Washington's Bahrain Problem Gets Worse

This week the Bahrain ruling family has revealed itself as an increasingly embarrassing, erratic ally for the United States. Monday’s decision to kick out State Department Assistant Secretary Tom Malinowski was shocking if not entirely surprising.

Malinowski’s sin was, apparently, to talk to Bahrain’s main opposition party Al Wifaq without including a member of the local government in the discussion.

Malinowski was doing the right thing in exploring relationships with the opposition and was due to meet leading members of civil society too. That is what seems to have spooked the regime and led to his being designated as “unwelcome”. Perhaps most ominously, the day after Malinowski was asked to leave, the two top Al Wifaq leaders who had met him were called for interrogation by the security forces.

Those of us who have been following Bahrain’s political crisis over the last few years see it as just the latest incident in a series of rifts between Manama and Washington, and the Bahrain-U.S. government relationship appears to be in freefall. Last week the Bahrain regime further cemented new ties with the Kremlin at a time when the State Department is trying to isolate the Putin government over its aggression towards Ukraine.

This is not the first time we’ve seen something like this from the Bahrain regime. In May 2011, in the early months of the Bahrain pro-democracy protests, the U. S. pulled its human rights officer, Ludovic Hood, from its Bahrain embassy following weeks of ethnic slurs and threats against him by a pro-government website and newspapers. Hood’s photo and address were published, and linked to a wedding photo of him with his “Jewish wife.”

And in February 2012 another senior royal, Commander-in-Chief of the Bahrain Defence Force (BDF), Field Marshal Sheikh Khalifa Bin Ahmad Al Khalifa, was quoted in the local Gulf News charging the United States with being one of seven countries applying pressure on Bahrain and accusing 19 NGOs based in the United States of attempting a coup against Bahrain. Bahraini members of parliament have at various times called for U.S. Ambassador Thomas Krajeski to be replaced and for Michael Posner, Tom Malinsowski’s predecessor as Assistant Secretary of State for the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor, to be declared a persona non grata in Bahrain.

Last year, in May 2013, the Bahrain cabinet – whose senior members are the king’s uncle the Prime Minister, and his eldest son the Crown Prince – approved a parliamentary proposal to, as Information Minister Samira Rajab said, “put an end to the interference of U.S. Ambassador Thomas Krajeski in Bahrain’s internal affairs”.

Tension further increased after President Obama’s September 2013 speech to the U.N. General Assembly, where he referred to “efforts to resolve sectarian tensions that continue to surface in places like Iraq, Bahrain and Syria.” Bahraini officials reacted sharply, with the Bahrain ambassador to the United States claiming, “The president’s statement does not reflect Bahrain’s well known history as a progressive outpost in the Middle East and the progress we have made in responding to the events of February and March 2011,” while Bahrain’s Minister of the Interior suggested, “Bahrain has never experienced a sectarian tension,” and the Foreign Minister claimed that “the King’s achievements” have “immunized our country against any sectarian tensions,” although, in a March 2011 interview, the Foreign Minister was quoted as saying, “We are suffering from tension between Sunnis and Shiites.”

A few weeks later local media reports in Bahrain suggested that General Hugh Shelton, former U.S. military commander and chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, had said that the Obama Administration had worked to destabilize the regimes of Bahrain and Egypt. Sources cited an interview allegedly given to Fox News where Gen. Shelton supposedly stated that the administration’s plot was foiled by the king of Bahrain’s decision to allow Saudi-sponsored GCC troops in to Bahrain to help crush the uprising in 2011.

The U.S. embassy and U.S. Navy in Bahrain both immediately issued statements refuting these reports. “Gen. Shelton confirmed he had never given – and will never give – such a false statement. He also said he had never appeared on Fox News to talk about Bahrain and that it was in 2010 when he last appeared on Fox News to present his autobiography.” Gen. Shelton himself went on record saying, “I am dismayed at reports that attribute to me false allegations regarding U.S. government attempts to destabilize the governments of Bahrain and Egypt, I did not make these statements, and they do not reflect my views. Moreover, to the best of my knowledge, the interview never happened.”

