Dogshaming
I ate great-grandma’s hearing aids. : (
Great-grandma thought she misplaced them and didn’t want to tell anyone.
So she pretended she could hear for half a day until the truth came
out- literally.
Helping Out the People by finding interesting World News. Take a Seat and read on and enjoy.
Saturday, September 20, 2014
Odierno: More troops in Afghanistan may get pink slips - News - Stripes
Odierno: More troops in Afghanistan may get pink slips - News - Stripes
are being forced out of the military, the Army’s top officer said
Friday.
Twitter: @JHarperStripes
Odierno: More troops in Afghanistan may get pink slips
By
WASHINGTON — More soldiers could learn while in Afghanistan that theyare being forced out of the military, the Army’s top officer said
Friday.
Army chief of staff Gen. Ray Odierno discussed the cuts with reporters Friday at a breakfast in Washington.
The notifications, part of an effort to rapidly shrink the size of the
ground forces, have drawn heavy criticism from lawmakers. In June, more
than 1,100 Army captains were notified that their military careers would
soon end. It was later revealed that 48 were serving in Afghanistan
when they were informed that they were getting the ax.
ground forces, have drawn heavy criticism from lawmakers. In June, more
than 1,100 Army captains were notified that their military careers would
soon end. It was later revealed that 48 were serving in Afghanistan
when they were informed that they were getting the ax.
“The men and women deployed overseas have left their homes and families
to fight for our country,” Rep. Tom Cotton, R-Ariz., said in a written
statement in July. “It’s deplorable the Obama administration would treat
them this way.”
to fight for our country,” Rep. Tom Cotton, R-Ariz., said in a written
statement in July. “It’s deplorable the Obama administration would treat
them this way.”
More separation notifications went out to 550 Army majors last month,
and early retirement boards for lieutenant colonels and colonels are
scheduled next year.
and early retirement boards for lieutenant colonels and colonels are
scheduled next year.
“There may be officers deployed to Afghanistan that get notified,” according to an Army spokeswoman.
Service officials said the moves are unfortunate but necessary as the service is forced to shrink due to budget constraints.
“Unfortunately some people now are being let go that have done a very
good job. ... But with the downsizing we no longer can keep them.”
Odierno said.
good job. ... But with the downsizing we no longer can keep them.”
Odierno said.
Odierno noted that the Army is expected to have soldiers in Afghanistan
for another two years, and some of them could get the boot.
for another two years, and some of them could get the boot.
Active duty Army end strength is slated to drop from 510,000 troops
this year to 490,000 in 2015. Defense officials expect it to go down to
about 450,000 by 2019. If lawmakers don’t put an end to budget cutbacks
known as sequestration, which are scheduled to go back into effect in
2016, the force level could fall to 420,000.
this year to 490,000 in 2015. Defense officials expect it to go down to
about 450,000 by 2019. If lawmakers don’t put an end to budget cutbacks
known as sequestration, which are scheduled to go back into effect in
2016, the force level could fall to 420,000.
He suggested that it’s better to notify soldiers as soon as possible,
even if it means doing so while they’re in a warzone. “I don’t want ...
them to find out from somebody else” he said.
even if it means doing so while they’re in a warzone. “I don’t want ...
them to find out from somebody else” he said.
Under the current system, a general officer in the soldier’s chain of
command gives the selected servicemember the news and discusses their
options.
command gives the selected servicemember the news and discusses their
options.
According to Army officials, deployed troops who receive separation
notices return home as quickly as possible. For staff officers, that can
happen within days, while company commanders and others who wield more
authority may need up to 30 days to wrap up their assignments.
notices return home as quickly as possible. For staff officers, that can
happen within days, while company commanders and others who wield more
authority may need up to 30 days to wrap up their assignments.
Notified servicemembers have nine months to transition out of the
active duty Army. Many will have the opportunity to continue serving in
the Reserve.
active duty Army. Many will have the opportunity to continue serving in
the Reserve.
Odierno blamed lawmakers for soldiers losing their jobs. He told
reporters that he recently received about 40 letters from members of
Congress asking him not to cut soldiers from bases in their districts.
reporters that he recently received about 40 letters from members of
Congress asking him not to cut soldiers from bases in their districts.
“I wrote back and said the reason I’m taking soldiers out of your
installations and out of your state is because of sequestration, not
that I want to do it,” he said.
installations and out of your state is because of sequestration, not
that I want to do it,” he said.
Odierno told reporters that he has “grave concern” about the shrinking
size of the Army, and he is reassessing the risks of additional force
level cuts in light of crises on multiple continents.
size of the Army, and he is reassessing the risks of additional force
level cuts in light of crises on multiple continents.
The review will be completed in time to possibly influence the Pentagon’s fiscal 2016 budget request, he said.
Stars and Stripes reporter Chris Carroll contributed to this report.
harper.jon@stripes.comTwitter: @JHarperStripes
This is how ISIS wins: Repeating the Bush/Cheney/Rove approach just won’t work - Salon.com
This is how ISIS wins: Repeating the Bush/Cheney/Rove approach just won’t work - Salon.com
Sep 20, 2014 08:00 AM EST
This is how ISIS wins: Repeating the
The way to battle ISIS long-term is to
Paul Rosenberg
Paul Rosenberg is a California-based writer/activist,
senior editor for Random Lengths News, and a columnist for Al Jazeera
English. Follow him on Twitter at @PaulHRosenberg.
More Paul Rosenberg.
Sep 20, 2014 08:00 AM EST
This is how ISIS wins: Repeating the
Bush/Cheney/Rove approach just won’t work
The way to battle ISIS long-term is to
understand its appeal and retain our humanity. Take Sun Tzu's word for
it!
