The bubble is nigh.

if i look back, i am lost
Claire Keane
Show & Tell

JVL

⁂
trying on a metaphor
noise dept.
PUT YOUR BEARD IN MY MOUTH
h
Monterey Bay Aquarium
AnasAbdin

JBB: An Artblog!

#extradirty
Game of Thrones Daily

No title available
No title available
sheepfilms
ojovivo
Sade Olutola
One Nice Bug Per Day

seen from United States
seen from India
seen from United States

seen from Türkiye
seen from United States

seen from United States

seen from China

seen from Malaysia

seen from Germany
seen from United States

seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States

seen from Argentina
seen from United States
seen from United States

seen from United States

seen from United States

seen from United States
seen from United States
@pheonix199
The bubble is nigh.
it exists to divide the working class. All labour is skilled labour. Yes including that one. Yes, including that one too.
Do you know what's unskilled labour? Owning capital. There's no labour involved, thus requires no skill. And you can tell because people can be born into owning capital.
no but the “”ai”” boom is crazy bc they made the entire internet so shitty that the only reason to use it is because it’s where all the people are and now they’re getting rid of the people. like i’m straight up logging off and going to the library there’s nothing on here anymore
‘here’s how to tell if an image is ai’ ‘signs the person you’re talking to is a bot’ ‘how to tell if a song is ai generated’ ah but consider this: i am shutting my laptop and walking outside
I saw a bsky post last year where someone said their grandma couldn't tell what was real on the internet anymore so she stopped using it and I really, genuinely think the techbros currently ruining everything have never even considered that possibility. their projections and pie charts and market share research and whatever simply do not take into account a scenario where people lose interest in being online. like yeah we're pretty much all gonna keep using the internet to book travel and look up words and order pizza, but in terms of how we spend our leisure time? I'm still extremely online, but in the last few years I've been learning candlemaking and carpentry and sewing, and I was already spending a lot of time cooking and reading books and skating at the rink and hiking, and an afternoon spent on any of those things always leaves me feeling better about myself than an afternoon spent doomscrolling. I think my daily life is going to keep reflecting that more and more as the slop encroaches, and it sounds like I'm far from the only one feeling that way. silver lining the everything, I suppose.
so today a public health official guy came into my class to give a lecture on disaster awareness and he was talking about house fires and mentioned that the reason people most likely die during a house fire is because they refuse to leave their pet inside or they go back to get their pet. and right when he said this my friend immediately turned his head and looked at me and in that moment I had the most complete and genuine acceptance take over my body. I would 100% in front of my family and Jesus himself walk straight back into some raging inferno that was once my house to go get my fat cat. I nodded back
the best part of this post is reading all the tags from animal people who would also go back to save their pets. like no hesitation. walk backwards from heaven straight back into hell. someone even said they would go back for their fish. amazing
If you are a person who would walk into a blazing inferno for your animal, and your pet has free movement around the house, here’s a training exercise that could help save you both:
1) Set off your smoke alarm or play the sound on your phone (if your home has no smoke alarms, pease get some!)
2) stand BY THE FRONT DOOR to hand out treats
Do this a couple times and then keep it up NO EXCEPTIONS. Accidentally set the alarm off cooking? Treats by the door. Smoke alarm sound on TV? Treats by the door. Changing your smoke alarm batteries twice a year like you’re supposed to? Give them a test run and your pets get treats by the door.
Most dogs and cats will clue in VERY quickly that hearing that specific sound means go to the front door and wait for treats.
If there’s an emergency and even if you leave by another way, you will still know the most likely place your pet(s) is and can direct first responders to help.
You can also do this for any other kind of emergency alarm. My friend had both her cats trained to go to the front door for a tsunami siren.
I just got described as an "ad hating commie" by someone because I said a minute of youtube ads is unpleasant. fully spent 5 minutes arguing and defending youtube ads. insane stuff