It’s hard to know what it will take before the U.S. finally admits the depth of its Bahrain problem and stops denying that the relationship needs an overhaul. Could the attack on Malinowski be what finally rouses Washington?

U.S. interests in Bahrain clearly can’t be protected by the volatile ruling family. If anything is going to change, Washington needs to respond forcefully to the Malinowski incident by publicly declaring it is in the market for new political engagement in the country, with Al Wefaq and with other opposition forces, including those whose leaders are currently in jail.

Cancer: It's Not All Rainbows and Butterflies

Let me tell you something you already know. That is, cancer isn’t all rainbows and butterflies; it’s a vile, nasty disease, which destroys everything in its wake. I should know; I’m a stage III colon cancer survivor who in the aftermath of this disease is still struggling to recover my so-called life. But lately, I gotta be honest; it’s driving me crazy how lots of people want to pretty up this sickening illness. Sure, you can put lipstick on a pig — i.e. the pig being cancer, but in the end, it’s still a pig. And trust me on this one, there’s not enough lipstick in this world to disguise what cancer does to people’s lives. Cancer is what it is — appalling, obnoxious, disgusting, dreadful, foul, even loathsome. But it’s definitely not sugar and spice and everything nice! So, why can’t we just get real about cancer?

2014-07-10-hufflipstick.jpg

Cancer is more than highly unpleasant, it down right sucks. And with the fight before and after cancer, if you’re lucky enough to have an after, comes pain and frustration. With that said, I think it’s okay, more than okay to admit to ourselves that cancer is hard, and sometimes, alright lots of times it’s scary too. I remember, somewhere between the CT scans, PET scans, and MRIs, I felt scared, really scared. Before I could start chemotherapy, I needed to have a port put into my chest in order to preserve my veins from collapsing. The first round of chemo lasted 10 weeks, in addition to radiation twice a week. And can you believe it; when the hospital implanted the port, they gave me MRSA, a potentially dangerous staph infection. The site was swollen, red, pus-filled, not to mention extremely painful.

Thus in an attempt to save the port, I was forced to sit for hours in an infection specialist clinic. Each and every day for five weeks I received antibiotics intravenously. My particular strain of MRSA was resistant to the first-line antibiotics, so I returned to surgery, not once but three times. You bet I was exhausted after the placement of three ports, two temporary catheters, two rounds of chemo, surgery to remove the tumor, and radiation. Talk about feeling like a f**king pincushion!

And while I was facing all of this my husband would scream over and over, “Get the f**k up and carry your fair share of the work around here!” It didn’t matter that I was in a pretty fragile state, very weak and often vomiting. Over and over, he would tell me to stop being a victim. Forgive me for cursing, but I want to be honest, and when I feel it appropriate, I curse. F.Y.I. — cancer, and in my case an abusive marriage are great reasons to curse up a storm. So, if you or someone you know is feeling the current or post effects of cancer, all I can say is I feel your pain and please hang in there!

2014-07-10-rainbowsoutourbutt.jpg

Thankfully, I’m in remission now but I’m definitely still struggling to recover from rampage of this hideous disease. Cancer didn’t just injure my body; it destroyed me emotionally, mentally, spiritually, and financially. Although cancer was a mixed blessing — proving since my husband couldn’t carry me, he didn’t deserve to marry me. The whole experience became a catalyst for my recent memoir RAW: One Woman’s Journey through Love, Loss, and Cancer. But be forewarned, my book is not for the faint of heart. Some readers might find the content offensive since I refuse to blow rainbows out my ass after facing abuse, divorce, and bankruptcy. Holy smokes, I even survived spousal abandonment during my cancer diagnosis. Any way you dissect it; RAW is raw, really raw. It’s real life, real pain, and it understands that cancer is shocking, frightening, and messy. But that’s not to say that my story is not filled with hope, it is. There really can be a pot of gold at the end of a rainbow or after a long and difficult battle with cancer.