Paul Rosenberg Topics:
isis,
ISIL,
Karl Rove,
Dick Cjeney,
Barack Obama,
Editor's Picks,
Sun Tzu,
The Art of War,
Rachel Maddow,
evildoers, Politics News
isis,
ISIL,
Karl Rove,
Dick Cjeney,
Barack Obama,
Editor's Picks,
Sun Tzu,
The Art of War,
Rachel Maddow,
evildoers, Politics News
For all his vaunted love of nuance, President Obama’s recent speech
announcing our new war against ISIS (or ISIL, to the White House)
denounced them in terms strikingly similar to George W. Bush’s language
waging war on “evil doers,” and that’s a development that should trouble
us all. Yes, Obama avoided the word ‘war,’ but the rest of his team soon embraced it, and the logic of his address made that move virtually inevitable, whatever he may personally and privately have wished.
“We
can’t erase every trace of evil from the world, and small groups of
killers have the capacity to do great harm,” Obama said — a typical, and
laudable, example of his nuance and restraint. But unfortunately, its
main purpose was anything but nuanced: to firmly establish the
black-and-white evil enemy frame: “ISIL is a terrorist organization,
pure and simple,” Obama continued. “And it has no vision other than the
slaughter of all who stand in its way.”
No one can doubt that ISIS
is murderous — just like Syria’s President Bashar al-Assad, last year’s
No. 1 candidate for America’s wrath. But it’s simply untrue that ISIS
has “no other vision” than slaughter. Their vision of an Islamic state —
a new Caliphate — may be many things: delusional, presumptuous,
contrary to true Islamic values and obviously cruel. But it certainly is a vision of sorts, and it has some appeal, if only to a tiny, disaffected fragment of the world’s Islamic community.
If
we don’t understand that vision — and what people find attractive in it
— then we really have very little chance of effectively fighting
against it, even though ISIS now commands only a few thousand fighters.
We may win lots of battles, but not the war. Even if we defeat ISIS
itself, but don’t understand its appeal, it will only a reappear in
another, potentially even more deadly form, just as ISIS now appears
more malignant than al-Qaida. This is particularly true if we ignore
the multilayered network of historical grievances which ISIS seeks to
exploit.
On the other hand — and this is crucial — if we
do take the time to try to understand “pure evil,” we will inevitably
discover things about it, which can ultimately help us defeat it.
announcing our new war against ISIS (or ISIL, to the White House)
denounced them in terms strikingly similar to George W. Bush’s language
waging war on “evil doers,” and that’s a development that should trouble
us all. Yes, Obama avoided the word ‘war,’ but the rest of his team soon embraced it, and the logic of his address made that move virtually inevitable, whatever he may personally and privately have wished.
“We
can’t erase every trace of evil from the world, and small groups of
killers have the capacity to do great harm,” Obama said — a typical, and
laudable, example of his nuance and restraint. But unfortunately, its
main purpose was anything but nuanced: to firmly establish the
black-and-white evil enemy frame: “ISIL is a terrorist organization,
pure and simple,” Obama continued. “And it has no vision other than the
slaughter of all who stand in its way.”
No one can doubt that ISIS
is murderous — just like Syria’s President Bashar al-Assad, last year’s
No. 1 candidate for America’s wrath. But it’s simply untrue that ISIS
has “no other vision” than slaughter. Their vision of an Islamic state —
a new Caliphate — may be many things: delusional, presumptuous,
contrary to true Islamic values and obviously cruel. But it certainly is a vision of sorts, and it has some appeal, if only to a tiny, disaffected fragment of the world’s Islamic community.
If
we don’t understand that vision — and what people find attractive in it
— then we really have very little chance of effectively fighting
against it, even though ISIS now commands only a few thousand fighters.
We may win lots of battles, but not the war. Even if we defeat ISIS
itself, but don’t understand its appeal, it will only a reappear in
another, potentially even more deadly form, just as ISIS now appears
more malignant than al-Qaida. This is particularly true if we ignore
the multilayered network of historical grievances which ISIS seeks to
exploit.
On the other hand — and this is crucial — if we
do take the time to try to understand “pure evil,” we will inevitably
discover things about it, which can ultimately help us defeat it.
This is not, as some might would suggest, a namby-pamby liberal view of the world. It comes directly out of Sun Tzu’s “Art of War“:
“If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result
of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every
victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the
enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle.”
Neocons
have always relentlessly mocked those who questioned their knee-jerk
resort to mindless violence. Predictably, the most toxic form this
accusation took was at the hands of Karl Rove, back in 2005, when he said,
“Conservatives saw the savagery of 9/11 in the attacks and prepared for
war. Liberals saw the savagery on 9/11 attacks and wanted to prepare
indictments and offer therapy and understanding for our attackers.” As
is usual with Rove, there are multiple threads of lies and misdirections
contained in this statement. What’s tragic about Obama’s most recent
actions is how deeply they reflect Rove’s wildly dishonest worldview,
even though he would surely reject it consciously.
Perhaps the
easiest lie to point out is that conservatives were preparing for war
before 9/11 — not against bin Laden, but against Saddam Hussein, as
revealed in the planning agenda of Dick Cheney’s energy task force,
which Rachel Maddow highlighted in her documentary, “Why We Did It.”
As for 9/11 itself, it presented nothing like a classic case for war:
we were not attacked by a military, or by anyone with a military. Simply
put, there was no state for us to attack, except by threatening
Afghanistan for not turning over the criminals who attacked us. The
situation now remains unchanged: ISIS is not a state, despite its
claims, and adopting the framework of war only plays into its deluded
fantasy. It helps strengthen, legitimate and perpetuate the evil we
face, not defeat it.