reblog if you are an ad hating commie
I feel like each successive adaptation of The Addams Family is edging closer and closer to making jokes about how Gomez hates his wife.
I have this overwhelming sense that there's only one family dynamic these writers understand, and at this point only sheer inertia is stopping them from diving straight to the logical endpoint of making Gomez a Shlubby Sitcom Dad Who Hates His Wife. It's coming.
If it doesn't make shitty people who can't understand a loving marriage mad, is it really The Addams Family?
I'm in awe of how we ran historical revisionism on the civil rights movement so bad that people truly believe it was quiet self-sacrifcial non-disruptive christ-like activism that forced progress and not — like — the incredible economic pressure of boycotts and outbreaks of illegal civil disobedience
Yapping to the choir but eughhh it burns me up girl effective protests have to be loud and inconvenient for change to happen because silent cries die in the dark that's the entire pointtt
Also, a lot of the so called harmless examples used for peaceful protests were specifically supposed to be disruptive as all hell. Like, take sit-ins, for example. What you were probably told is that black people just refused to leave white only establishments to make a point.
But how they actually worked was manipulating racist policies to cause as much of a delay as possible. They'd sit down at the bar to order (that's how those restaurants worked, you had to sit down to order and there weren't many tables) and when the waiter said they couldn't serve them, they'd respond that they would wait until they could be served. And then all their friends who they organized this with would do the same, and they would sit there at every seat until they're holding up the whole line. Then nobody could order and the restaurant was forced to either close, serve them, or try and fail to work around them. It wasn't just to make a point, it was to cost them money and time.
Even what was framed as "quiet peaceful protest" was actually very disruptive both socially and economically.
Does this look quiet, peaceful, nondisruptive?
And the struggle didn't stop after formal integration, once the Civil Rights act had passed. Because even when they are legally required to serve you, they can make you really fucking uncomfortable and threaten you and the cops probably will take their side.
For one example, there was a cafe that would serve Black people, but would then publicly break the dishes so that no white customer would ever have to eat off a dish a Black person had eaten off of. This was done publicly, right as the Black diner was done eating. The waitress takes the plate and smashes it. This is a signal both to the white diners "see, we hate them just as much as you do, you're safe here" and also a threat of violence to the Black diners. "If you're not careful we'll smash you just like we did this plate."
But at the same time, if Black people go there and eat every day ... how long before the cafe can't afford to do that? How long before they have broken so many dishes that it's eating into their profits? How long before the white diners start getting used to eating alongside Black people and simply don't care as much any longer, or start getting annoyed at the noise and fuss and mess?
Black people eating in white establishments was loud, inconvenient, and disruptive. Because that's the nature of challenging the status quo.
All of this, plus a couple of additional thoughts:
1. Folks in these movements trained. They were disruptive and they were strategic about it and they trained so that they could stay calm in terrifying situations and create the targeted disruptions they wanted to create and not get goaded into deviating from that. Absolutely badass.
2. Not at all a criticism of OP because I think their description of people thinking it was "quiet self-sacrificial non-disruptive christ-like activism" is dead on, but I think that description itself speaks to the same kind of revisionism re: the Christ of the Gospels and how disruptive he was and why, and it's important to remember that, especially in this era of renewed christofascism. Rev. Dr. King was a prophet and you will never convince me otherwise.
As I told my students a few weeks ago:
Nonviolence is not a goal, it is a strategy. A deliberate strategy at a calculated time in response to violence of the oppressor, which can be effective if it shames the perpetrators. See: why Selma or Montgomery was chosen by the SCLC (they had the most racist unhinged sheriffs who would deploy maximum force, which got shown on nationwide broadcasts and finally moved the public).
