks in Pakistan. Let me explain. Apart from the question about supporting drone attacks, the questionnaire first asked the respondents to report if they knew of the drone strikes that have taken place in Pakistan. It turned out that a large number of those who reported no knowledge of the drone strikes in Pakistan later registered their support for the same in the future.

The following figure (above) illustrates the dilemma that would have confronted the American academics if they had looked at the data more carefully. Of the 454 who reported support for the drone attacks, the majority (234) did not know of drone strikes in the past. They are more in number than the 220 who knew of drone attacks and registered support for the same. This suggests that the American academics have equated the support of those who are knowledgeable of drone strikes with that of those who are ignorant. To me it appears more of a support of the ignorant than that of highly educated and internet savvy Pakistanis with a taste for English.

Another key piece of the puzzle was also hiding in the very same data set. The survey asked Pakistanis if they thought drone strikes were a good or a bad thing. An overwhelming majority of the respondents considered drone strikes a bad thing.  Of the 454 who reported support for drone strikes in Pakistan, only 20 considered the drone strikes to be a good thing. The rest who supported drone strikes either considered them to be a bad thing or they were not asked the question by the Pew surveyors.

So here is my proof with the same data set. No more than 20 out of the 2000 respondents both supported the drone strikes and considered drones a good thing. They constitute a mere 1 per cent of the sample and not a sizeable segment of the population, as the American academics suggest.

While the American academics and the US government may be trying to convince Pakistanis to support the illegal and immoral drone war, the United Nations has recently announced a probe into the US drone attacks in Pakistan and other places. Calls to convince Pakistanis of the utility of drone attacks will soon be replaced by a smear campaign against the UN who have woken up from a long slumber to look into the summary executions of armed combatants and their families.

Murtaza Haider 

(via sinidentidades)

291 notes

anarcho-queer:

Exclusive: Justice Department Memo Concludes That Obama Administration Can Kill American Citizens With Drones
A confidential Justice Department memo concludes that the U.S. government can order the killing of American citizens if they are believed to be “senior operational leaders” of al-Qaida or “an associated force” — even if there is no intelligence indicating they are engaged in an active plot to attack the U.S.
The 16-page memo, a copy of which was obtained by NBC News, provides new details about the legal reasoning behind one of the Obama administration’s most secretive and controversial polices: its dramatically increased use of drone strikes against al-Qaida suspects, including those aimed at American citizens, such as the  September 2011 strike in Yemen that killed alleged al-Qaida operatives Anwar al-Awlaki and Samir Khan. Both were U.S. citizens who had never been indicted by the U.S. government nor charged with any crimes.  
The secrecy surrounding such strikes is fast emerging as a central issue in this week’s hearing of White House counterterrorism adviser John Brennan, a key architect of the drone campaign, to be CIA director. Brennan was the first administration official to publicly acknowledge drone strikes in a speech last year, calling them “consistent with the inherent right of self-defense.” In a separate talk at the Northwestern University Law School in March, Attorney General Eric Holder specifically endorsed the constitutionality of targeted killings of Americans, saying they could be justified if government officials determine the target poses  “an imminent threat of violent attack.”
But the confidential Justice Department “white paper” introduces a more expansive definition of self-defense or imminent attack than described  by Brennan or Holder in their public speeches. It refers, for example, to what it calls a “broader concept of imminence” than actual intelligence about any ongoing plot against the U.S. homeland.   
“The condition that an operational  leader present an ‘imminent’ threat of violent attack against the United States does not require the United States to have clear evidence that a specific attack on U.S. persons and interests will take place in the immediate future,” the memo states.
Note: Last month the Obama Administration won a court case against ACLU allowing them to keep policies about drones strikes targeting American citizens a secret.
Meanwhile, survivors of three Americans killed in 2011 by targeted drone attacks in Yemen, including survivors of al-Awlaki, have sued top-ranking members of the United States government, alleging they illegally killed the three, including a 16-year-old boy, in violation of international human rights law and the U.S. Constitution.

anarcho-queer:

Exclusive: Justice Department Memo Concludes That Obama Administration Can Kill American Citizens With Drones

A confidential Justice Department memo concludes that the U.S. government can order the killing of American citizens if they are believed to be “senior operational leaders” of al-Qaida or “an associated force” — even if there is no intelligence indicating they are engaged in an active plot to attack the U.S.

The 16-page memo, a copy of which was obtained by NBC News, provides new details about the legal reasoning behind one of the Obama administration’s most secretive and controversial polices: its dramatically increased use of drone strikes against al-Qaida suspects, including those aimed at American citizens, such as the  September 2011 strike in Yemen that killed alleged al-Qaida operatives Anwar al-Awlaki and Samir Khan. Both were U.S. citizens who had never been indicted by the U.S. government nor charged with any crimes.  

The secrecy surrounding such strikes is fast emerging as a central issue in this week’s hearing of White House counterterrorism adviser John Brennan, a key architect of the drone campaign, to be CIA director. Brennan was the first administration official to publicly acknowledge drone strikes in a speech last year, calling them “consistent with the inherent right of self-defense.” In a separate talk at the Northwestern University Law School in March, Attorney General Eric Holder specifically endorsed the constitutionality of targeted killings of Americans, saying they could be justified if government officials determine the target poses  “an imminent threat of violent attack.

But the confidential Justice Department “white paper” introduces a more expansive definition of self-defense or imminent attack than described  by Brennan or Holder in their public speeches. It refers, for example, to what it calls a “broader concept of imminence” than actual intelligence about any ongoing plot against the U.S. homeland.   

The condition that an operational  leader present an ‘imminent’ threat of violent attack against the United States does not require the United States to have clear evidence that a specific attack on U.S. persons and interests will take place in the immediate future,” the memo states.

Note: Last month the Obama Administration won a court case against ACLU allowing them to keep policies about drones strikes targeting American citizens a secret.

Meanwhile, survivors of three Americans killed in 2011 by targeted drone attacks in Yemen, including survivors of al-Awlaki, have sued top-ranking members of the United States government, alleging they illegally killed the three, including a 16-year-old boy, in violation of international human rights law and the U.S. Constitution.

(via sinidentidades)

347 notes

I think that President Obama just like President Bush has made a conscious decision to allow the torturers, to allow the people who conceived of the tortures and implemented the policy, to allow the people who destroyed the evidence of the torture and the attorneys who used specious legal analysis to approve of the torture to walk free. And I think that once this decision has been made – that’s the end of it and nobody will be prosecuted, except me.

John Kiriakou, former CIA agent & whistleblower who is awaiting a summons to begin his two & a half year prison sentence for revealing the name of an undercover agent. Kiriakou was one of the first to confirm Washington’s waterboarding tactic & other torture methods.

President Obama has expanded the war on whistleblowers, charging seven people under the Espionage Act of 1917 (all have been dismissed). All previous US presidents have only charged three people. 

(via thepeoplesrecord)

(via sinidentidades)