This brings us to the second lie — that there was somehow something soft or weak about treating a horrific crime as
a horrific crime. To the contrary: the one thing that bin Laden wanted
above all was to be considered a holy warrior — and that required that
he be a warrior, which in turn required that he be at war. A
holy criminal just wouldn’t cut it. Thus, by responding to bin Laden’s
crime as an act of war, conservatives weren’t being tough, compared to
liberals. They were being idiots. Now that Obama, too, has
reluctantly embraced the language of war, the idiocy has become near
universal in Washington. But it remains idiotic, nonetheless.
But
arguably the deepest lie is the one already touched on above — the lie
that liberals wanted to give the terrorists therapy, simply because they
wanted to understand them. The two are very different matters — Rove
simply conflated them as one. But there’s nothing new or particularly
soft about the psychological study of evil in order to defeat it. In
rudimentary form, at least, it’s as old as the profession of
crime-fighting, developed into an art by novelists of the 19th and
20th centuries, and into a science by the likes of FBI profilers in our
own time. The fact that there are patterns, causes, even sometimes, at
bottom, admirable but deeply perverted reasons for evil actions does not
excuse, much less valorize those actions — though it does help us
enormously in being able to recognize, understand and defeat them.
Most
crucially, we Americans need to recognize that this very same Manichean
worldview — of all evil vs. all good — which first Bush,
enthusiastically, and now Obama, reluctantly, have embraced, is, at
bottom, exactly the same worldview that al-Qaida and ISIS
embrace. If you believe in such a black-and-white world, then all the
proof you need that you are all good is to identify an enemy you can
plausibly portray as all evil. The fact that some of our own allies
(the Saudis, for example) or would-be allies (the Free Syrian Army) also
engage in beheadings is quite beside point: ISIS’ evil actually serves
to excuse the evil of others in the Manichean style of “logic.”
Such
worldviews, though profoundly mistaken, can be inherently
self-reinforcing: the more thoroughly evil you portray the other to be,
the easier it is to treat them despicably. This, in turn, justifies them
in doing the same. Each can then accuse the other one of “starting it
first,” of “finally showing their true colors,” or of “having no other
vision than slaughter.” Worst of all, it may only take one adversary on
one side to get this cycle going. One single deeply horrific act can be
enough to shock people into responding irrationally, and embracing the
notion that their enemy is all evil. Once that idea has been embraced,
it’s all too easy to begin proving the same to the enemy. Which is how
we fall under the Pogo diagnosis: “We have met the enemy and they are
us.”
The way out of such madness is surprisingly simple — simple
to state, but extremely difficult to translate into action: we must hold
onto our humanity, when those who hate us are doing everything
conceivable to get us to abandon it. When ISIS shows the world a video
of them beheading an innocent civilian, they are doing their best, not
to appear evil, but to draw us into the very same evil that we see in
them. Seeing such evil, it is extremely difficult to resist the urge to
utterly destroy it — and yet, the only sure way to destroy such evil
over time is not to recreate it in ourselves, by our own similarly
sweeping actions which will inevitably involve the deaths of innocents,
as they already have in the past, excused by the phrase “collateral
damage.”
We ought to know by now: One man’s collateral damage is
another man’s holy martyr. Surely, at this point, we have had more than
enough of both.
“If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result
of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every
victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the
enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle.”
Neocons
have always relentlessly mocked those who questioned their knee-jerk
resort to mindless violence. Predictably, the most toxic form this
accusation took was at the hands of Karl Rove, back in 2005, when he said,
“Conservatives saw the savagery of 9/11 in the attacks and prepared for
war. Liberals saw the savagery on 9/11 attacks and wanted to prepare
indictments and offer therapy and understanding for our attackers.” As
is usual with Rove, there are multiple threads of lies and misdirections
contained in this statement. What’s tragic about Obama’s most recent
actions is how deeply they reflect Rove’s wildly dishonest worldview,
even though he would surely reject it consciously.
Perhaps the
easiest lie to point out is that conservatives were preparing for war
before 9/11 — not against bin Laden, but against Saddam Hussein, as
revealed in the planning agenda of Dick Cheney’s energy task force,
which Rachel Maddow highlighted in her documentary, “Why We Did It.”
As for 9/11 itself, it presented nothing like a classic case for war:
we were not attacked by a military, or by anyone with a military. Simply
put, there was no state for us to attack, except by threatening
Afghanistan for not turning over the criminals who attacked us. The
situation now remains unchanged: ISIS is not a state, despite its
claims, and adopting the framework of war only plays into its deluded
fantasy. It helps strengthen, legitimate and perpetuate the evil we
face, not defeat it.
This brings us to the second lie — that there was somehow something soft or weak about treating a horrific crime as
a horrific crime. To the contrary: the one thing that bin Laden wanted
above all was to be considered a holy warrior — and that required that
he be a warrior, which in turn required that he be at war. A
holy criminal just wouldn’t cut it. Thus, by responding to bin Laden’s
crime as an act of war, conservatives weren’t being tough, compared to
liberals. They were being idiots. Now that Obama, too, has
reluctantly embraced the language of war, the idiocy has become near
universal in Washington. But it remains idiotic, nonetheless.