Nonviolence doesn’t mean you don’t carry weapons if necessary, as many organizers in Selma did. Nonviolence doesn’t mean that you accept that people will throw bombs into your family’s home, as they did to MLK.
And yes, the absurd simplification and bastardization of this strategy is deliberate. It went from being a tool for fighting for liberation to being a justification for more violence and oppression used against future generations of protestors who didn’t meet the standard of perfectly obedient nonviolent non disruptive protestors. Which of course there is no such thing.
And it’s all a lie. Know that people in the movement, at the time, were called criminals, because they knowingly and deliberately broke laws with the idea that they’d get arrested. Know that most of the country hated King at the time of his death. Know that no movement demanding change from the system will ever be loved by those in power.
once again I feel I must mention Erica Chenoweth & Maria J. Stephan's "Why Civil Resistance Works: The Strategic Logic of Nonviolent Conflict".
For more than a century, from 1900 to 2006, campaigns ofnonviolent resistance were more than twice as effective as theirviolent counterparts
Nonviolence is not “I will be quiet about asking you to maybe accommodate me.”
Nonviolence is “I will do and say these things knowing they will provoke you, but once you are provoked I will refuse to respond by punching you. This will make me look calm abs reasonable and you look like a fucking moron, and a cruel one at that.”
under US law, it's illegal for anyone who's not a member of a recognised native tribe to own an eagle feather. the penalty is a $100,000 fine.
14 years ago when I had recently moved to Alaska, I went hiking with an Aleut friend, and she pointed to a feather lying on the ground and said "hey that's a bald eagle tail feather, you should grab it!" and I was like "uhh I'm very white and that's very illegal" and she went "they're fuckin everywhere up here man. I have 20." so she grabs it off the ground and hands it to me and says "there, now it's a ceremonial gift from an indigenous person."
and I'm like, okay, cool, I guess this is how we do things in Alaska. nice.
so I keep this bald eagle tail feather around for years. display it in my home among other cherished memorabilia from places I've lived and visited, etc.
on a whim, I have just now looked it up. there is no exemption to that law for a ceremonial gift from an indigenous person. the last 7 years I lived in the US, I was technically a bald eagle poacher.
probably a good thing I don't intend to move back there anytime soon. I wonder what the statute of limitations is on bird crimes.
@freedomisscaryshit I'm fucking dying I think you forgot the word "feathers" in your tags?? or do you just wish you could grab whole ass eagles that land in your yard??
As an Indigenous person, it continues to astound me that there are such strict laws (written by White people) in our name, laws against...picking up things just found on the ground. Like, stop pretending this is "for" us. We don't want this.
so, for clarity, that's not what this is. the law against possessing feathers is an anti-poaching measure, derived from a North American treaty protecting certain migratory bird species from hunting. that treaty has an exemption for indigenous people to allow tribes that use eagle feathers in ceremonial or religious practices to continue doing so.
i used to collect feathers (illegally) as a teenager and the thing is that it's incredibly important for feathers from wild birds to be illegal to possess because it ensures that they never become fashionable to wear. the reason we passed the migratory bird act was because the american and european fashion industry was driving species to extinction in a timespan of years. not just decades. the ecological devastation of exporting birds for hats was absolutely insane and people were watching wetlands and forests and meadows just empty out in realtime. look at the wikipedia article for the plume trade.
the law against 'picking feathers up off the ground' means that you can't go shoot an eagle then sell the feathers on etsy by saying you 'just found them'. you can't own them no matter where they came from, which makes sure that they're not going to come from any birds killed and then secretly disposed of.
these laws, as harsh and ridiculous as they seem, saved flamingos, spoonbills, egrets, and all kinds of hawks and eagles from extinction. the minute these laws weaken and people can make money off killing them again, they're fucked.