Fiona Finn is the author of RAW: One Woman’s Journey through Love, Loss, and Cancer. and feel free to follow me on twitter at https://twitter.com/fionaburkefinn@fionaburkefinn.

'Blossom' Cast Reunion Gets Personal

It’s every ’90s kid’s dream come true.

The Hub Network started airing “Blossom” reruns this week but they’re giving fans of the show even more to celebrate with these revealing reunion videos. The cast of the show, including Blossom herself, Mayim Bialik, got together to talk about child stardom, how awkward puberty was and where Joey got his signature catchphrase. The film spots will air during a three-hour marathon on Friday night but you can take a look at some of the clips early.

The African Growth and Opportunity Act: Growth Without Opportunity?

This post was co-authored by Greg Randolph.

When President Obama spoke to African leaders gathered in Ethiopia last year, he painted a new vision for U.S. engagement in Africa. “Now we have an opportunity to unleash the next era of African growth together. As we work to renew AGOA in 2015 and continue integrating Africa into the global economy, we also want to make sure that the benefits of Africa’s growth reach all parts of the society.”

The African Growth and Opportunity Act, or AGOA — the U.S. trade preference program granting special duty-free access for 38 African nations — has helped fuel high levels of growth on the continent. But this economic growth has not translated into broad-based economic opportunity for a majority of African people. As the administration seeks renewal for AGOA in 2015, the trade accord must be updated to ensure that growth is creating high-quality employment.

Since its inception in 2000, U.S. imports under AGOA have increased by over 300 percent — from $7.6 billion in 2001 to $24.8 billion in 2013 — and even reached a pre-recession peak of nearly $60 billion in 2008. Ten of the 20 fastest growing economies in the world are AGOA nations.

But economic growth does not always translate into good jobs and shared prosperity. Nowhere is this more apparent than in sub-Saharan Africa.

Nigeria — the top exporter under AGOA — grew at the breakneck pace of 8.3 percent per annum from 2000-2013, benefiting from expanded oil exports. Meanwhile, both general unemployment and youth unemployment remained high at 7.6 percent and nearly 14 percent respectively. And these figures don’t reflect the many people in low-paying and low-productivity jobs.

In Angola — the second biggest exporter under AGOA — 85 percent of GDP comes from oil production and related industries, fueling a growth rate above 8 percent. Meanwhile, 67 percent of Angolans live on less than $2 a day, a figure that has remained virtually unchanged since AGOA benefits were extended there in 2003.

The trend here is clear: trade in sectors like oil, which are capital-intensive rather than job-creating, do much to benefit Gross Domestic Product (GDP) and little to create shared prosperity. Consider, then, that crude petroleum comprised almost 90 percent of the value of all AGOA exports from 2001-2013. The question of what expanded trade under AGOA is actually offering everyday Africans looms large.

And yet, when the United States International Trade Commission — the federal agency responsible for guiding U.S. trade policy — released an almost 400-page report in April assessing the impact of AGOA, it neglected to touch this question.

The first step to ensuring that the benefits of AGOA reach more African people is greater transparency and honesty about what AGOA has achieved and what it hasn’t. Given the evidence to the contrary, it is deceitful to use GDP as a proxy for broad-based economic opportunity in sub-Saharan Africa.

Second, the United States can step up efforts to provide technical assistance to African institutions that reinvest the profits from expanded trade in social goods such as education, health care and infrastructure.

Finally, those negotiating the renewal of AGOA must use the agreement as a vehicle for promoting growth in labor-intensive, high-productivity export industries that can create just jobs for African people — jobs with appropriate remuneration, rights at work, and economic mobility.

Promoting just jobs and economic mobility in Africa helps President Obama fulfill the promise he made last year. It also creates new opportunities for investment and new markets for American products and services in a region of almost a billion people.

As they consider the terms of AGOA’s renewal, American and African leaders have the opportunity to accomplish two goals. First, they can build the kind of thriving middle class in Africa that has driven prosperity in other emerging economies around the world. And second, they can diversify and improve trade and investment prospects between the United States and African countries. High-quality job creation is the key to both.