But
arguably the deepest lie is the one already touched on above — the lie
that liberals wanted to give the terrorists therapy, simply because they
wanted to understand them. The two are very different matters — Rove
simply conflated them as one. But there’s nothing new or particularly
soft about the psychological study of evil in order to defeat it. In
rudimentary form, at least, it’s as old as the profession of
crime-fighting, developed into an art by novelists of the 19th and
20th centuries, and into a science by the likes of FBI profilers in our
own time. The fact that there are patterns, causes, even sometimes, at
bottom, admirable but deeply perverted reasons for evil actions does not
excuse, much less valorize those actions — though it does help us
enormously in being able to recognize, understand and defeat them.
Most
crucially, we Americans need to recognize that this very same Manichean
worldview — of all evil vs. all good — which first Bush,
enthusiastically, and now Obama, reluctantly, have embraced, is, at
bottom, exactly the same worldview that al-Qaida and ISIS
embrace. If you believe in such a black-and-white world, then all the
proof you need that you are all good is to identify an enemy you can
plausibly portray as all evil. The fact that some of our own allies
(the Saudis, for example) or would-be allies (the Free Syrian Army) also
engage in beheadings is quite beside point: ISIS’ evil actually serves
to excuse the evil of others in the Manichean style of “logic.”
Such
worldviews, though profoundly mistaken, can be inherently
self-reinforcing: the more thoroughly evil you portray the other to be,
the easier it is to treat them despicably. This, in turn, justifies them
in doing the same. Each can then accuse the other one of “starting it
first,” of “finally showing their true colors,” or of “having no other
vision than slaughter.” Worst of all, it may only take one adversary on
one side to get this cycle going. One single deeply horrific act can be
enough to shock people into responding irrationally, and embracing the
notion that their enemy is all evil. Once that idea has been embraced,
it’s all too easy to begin proving the same to the enemy. Which is how
we fall under the Pogo diagnosis: “We have met the enemy and they are
us.”
The way out of such madness is surprisingly simple — simple
to state, but extremely difficult to translate into action: we must hold
onto our humanity, when those who hate us are doing everything
conceivable to get us to abandon it. When ISIS shows the world a video
of them beheading an innocent civilian, they are doing their best, not
to appear evil, but to draw us into the very same evil that we see in
them. Seeing such evil, it is extremely difficult to resist the urge to
utterly destroy it — and yet, the only sure way to destroy such evil
over time is not to recreate it in ourselves, by our own similarly
sweeping actions which will inevitably involve the deaths of innocents,
as they already have in the past, excused by the phrase “collateral
damage.”
We ought to know by now: One man’s collateral damage is
another man’s holy martyr. Surely, at this point, we have had more than
enough of both.
Paul Rosenberg is a California-based writer/activist,
senior editor for Random Lengths News, and a columnist for Al Jazeera
English. Follow him on Twitter at @PaulHRosenberg.
More Paul Rosenberg.
Friday, September 19, 2014
Are We Seeing Kasich Campaign In Pantomime?
Are We Seeing Kasich Campaign In Pantomime?
Are We Seeing Kasich Campaign In Pantomime?
by Abe on September 18, 2014 · Leave a Comment
John Kasich has apparently found his comfort zone for re-election in a kind of political pantomime in which he is silently acting out his role to the voters in paid-TV imagery while his narrators assure you that he means well in everything he sets out to do for you.
So until election day we will be served with body language and thoroughly encrypted feel-good messages without him really showing up as a real person. (Exception: When the governor, anticipating a generous contribution, called upon God to bless Sheldon Adelson, the Midas-like casino owner. Those are the moments that don’t appear in the TV ads).
The keepers of conventional wisdom shrugged when Kasich passed the word through his flaks that he wouldn’t debate his opponent Ed FitzGerald. Nothing to be gained by it, one Cleveland TV reporter supposed without a hint of discomfort over a major candidate’s refusal to face the voters with his opponent on hand.
After all, Kasich explainer, spokeswoman Connie Wehrkamp, said the decision was regrettable “despite good-faith efforts on our side” that were halted a couple of months ago when FitzGerald’s campaign suffered an “implosion”.
Good-faith efforts? Kasich had said earlier that he knew nothing about any debate discussions because these were in the hands of his “campaign”. Anybody from the distance of Mars who has a hint of the man’s brusque hands-on style knows that absolutely nothing occurs in a campaign that he does not know about.
His pantomime will continue when he and Lt. Gov. Mary Taylor turn up in the well-vetted Summit County Republican Headquarters Tuesday afternoon. There he will be joined by some local Republicans and Chairman Alex Arshinkoff, a lobbyist who gets a $10,000 monthly paycheck to connect the governor with the University of Akron.
In return for Kasich’s appearance, we have a hunch that Alex, never at a loss for hyperbole, will describe him as the greatest governor in Ohio history. Kasich will act out his response with a modest smile and leave the scene in full command of his unfettered campaign to run for president.
10 New Beauty Products You Need to Know About
10 New Beauty Products You Need to Know About
10 New Beauty Products You Need to Know About
2014 is one hot year for new and innovative beauty products. But lest you hog all the beauty in the world, we've narrowed down the list to these top 10 beauty must-haves. (See also:24 Places to Buy Inexpensive Natural Beauty Products)
1. The Switch Kit by Amika
Finally, a good hair product that's also a space and money saver! Amika's new Switch Kit comes with a base that can be used with three different barrel sizes, so you get the look you want without having to buy another hair tool. With a digital temperature control, you can adjust the level of heat from 150°F to 430°F (66°C to 221°C).
2. Amrezy Palette by Anastasia of Beverly Hills
Named after one of Instagram's most reputable makeup artists, Amrezy, this palette was constructed and launched by long time beauty maven, Anastasia of Beverly Hills. The eye shadow palette has 10 gorgeous colors, perfect for both special occasions and everyday casual makeup.