this is one of those "no actually this regulation exists for a reason" laws much like work place safety and building fire codes (that Republicans keep trying to roll back) and is written in blood just like them as well. it's just not human blood this time, and the fact that people actually cared enough about long term future over short term profit to get it put in place is nothing short of astonishing. That it didn't get put in place in time to save several species is heart breaking.
i think the key difference between george lucas’s star wars and disney’s star wars is that lucas is a man with an ideology. someone with a point of view, and all that entails. which comes with ideas of revolution, anti-imperialism, challenging the status quo, cultural appropriation and racist stereotypes. complex and contradictory ideas because that’s how artists are: complex and complicated people. disney is not. disney is a corporation. a corporation can’t have ideology, because ideology defeats the purpose of profit. and when the only thing you do is to turn on the movie manufacturing machine before you sit down and plan what ideas are you trying to convey to the audience, then your results are going to be washed out corporate garbage. and because when you’re a giant corporation who only cares about selling to the widest audience possible, you can’t take sides. you can’t decide on an idea. because you want to sell your product to people who are on the entire political spectrum. which results in movies without ideology, without purpose, without soul.
I have been looking for this post for years after I came across it and it’s finally here and I need to reblog this because it is absolutely and entirely accurate.
#as I always say: lucas was making a samurai film and a ww2 flying ace film and a western film and adding laser swords#because he fundamentally LIKED samurai films and dambusters films and westerns and 40’s adventure serials#but disney are making a ‘star wars film’ and adding nothing because it already had laser swords and they have nothing else to say#xerox of a xerox baybeeeee (via harrietvane)
The thing about Trump gutting American science is that America spends vastly more on research than any other nation; so, yeah, it's an American problem, but it's also a human civilizational problem.
Part of me is concerned if he were to, instead, amp up science spending? It'd be for things like "laser beam that only kills black people" or tailored genetic viruses or something.
Maybe this is a blessing in disguise?
I mean, he already seems to be redirecting science funding to artificially prop up Silicon Valley AI concerns that supported his campaign, so like...
Not to be a Boomer but your social media should be your own space, not something employers are allowed to look at to judge you beyond the qualifications stated in your resume and cover letter
Resume has my qualifications. Cover letter states my intentions and goals within the job. Interview is for any other information relative to the job and shows my professionalism.
There’s nothing else you, as an employer, need to know.
The level of entitlement employers feel over our private info is insane. I remember my own employer sitting across me on his laptop, bitching endlessly over the fact the candidate whose Facebook profile he wanted to check had it set strictly to friends-only. He was serously annoyed her posts and photos and whatnot were not available for him, a total stranger, to see.
Just the previous day, he had gone on a rant about how women need to be Cautious in this Dangerous World and have a Responsibility to Keep Themselves Safe.
He did not see the irony.
I had a job interview where they insisted you hand over your social media links so they could look through your stuff to ensure you did not “reflect poorly on the brand”. I told them that I didn’t have any, and technically, if you use my legal name you will get three women. None of them are me (one is twice my age and runs an antique store in FL, one is 5yrs younger than me but has a PhD in something unrelated to anything like what I studied, the third lives in London and posts a lot about pubs), and the interviewer looked up my name. He showed me these three accounts, asked me which was mine. I told him the truth. None of them were me.
Your online experience should be yours to enjoy. I’d suggest using a nickname, handle, or pseudonym in order to help maintain that line. If you’re Nik Smith in real life, I’d suggest being like Nik Writes A Lot or Htims Kin. Keeps old high school classmates, annoying cousins, and nosey HR dudes from snooping.
A fantasy story starting with the protagonist minding her own business gathering firewood, when a demon appears out of nowhere announcing that she belongs to him now. The protagonist demands to know on what grounds, she's never signed no damn contract. The demon is kind of baffled by this, and awkwardly explains that just now her father had promised his firstborn for something, and she is his firstborn.
The protagonist digs her heels in and says no, she never knew her biological father and by the way the demon explained the situation, evidently her father also doesn't know that he already has a daughter, so therefore the man who had made no contribution to her life after he bred and fled has no claim to her as something he could barter.
Not giving a shit about the fact she's gambling her life in doing so, the protagonist makes contact with the local woodland fae, asking them to negotiate on her side. The fae think that this is fucking hilarious and go with her. So, having lawyered up and with a reluctant demon in tow, the protagonist heads off on a quest to find her father and do whatever it takes to wrangle everyone involved into unmaking the contract.
Convene the Beit din, we have a matter to settle.
I imagine if the fae existed, Jews and especially rabbis would have a lot easier time dealing with them than gentiles.
If you need an exorcism you find a catholic priest. If you need to get fae contract divorced, you find a rabbi.
I am not Jewish, but I would buy every book of a series featuring a rabbi who has a side job dealing with the Fae.
The Exorcist and the Rabbi are partners... When the problem is talkative the Rabbi takes the lead, when the problem is violent the Exorcist is in their element.
Great news, everyone
Spinning Silver by Naomi Novik
A Jewish peasant girl turned moneylender, Miriam, ends up stuck married to the fae king of winter. The daughter of a duke gets stuck married to the emperor, who is possessed by a demon.
The plot is the two of them trying to survive, get divorced through any means necessary, and save their respective people.
Ooh! I'd heard of her books and wondered if I'd like them. And that's really neat! I'mma order/download that and read it on the plane today.
I have Downloaded Book :-)
Will let y'all know what I think
I'm just saying, "We created a computer to make decisions for us, but it assimilated all of the bias that was implicit in the dataset and now makes incredibly racist decisions that we don't question because computers are logical and don't make mistakes" literally sounds like a planet-of-the-week morality play on the original Star Trek.
ALWAYS get everything in writing
Also? If it is a contracted position, write down that you are not quitting but are concerned at the change in contract terms. If they wish to renegotiate your contract, you would be delighted to do so.
When Tess Morgan's son came home with a tattoo, she was griefstricken. She knew her reaction was OTT (he's 21) but it signalled a change in their relationship
This is gold this, absolute gold, the most over the top melodramatic hysterical ridiculous thing I’ve ever read
This is actually so interesting to read- it’s from 2012 but its full of the same anxieties, even some of the same phrasing that many of the guardian’s later pieces on transness use. really hammers home how much of the terfism that emerged in the late 10s was middle class mothers angry at a loss of control over their adult children- whether that be their bodies or their friends or their opinions- and making that everyone’s problem because they have the power to do so
He says, “I’m still the same person.”
I look at him, sitting there, my 21-year-old son. I feel I’m being interviewed for a job I don’t even want. I say, “But you’re not. You’re different. I will never look at you in the same way again. It’s a visceral feeling. Maybe because I’m your mother. All those years of looking after your body – taking you to the dentist and making you drink milk and worrying about green leafy vegetables and sunscreen and cancer from mobile phones. And then you let some stranger inject ink under your skin. To me, it seems like self-mutilation. If you’d lost your arm in a car accident, I would have understood. I would have done everything to make you feel better. But this – this is desecration. And I hate it.”
Also just the classism of her associating tattoos with “vest tops, dogs on chains, broken beer glasses”; like, just say you hate poor people
Can we all agree in advance that, when Woke 2 hits, we need to make government penis-milking factories a reality, rather than just Jordan Peterson's paranoid fantasy?
Woke 2, in fact, needs to *actually* do all of things conservatives claimed Woke 1 was doing.