3. The 2014 Fall/Winter Nail Collection by Gabriel Cosmetics
Gabriel's newest polish collection was inspired by the high fashion runway styles. It comes with six shades and three different spectrums: glossy, matte, and pearl. The best part of this line is that it is one of few companies that uses a "5 free" formula — meaning it is free of the harmful chemicals including formaldehyde, toluene, DBP, camphor, and phthalates.
4. Honey Dew Me Up Primer by NYX
Infused with light-reflective gold flecks, this primer is made to create a radiant appearance by reducing redness and discoloration.
5. Matte Lipsticks by Dose of Color
Punctuate your style and add a pop of awesome to any look with Dose of Colors' brand new line of matte lipsticks. Created by makeup artist and cosmetics expert, MakeupbyAnna, this genius color palette of lipsticks is a vegan product that's both cruelty and paraben free.
6. They're Real! Push-Up Liner by Benefit
The angled brush and push up gel is made to tightly hug your lash line and simplify the application process. The gel formula has a matte black that stays where you put it without smudging, budging or drying out.
7. Rescue Me Hair Mask by Leyla Milani Hair
Here's a beauty essential to have with all the wear and tear that hair goes through, from being under the sun, challenging weather conditions, and everyday products and oils. Made by the ultimate hair queen, Leyla Milani, this intense formula of argan oil and shea butter penetrates the hair cuticle from the inside out, bringing the bounce and strength back to your hair.
8. Perversion Mascara by Urban Decay
This primer and mascara duo can really add some punch to your lashes. The high-tech brush is made to add volume and separate each lash for a silky, long lasting finish. According to beauty expert, Sona Gasparian, the applicator's defined bristles are what makes the biggest difference by adding fullness and length to the lashes. The unique texture of the mascara's formula allows you to apply less layers for an everyday look or multiple coats for a more dramatic finish.
9. Mavens Sculpt Series by Motives
Mavens Sculpt Series comes in two complexions: Fire for warmer skin tones and Ice for cooler skin tones. These palettes have four crème foundations best for highlighting cheekbones, covering under eye imperfections, intensifying the brow bone and creating a stunning profile and definition. Motives Cosmetics is expertly crafted in collaboration with six YouTube beauty sensations including Teni Panosian, and cosmetics gurus including, Lauren Rindinger and La La Anthony.
10. Velvet Orchid Eau de Parfum Spray by Tom Ford
Last but not least, Tom Ford's captivating perfume, Velvet Orchid. Derived of oriental florals and combined with strong notes of citrus, lavish petals, rum, and honey, this scent is ultra feminine and exotic.
13 DIY Clothing Projects for Men
13 DIY Clothing Projects for Men
13 DIY Clothing Projects for Men
We've already covered 20 Simple and Stylish Clothing Projects for Womenand Cute and Frugal Clothing You Can Make for Kids. Though men's clothing projects are much harder to find online, they're well worth seeking out. Any time you can bring new life to the duds you already own, you're saving money.
So check out these 13 cool projects for DIY men's clothing and accessories and feel free to add your own in the comments!
1. (Re)Dyed Jeans
Have a pair of faded denim jeans? This smart tutorial will show you how to refresh them for just $3. Grab a box of RIT dye at your local grocery or drugstore. You can go with traditional navy or blue, but there are a wide variety of colors from which to choose.
2. Cutoffs
If you have a comfy old pair of jeans, turn them into cool cutoffs with this simple tutorial. It's really as easy as cutting the jeans and cuffing them. The author also uses a standard razor to create a naturally distressed look.
3. Pocket T-Shirt
A printout pattern and piece of your favorite fabric jazzes up a plain t-shirt with a new, useful pocket. There's a bit of basic sewing involved, but it's nothing a novice can't handle.
4. Skinny Tie
Need a unique tie for a special occasion? Skip the store and try making your own. You'll need a vintage tie to act as your pattern, but once you get going — you'll want one in every color.
5. Bow Tie
That's right, you can also create your own stylish bow tie for special events or, well, just because. This tutorial requires some basic sewing, but you can use whatever fabric matches your theme. And making the bow tie might be easier than tying one!
6. Leather Belt
Create a custom DIY Leather Belt that will last you years and years. Find an old belt to serve as your pattern, as well as a long strip of leather, some hardware, and a few leather-working tools. You can dye it whatever color you like and then condition using olive oil.
7. Tank
All you need is an old t-shirt, a sharp pair of scissors, and a marker to make this casual Tank Top. This piece would be great to wear to the beach or at the gym for lifting weights. Plus, it's a good way to reuse an old shirt that might have pit stains!
8. Screen Print
This specific tutorial features a women's shirt, but the same basic screen printing process applies for men's (and kid's) shirts as well. Choose a design you wish to print and draw it onto freezer paper. Iron it onto your shirt on a flat surface. Then paint over the design using fabric paint and remove the freezer paper to let set.
9. Elbow Patches
Again, this DIY Elbow Patch Sweater tutorial features a women's shirt, but it's just as stylish for men. Plus, you can buy leather or fabric elbow patches if you want to skip the stitching for less than $10. Otherwise, you need an old sweater, iron-on adhesive fabric, and an iron.
10. Button Up Shirt
This manly sewing project creates a button-up shirt for a fraction of what it would cost at the store. You can use whatever fabric you might have on hand or choose something specific, but you'll need two yards in all. The pattern is free after you sign up for the blog's email list.
11. Card Holder
These awesome leather card holders come together quickly and require minimal stitching. You can also play with the pattern a bit to get the look you want. A great place to find leather in all textures and colors is onEtsy.