We WILL make litterboxes available in classrooms for children who identify as cats. We WILL introduce tax incentives to film and games studios to depict straight white men as evil and recast legacy characters as Black women with nose rings. We WILL punish your child for assuming male pronouns when referring to Julius Caesar.
We WILL replace all corporate HR departments with cultural Marxist political officers enforcing critical race theory-informed diversity-equity-and-inclusion policies, and you WILL go to prison for misgendering trans people.
why would u wanna kill me ):
US CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY & GLOBAL TERRORISM (An incomplete list)
US Use of Weapons of Mass Destruction The indiscriminate use of bombs by the US, usually outside a declared war situation, for wanton destruction, for no military objectives, whose targets and victims are civilian populations, or what we now call “collateral damage.”
Japan (1945)
China (1945-46)
Korea & China (1950-53)
Guatemala (1954, 1960, 1967-69)
Indonesia (1958)
Cuba (1959-61)
Congo (1964)
Peru (1965)
Laos (1964-70)
Vietnam (1961-1973)
Cambodia (1969-70)
Grenada (1983)
Lebanon (1983-84)
Libya (1986)
El Salvador (1980s)
Nicaragua (1980s)
Iran (1987)
Panama (1989)
Iraq (1991-2000)
Kuwait (1991)
Somalia (1993)
Bosnia (1994-95)
Sudan (1998)
Afghanistan (1998)
Pakistan (1998)
Yugoslavia (1999)
Bulgaria (1999)
Macedonia (1999)
US Use of Chemical & Biological Weapons The US has refused to sign Conventions against the development and use of chemical and biological weapons, and has either used or tested (without informing the civilian populations) these weapons in the following locations abroad:
Bahamas (late 1940s-mid-1950s)
Canada (1953)
China and Korea (1950-53)
Korea (1967-69)
Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia (1961-1970)
Panama (1940s-1990s)
Cuba (1962, 69, 70, 71, 81, 96)
And the US has tested such weapons on US civilian populations, without their knowledge, in the following locations:
Watertown, NY and US Virgin Islands (1950)
SF Bay Area (1950, 1957-67)
Minneapolis (1953)
St. Louis (1953)
Washington, DC Area (1953, 1967)
Florida (1955)
Savannah GA/Avon Park, FL (1956-58)
New York City (1956, 1966)
Chicago (1960)
And the US has encouraged the use of such weapons, and provided the technology to develop such weapons in various nations abroad, including:
Egypt
South Africa
Iraq
US Political and Military Interventions since 1945 The US has launched a series of military and political interventions since 1945, often to install puppet regimes, or alternatively to engage in political actions such as smear campaigns, sponsoring or targeting opposition political groups (depending on how they served US interests), undermining political parties, sabotage and terror campaigns, and so forth. It has done so in nations such as
China (1945-51)
South Africa (1960s-1980s)
France (1947)
Bolivia (1964-75)
Marshall Islands (1946-58)
Australia (1972-75)
Italy (1947-1975)
Iraq (1972-75)
Greece (1947-49)
Portugal (1974-76)
Philippines (1945-53)
East Timor (1975-99)
Korea (1945-53)
Ecuador (1975)
Albania (1949-53)
Argentina (1976)
Eastern Europe (1948-56)
Pakistan (1977)
Germany (1950s)
Angola (1975-1980s)
Iran (1953)
Jamaica (1976)
Guatemala (1953-1990s)
Honduras (1980s)
Costa Rica (mid-1950s, 1970-71)
Nicaragua (1980s)
Middle East (1956-58)
Philippines (1970s-90s)
Indonesia (1957-58)
Seychelles (1979-81)
Haiti (1959)
South Yemen (1979-84)
Western Europe (1950s-1960s)
South Korea (1980)
Guyana (1953-64)
Chad (1981-82)
Iraq (1958-63)
Grenada (1979-83)
Vietnam (1945-53)
Suriname (1982-84)
Cambodia (1955-73)
Libya (1981-89)
Laos (1957-73)
Fiji (1987)
Thailand (1965-73)
Panama (1989)
Ecuador (1960-63)
Afghanistan (1979-92)
Congo (1960-65, 1977-78)
El Salvador (1980-92)
Algeria (1960s)
Haiti (1987-94)
Brazil (1961-64)
Bulgaria (1990-91)
Peru (1965)
Albania (1991-92)
Dominican Republic (1963-65)
Somalia (1993)
Cuba (1959-present)
Iraq (1990s)
Indonesia (1965)
Peru (1990-present)
Ghana (1966)
Mexico (1990-present)
Uruguay (1969-72)
Colombia (1990-present)
Chile (1964-73)
Yugoslavia (1995-99)
Greece (1967-74)
US Perversions of Foreign Elections The US has specifically intervened to rig or distort the outcome of foreign elections, and sometimes engineered sham “demonstration” elections to ward off accusations of government repression in allied nations in the US sphere of influence. These sham elections have often installed or maintained in power repressive dictators who have victimized their populations. Such practices have occurred in nations such as:
Philippines (1950s)
Italy (1948-1970s)
Lebanon (1950s)
Indonesia (1955)
Vietnam (1955)
Guyana (1953-64)
Japan (1958-1970s)
Nepal (1959)
Laos (1960)
Brazil (1962)