12. Paracord Bracelet
I see these Paracord Bracelets everywhere, and I never thought to make my own. Though the images might look tricky, you can click them for a closer view. It's a lot of figure eight weaving, but after a while, you should get the hang.
13. Hoodie
This DIY Hoodie Project surely requires some sewing skills. However, it doesn't look out of the realm of possibility. And the pattern is loose. You can use an old t-shirt — just make sure to leave a seam allowance.
Alright you manly DIYers: what projects are you getting into?
Thursday, September 18, 2014
Thiscantbehappening.net
Thiscantbehappening.net
Society's Child
Society's Child
Two acts of ugly terrorism occurred in Birmingham, Alabama on September 15, 1963.
One act was widely abhorred. The other act ignored.
Many across America know about the 9/15/63 Birmingham murders of four
little girls slain in the bombing of a black Baptist church 18-days
after Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. delivered his stirring "I Have A Dream"
speech.
However, few know about the Birmingham murder of Johnny Robinson, a
16-year-old shot in the back by a policeman hours after that church
bombing.
If the deaths of those four children inside that Birmingham church
catalyzed the 1960s-era Civil Rights Movement contributing to the racial
progress America now praises itself for achieving, the death of Johnny
Robinson represents yet another instance of the regression across
America on the issue of effectively addressing lawlessness by law
enforcers - lawlessness that most often evades legal accountability.
Historically, America has a history of downplaying brutal behavior by police.
Police abuses - from fatal shootings through false arrests to the
gratuitous use of foul or threatening language - are dismissed as
isolated acts of a 'few bad apples' instead of as an endemic scourge
historically impacting minorities and increasing impacting
non-minorities. Top policy-makers and even much of the public embrace
this dismissal dynamic.
The
policeman who fatally shot Johnny Robinson during disturbances that
erupted in the wake of that murderous church bombing never faced
criminal prosecution because all-white grand juries (state and federal)
excused his shotgun slaying of the boy.
That Birmingham policeman who blasted Robinson with a shotgun, like the
men who bombed that city's Sixteen Street Baptist Church, staunchly
opposed eradicating America's system of legally sanctioned racial
segregation. Officer Jack Parker, then the head of Birmingham's police
union, publicly opposed integrating that city's police department.
"We can never be satisfied as long as the Negro is victim of the
unspeakable horrors of police brutality." Dr. King declared during his
iconic 1963 speech, during which he twice decried police abuses.
Today most Americans extoll the vision King articulated during that speech while continually ignoring the nightmares he detailed as injustices that drove the need for his 'Dream.' Police abuses remain core elements of the nightmare that too many people across America encounter daily.
A dozen years before King's 'Dream' speech a black union leader
criticized police brutality during his keynote address at labor
convention in Cincinnati. "We are horrified to hear of the many police
killings of Negroes from New York City to Birmingham, Alabama," William
R. Hood said in October 1951.
The same year as Hood linked discrimination in the workplace with racist
deprivations across American society, an interracial group of Americans
delivered a petition to the United Nations charging the American
government with committing genocide against African-Americans.
"Once the classic method of lynching was the rope. Now it is the
policeman's bullet," that seminal yet forgotten petition asserted. "We
submit that the evidence suggests that the killing of Negroes has become police policy in the United States and that police policy is the most practical expression of government policy."
Typical of America's history of denial on police brutality, federal
government leaders viciously attacked those behind the petition instead
of the police abuse and other problems highlighted in their petition.
Top federal authorities, for example, pulled the passports of petition
signers who were scheduled to travel to Europe to meet with U.N.
representatives and even enlisted the widow of President Franklin
Roosevelt, Eleanor Roosevelt, to convince U.N. officials that charges in
that petition were exaggerated.
They were not, and they still hold true.
Indeed, many of those who continue to protest the early August 2014
fatal shooting of the unarmed and surrendering Michael Brown by a
policeman in Ferguson, Missouri believe that the killing of blacks and
other non-whites is accepted police policy across America.
Bracketing the slaying of Michael Brown was the police choke-hold death
of Eric Garner in New York City and the fatal shooting of John Crawford
inside a Wal-Mart store in a town north of Cincinnati.
One month before the death of Brown in Ferguson, the District Attorney
of bucolic Sonoma County California announced that the policeman who
fatally shot a 13-year-old Mexican-American boy months earlier would not
face prosecution for that controversial slaying.
D.A. Jill Ravitch based her decision not to prosecute Deputy Erick
Glehaus for the death of Andy Lopez on a report that absolved Glehaus
prepared by an expert Ravitch had hired allegedly for his
"independence." In truth, that expert has a history of consistently
siding with police accused of wrongful deaths. Ravitch withheld release
of the expert's report until after her reelection.
In 2000, a report prepared for the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights
harshly criticized the then D.A. and police officials in Sonoma County
for excusing each of eight fatal police shootings from April 1995 to
September 1997.
The investigative committee that prepared that 2000 report was "appalled
at the number of deadly incidents." The committee's report urged
Sonoma's District Attorneys office to conduct reviews of fatal police
shootings that were "fair and impartial." It's a suggestion that current
DA Ravitch did not follow in the Lopez shooting, critics charge.
That 2000 report recommended the creation of a citizen review board to
monitor police. Sonoma authorities never implemented that recommendation
for the county located sixty miles north San Francisco known for its
wines (and 'weed').
That report also assailed authorities for the practice of seeking "...to criminalize their victims and marginalize their critics..."