Dominican Republic (1962)
Guatemala (1963)
Bolivia (1966)
Chile (1964-70)
Portugal (1974-75)
Australia (1974-75)
Jamaica (1976)
El Salvador (1984)
Panama (1984, 89)
Nicaragua (1984, 90)
Haiti (1987, 88)
Bulgaria (1990-91)
Albania (1991-92)
Russia (1996)
Mongolia (1996)
Bosnia (1998)
US Versus World at the United Nations The US has repeatedly acted to undermine peace and human rights initiatives at the United Nations, routinely voting against hundreds of UN resolutions and treaties. The US easily has the worst record of any nation on not supporting UN treaties. In almost all of its hundreds of “no” votes, the US was the “sole” nation to vote no (among the 100-130 nations that usually vote), and among only 1 or 2 other nations voting no the rest of the time. Here’s a representative sample of US votes from 1978-1987:
US Is the Sole “No” Vote on Resolutions or Treaties
For aid to underdeveloped nations
For the promotion of developing nation exports
For UN promotion of human rights
For protecting developing nations in trade agreements
For New International Economic Order for underdeveloped nations
For development as a human right
Versus multinational corporate operations in South Africa
For cooperative models in developing nations
For right of nations to economic system of their choice
Versus chemical and biological weapons (at least 3 times)
Versus Namibian apartheid
For economic/standard of living rights as human rights
Versus apartheid South African aggression vs. neighboring states (2 times)
Versus foreign investments in apartheid South Africa
For world charter to protect ecology
For anti-apartheid convention
For anti-apartheid convention in international sports
For nuclear test ban treaty (at least 2 times)
For prevention of arms race in outer space
For UNESCO-sponsored new world information order (at least 2 times)
For international law to protect economic rights
For Transport & Communications Decade in Africa
Versus manufacture of new types of weapons of mass destruction
Versus naval arms race
For Independent Commission on Disarmament & Security Issues
For UN response mechanism for natural disasters
For the Right to Food
For Report of Committee on Elimination of Racial Discrimination
For UN study on military development
For Commemoration of 25th anniversary of Independence for Colonial Countries
For Industrial Development Decade in Africa
For interdependence of economic and political rights
For improved UN response to human rights abuses
For protection of rights of migrant workers
For protection against products harmful to health and the environment
For a Convention on the Rights of the Child
For training journalists in the developing world
For international cooperation on third world debt
For a UN Conference on Trade & Development
US Is 1 of Only 2 “No” Votes on Resolutions or Treaties
For Palestinian living conditions/rights (at least 8 times)
Versus foreign intervention into other nations
For a UN Conference on Women
Versus nuclear test explosions (at least 2 times)
For the non-use of nuclear weapons vs. non-nuclear states
For a Middle East nuclear free zone
Versus Israeli nuclear weapons (at least 2 times)
For a new world international economic order
For a trade union conference on sanctions vs. South Africa
For the Law of the Sea Treaty
For economic assistance to Palestinians
For UN measures against fascist activities and groups
For international cooperation on money/finance/debt/trade/development
For a Zone of Peace in the South Atlantic
For compliance with Intl Court of Justice decision for Nicaragua vs. US.
**For a conference and measures to prevent international terrorism (including its underlying causes)
For ending the trade embargo vs. Nicaragua
US Is 1 of Only 3 “No” Votes on Resolutions and Treaties
Versus Israeli human rights abuses (at least 6 times)
Versus South African apartheid (at least 4 times)
Versus return of refugees to Israel
For ending nuclear arms race (at least 2 times)
For an embargo on apartheid South Africa
For South African liberation from apartheid (at least 3 times)
For the independence of colonial nations
For the UN Decade for Women
Versus harmful foreign economic practices in colonial territories
For a Middle East Peace Conference
For ending the embargo of Cuba (at least 10 times)
In addition, the US has:
Repeatedly withheld its dues from the UN
Twice left UNESCO because of its human rights initiatives
Twice left the International Labor Organization for its workers rights initiatives
Refused to renew the Antiballistic Missile Treaty
Refused to sign the Kyoto Treaty on global warming
Refused to back the World Health Organization’s ban on infant formula abuses