Comment: Blaming the victim is part and parcel to psychopathy - a sign of the ponerization of society as a result of being led by a cabal of conscious-less neanderthals.
Sonoma authorities, defending Deputy Glehaus, faulted Lopez for
having marijuana in his system. (Authorities in Ferguson, Missouri
quickly portrayed Brown as a robber who had pilfered a few cigars
shortly before his fatal shooting, only to discover later that the video
allegedly showing him stealing from a retail store was actually
depicting an entirely different person.)
As the 2000 report from the California Advisory Committee to the U.S.
Commission on Civil Rights noted, when police commanders and officers
"separate from the greater community to protect individual officers who
have transgressed they also become part of the problem."
Today, politicians, press pundits and preachers across America, portray
terrorism as having a foreign face. Yet, for far too many Americans, the
terrorists that they encounter daily are the police.
One act was widely abhorred. The other act ignored.
Many across America know about the 9/15/63 Birmingham murders of four
little girls slain in the bombing of a black Baptist church 18-days
after Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. delivered his stirring "I Have A Dream"
speech.
However, few know about the Birmingham murder of Johnny Robinson, a
16-year-old shot in the back by a policeman hours after that church
bombing.
If the deaths of those four children inside that Birmingham church
catalyzed the 1960s-era Civil Rights Movement contributing to the racial
progress America now praises itself for achieving, the death of Johnny
Robinson represents yet another instance of the regression across
America on the issue of effectively addressing lawlessness by law
enforcers - lawlessness that most often evades legal accountability.
Historically, America has a history of downplaying brutal behavior by police.
Police abuses - from fatal shootings through false arrests to the
gratuitous use of foul or threatening language - are dismissed as
isolated acts of a 'few bad apples' instead of as an endemic scourge
historically impacting minorities and increasing impacting
non-minorities. Top policy-makers and even much of the public embrace
this dismissal dynamic.
The
policeman who fatally shot Johnny Robinson during disturbances that
erupted in the wake of that murderous church bombing never faced
criminal prosecution because all-white grand juries (state and federal)
excused his shotgun slaying of the boy.
That Birmingham policeman who blasted Robinson with a shotgun, like the
men who bombed that city's Sixteen Street Baptist Church, staunchly
opposed eradicating America's system of legally sanctioned racial
segregation. Officer Jack Parker, then the head of Birmingham's police
union, publicly opposed integrating that city's police department.
"We can never be satisfied as long as the Negro is victim of the
unspeakable horrors of police brutality." Dr. King declared during his
iconic 1963 speech, during which he twice decried police abuses.
Today most Americans extoll the vision King articulated during that speech while continually ignoring the nightmares he detailed as injustices that drove the need for his 'Dream.' Police abuses remain core elements of the nightmare that too many people across America encounter daily.
A dozen years before King's 'Dream' speech a black union leader
criticized police brutality during his keynote address at labor
convention in Cincinnati. "We are horrified to hear of the many police
killings of Negroes from New York City to Birmingham, Alabama," William
R. Hood said in October 1951.
The same year as Hood linked discrimination in the workplace with racist
deprivations across American society, an interracial group of Americans
delivered a petition to the United Nations charging the American
government with committing genocide against African-Americans.
"Once the classic method of lynching was the rope. Now it is the
policeman's bullet," that seminal yet forgotten petition asserted. "We
submit that the evidence suggests that the killing of Negroes has become police policy in the United States and that police policy is the most practical expression of government policy."
Typical of America's history of denial on police brutality, federal
government leaders viciously attacked those behind the petition instead
of the police abuse and other problems highlighted in their petition.
Top federal authorities, for example, pulled the passports of petition
signers who were scheduled to travel to Europe to meet with U.N.
representatives and even enlisted the widow of President Franklin
Roosevelt, Eleanor Roosevelt, to convince U.N. officials that charges in
that petition were exaggerated.
They were not, and they still hold true.
Indeed, many of those who continue to protest the early August 2014
fatal shooting of the unarmed and surrendering Michael Brown by a
policeman in Ferguson, Missouri believe that the killing of blacks and
other non-whites is accepted police policy across America.
Bracketing the slaying of Michael Brown was the police choke-hold death
of Eric Garner in New York City and the fatal shooting of John Crawford
inside a Wal-Mart store in a town north of Cincinnati.
One month before the death of Brown in Ferguson, the District Attorney
of bucolic Sonoma County California announced that the policeman who
fatally shot a 13-year-old Mexican-American boy months earlier would not
face prosecution for that controversial slaying.
D.A. Jill Ravitch based her decision not to prosecute Deputy Erick
Glehaus for the death of Andy Lopez on a report that absolved Glehaus
prepared by an expert Ravitch had hired allegedly for his
"independence." In truth, that expert has a history of consistently
siding with police accused of wrongful deaths. Ravitch withheld release
of the expert's report until after her reelection.
In 2000, a report prepared for the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights
harshly criticized the then D.A. and police officials in Sonoma County
for excusing each of eight fatal police shootings from April 1995 to
September 1997.
The investigative committee that prepared that 2000 report was "appalled
at the number of deadly incidents." The committee's report urged
Sonoma's District Attorneys office to conduct reviews of fatal police
shootings that were "fair and impartial." It's a suggestion that current
DA Ravitch did not follow in the Lopez shooting, critics charge.
That 2000 report recommended the creation of a citizen review board to
monitor police. Sonoma authorities never implemented that recommendation
for the county located sixty miles north San Francisco known for its
wines (and 'weed').
That report also assailed authorities for the practice of seeking "...to criminalize their victims and marginalize their critics..."
Comment: Blaming the victim is part and parcel to psychopathy - a sign of the ponerization of society as a result of being led by a cabal of conscious-less neanderthals.
Sonoma authorities, defending Deputy Glehaus, faulted Lopez for
having marijuana in his system. (Authorities in Ferguson, Missouri
quickly portrayed Brown as a robber who had pilfered a few cigars
shortly before his fatal shooting, only to discover later that the video
allegedly showing him stealing from a retail store was actually
depicting an entirely different person.)
As the 2000 report from the California Advisory Committee to the U.S.
Commission on Civil Rights noted, when police commanders and officers
"separate from the greater community to protect individual officers who
have transgressed they also become part of the problem."
Today, politicians, press pundits and preachers across America, portray
terrorism as having a foreign face. Yet, for far too many Americans, the
terrorists that they encounter daily are the police.
Tea Party Unleashes On John Boehner - Liberals Unite | Liberals Unite
Tea Party Unleashes On John Boehner - Liberals Unite | Liberals Unite
liberals, so now that we have a government again, I thought I’d suggest
a little relaxing entertainment for us all. Grab some popcorn and a
cold beverage and join me in the spectator sport called, the Republican
Civil War, taking place on John Boehner’s Facebook wall.
Sit back and enjoy….
Fun, right??…I know. At the time I wrote this, there were almost 22,000 comments on Boehner’s last post alone.
Now, here’s something else for you crazy liberal kids. I found this
great little site for you to send all of your really pissed off
teabagger friends and family BEFORE you point them to Boehner’s Facebook page. It’s called the Tea Party Insult Generator. Check it out…
http://clotureclub.com/tea-party-insult-generator/
Please take a moment and Like Mindy Fisch
Tea Party Unleashes On John Boehner
OKliberals, so now that we have a government again, I thought I’d suggest
a little relaxing entertainment for us all. Grab some popcorn and a
cold beverage and join me in the spectator sport called, the Republican
Civil War, taking place on John Boehner’s Facebook wall.
Sit back and enjoy….
- Grow some balls!!! You rat-bastard sellout
- WORST…SPEAKER…EVAH!!!!
- I am flying my Confederate Flag upside down and at half-staff
because of RINOs like Boehner who caved to a Kenyan Hawaiian Muslim
Atheist Bankster Rastafarian Communist. - Hey dumb ass. You no longer have our support. Don’t try to convince yourself otherwise.
- Drop dead traitor. Anyone that supports a 17 trillion dollar debt,
no to climb more, aiding every Islamist regime in the middle east, a so
called healthcare plan that destroys private healthcare and has 20 new
taxes breaking the middle class back and is designed for nothing more
than total government control is an entitlement minded American-hating
uninformed LEECH! - I would call you a snake, but at least a snake has a spine!
- YOU ARE A DISGRACE AND ARE NOW THE REASON I AM NO LONGER DONATING TO THE GOP
- May you rot in hell you sell-out piece of trash!
- Are you kidding me right now?? Go Fuck Yourself Boehner!
- You pussed out again, didn’t you? I’d rather have Tip Oneal as speaker of the house than you right now.
- You are disgusting! RINO!
- I can’t believe they let you stay in the party, let alone the speaker. Go to hell asshole!
- BULLSHIT!! You sold us out!! You spineless coward! You are a complete dumb fuck, a failure, AND a fraud.
- I hope you and the rest that caved get tea-partied in the next
elections…may your own self interest be the death of your political
career. - Thanks for NOTHING!! You are DEFINITELY NO LEADER!!
- Stick House rule 368 up your ass and spin on it.
- You are the worst human being currently alive. Do the world a favor
and slink back under the rock you were born under. Your very existence
is a tragedy. - Go crawl in a hole and STFU! Happy Retirement!
- Asshole Sellout! You put Judas to shame!
- Hey Benedict, they’re having a special on group impeachments and your name has risen rather high on the list.
- Folded like warm laundry, didn’t you? How pathetic.
- Really? REALLY?? go have another drink and fake tanning session you leather-skinned drunk.
- It’s not really Speaker Boehner, but Squeaker and Whiner Boehner.
You want a pat on the back? A slap on the head would be more
appropriate. - Gutless duchebag. You lying sack of crap JACKASS!
- YOU SIR, ARE WHAT WE LIKE TO CALL AN ASS-HAT! You and your GOP scum
can go suck it! Time to retire you antique leather piece of crap! - FUCK YOU CLOSET SOCIALIST!
- So what good does Obama and his thugs have on you? Prostitution? Drug abuse? You’re gay? You a pimp? Come clean already you POS!
- I didn’t see a fight at all. All I saw were our representatives bending over and grabbing their ankles.
- YOU ARE A TRAITOR! You should switch parties immediately and give
Nancy the hammer back. At least we’re sure where she stands. And she has
some brass balls. You, sir, have none. - KISS ME!! I LIKE TO BE KISSED WHEN I’M BEING FUCKED! YOU RINO PIECE OF SHIT!!
- You suck! Turn in your man card!
- Jesus you’re horrible. You democrat/communist enabling fuckwad.
- Does anyone know where I can get some coolaid the Democrats drink? Fuck my party!!
Fun, right??…I know. At the time I wrote this, there were almost 22,000 comments on Boehner’s last post alone.
Now, here’s something else for you crazy liberal kids. I found this
great little site for you to send all of your really pissed off
teabagger friends and family BEFORE you point them to Boehner’s Facebook page. It’s called the Tea Party Insult Generator. Check it out…
http://clotureclub.com/tea-party-insult-generator/
Please take a moment and Like Mindy Fisch
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)