Refused to sign the Anti-Biological Weapons Convention
Refused to sign the Convention against the use of land mines
Refused to participate in the UN Conference Against Racism in Durban
Been one of the last nations in the world to sign the UN Covenant on
Political & Civil Rights (30 years after its creation)
Refused to sign the UN Covenant on Economic & Social Rights
Opposed the emerging new UN Covenant on the Rights to Peace, Development & Environmental Protection
Sampling of Deaths >From US Military Interventions & Propping Up Corrupt Dictators (using the most conservative estimates)
Nicaragua – 30,000 dead
Brazil – 100,000 dead
Korea – 4 million dead
Guatemala – 200,000 dead
Honduras – 20,000 dead
El Salvador – 63,000 dead
Argentina – 40,000 dead
Bolivia – 10,000 dead
Uruguay – 10,000 dead
Ecuador – 10,000 dead
Peru – 10,000 dead
Iraq – 1.3 million dead
Iran – 30,000 dead
Sudan – 8-10,000 dead
Colombia – 50,000 dead
Panama – 5,000 dead
Japan – 140,000 dead
Afghanistan – 10,000 dead
Somalia – 5000 dead
Philippines – 150,000 dead
Haiti – 100,000 dead
Dominican Republic – 10,000 dead
Libya – 500 dead
Macedonia – 1000 dead
South Africa – 10,000 dead
Pakistan – 10,000 dead
Palestine – 40,000 dead
Indonesia – 1 million dead
East Timor – 1/3-½ of total population
Greece – 10,000 dead
Laos – 600,000 dead
Cambodia – 1 million dead
Angola – 300,000 dead
Grenada – 500 dead
Congo – 2 million dead
Egypt – 10,000 dead
Vietnam – 1.5 million dead
Chile – 50,000 dead
Other Lethal US Interventions CIA Terror Training Manuals Development and distribution of training manuals for foreign military personnel or foreign nationals, including instructions on assassination, subversion, sabotage, population control, torture, repression, psychological torture, death squads, etc.
Specific Torture Campaigns Creation and launching of direct US campaigns to support torture as an instrument of terror and social control for governments in Greece, Iran, Vietnam, Bolivia, Uruguay, Brazil, Guatemala, El Salvador, Honduras, and Panama
Supporting and Harboring Terrorists The promotion, protection, arming or equipping of terrorists such as:
Klaus Barbie and other German Nazis, and Italian and Japanese fascists, after WW II
Manual Noriega (Panama), Saddam Hussein (Iraq), Rafael Trujillo (Dominican Republic), Osama bin Laden (Afghanistan), and others whose terrorism has come back to haunt us
Running the Higher War College (Brazil) and first School of the Americas (Panama), which gave US training to repressors, death squad members, and torturers (the second School of the Americas is still running at Ft. Benning GA)
Providing asylum for Cuban, Salvadoran, Guatemalan, Haitian, Chilean, Argentinian, Iranian, South Vietnamese and other terrorists, dictators, and torturers
Assassinating World Leaders Using assassination as a tool of foreign policy, wherein the CIA has initiated assassination attempts against at least 40 foreign heads of state (some several times) in the last 50 years, a number of which have been successful, such as: Patrice Lumumba (Congo), Rafael Trujillo (Dominican Republic), Ngo Dihn Diem (Vietnam) Salvador Allende (Chile)
Arms Trade & US Military Presence
The US is the world’s largest seller of weapons abroad, arming dictators, militaries, and terrorists that repress or victimize their populations, and fueling scores of violent conflicts around the globe
The US is the world’s largest provider of live land mines which, even in peacetime, kill or injure at least several people around the world each day
The US has military bases in at least 50 nations around the world, which have led to frequent victimization of local populations.
The US military has been bombing one Middle Eastern or Muslim nation or another almost continuously since 1983, including Lebanon, Libya, Syria, Iran, the Sudan, Afghanistan, and Iraq (almost daily bombings since 1991)
This, then, is a sampling of American foreign policies over the last 50 years. The FBI uses the following definition for Terrorism: “The unlawful use of force or violence committed by a group or individual, who has some connection to a foreign power or whose activities transcend national boundaries, against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives.” This sounds like the terrorism we just experienced. It also sounds a lot like the US policies and actions since 1945 that I’ve just described.
This is a version of an an original page atributed to Robert Elias, a US Professor of Political Science , a list which, like so many others, has otherwise ‘disappered’
via https://web.archive.org/web/20161125052245/http://www.the-philosopher.co.uk/whocares/popups/warcrimes.htm
Is there a country thats NOT on this list