American Women, It's Time to Declare a Sex Boycott

Ladies, we should pull a Lysistrata.

This is not a joke.

I am 100 percent seriously, actually and with a straight face, advocating a sex boycott by all American women. Starting three days from now (to give all the women in America time to email this to each other and post it on each other’s Facebook walls and print out copies for the nice elderly lady down the street who doesn’t have wifi), all women will stop having sex (with men) until our demands are met.

Now, we need some simple demands that all American women can agree on and aren’t too partisan or specific. I think this is a basic one we can all get behind:

We, all the women in America, refuse to have sex (with men), until all of our elected representatives start actually trying to get our votes.

It’s simple, elegant and not even all that demanding, seeing as how courting our vote is a POLITICIAN’S FUCKING JOB.

And yes, ladies, this needs to be a total sex blackout. We can’t just stop sleeping with the actual politicians. Eventually, even your husband who cares nothing about politics will be writing his representative on your behalf and encouraging him to meet our demands. I mean, you know your husband. How long do you think he can last without sex?

Now a couple of you are probably thinking that your preferred political party IS trying attract your vote.

The Democrats have Hillary Clinton and Elizabeth Warren and that lady with the tennis shoes in Texas (who right this minute is probably being played by Connie Britton in something). And they keep at least introducing laws like the Equal Pay Act… but if we’re being honest with ourselves, we’ve also noticed that whenever their laws don’t pass, our Democratic friends just throw up their hands, go “Republicans, AIMIRIGHT?” and stop trying.

And even if you get all of your news from a fox, if forced, you might admit that the Republicans don’t seem to be trying to court the female vote at all. I know that some of you ladies care more about all the other things Republicans have to offer (guns, and military spending, or, more guns, and “fiscal responsibility” which is like, cutting funding for everything except the guns). But even you have to admit that its a little bit annoying that they are cutting off your access to things like equal pay and equitable health care… and yet still taking your vote for granted. Nobody likes being taken for granted.

Okay, now that we’re all back on the same non-Partisan page: I wonder how long it would take for us to get our constitutional rights protected if every woman in America “got a headache” until it happened. I think male politicians would try to hold out… but they wouldn’t last too long. Judging by how often they get caught with mistresses and prostitutes, politicians seem like a particularly horny group of people. We may only have to suffer for a couple of weeks!

Now, ladies, I would be remiss if I didn’t mention that there is a slight chance of failure. There is a chance that what the politicians actually want is for women to stop having sex. I mean, they don’t want women to have abortions, or birth control, or equal pay, or government-run social safety net programs. This makes the risks associated with sex (aka babies) so astronomically life-ruining that maybe their goal is actually to stop all the women from ever having sex. And seeing as how they are still pro-Viagra… they can finally have an excuse to stop hiding all the Viagra-fueled gay sex they are having with each other.

Aside from that very real possibility, I think a sex boycott is the only way to get them to finally realize that we are the majority of voters in this country and to start actually trying to get us to vote for them– instead of just assuming we will fall in line based on how we feel about the environment, or prayer in schools, or how many guns is the right number of guns. And if the only parts of us they pay attention to are our vaginas anyway, let’s use them to get what we want.

Now, everyone cross your legs (and stop shaving them).

Written by Ashley Nicole Black. This post originally appeared on The Second City Network.

Custom Game of Thrones House Targaryen Pistol: Mother of Handguns

Being the Mother of dragons is cool and all, but sometimes instead of summoning a dragon, you just need to shoot somebody full of holes. Besides, bringing both guns AND dragons to a sword fight insures that you will win.
game of guns 620x408magnify

This Sig Sauer P220 has been customized with a House Targaryen theme. Yeah, let the invading army come. They are going to get a big surprise as they swing their swords and fall to this magical machine. Yeah, Danny has got this one! Assuming she has enough bullets.

Why we need a Game of Thrones handgun, I have no idea, but it’s cool. I suppose it’s only appropriate, since Danny is a real pistol.

[via Geekologie]

How To Finally Get Your Desktop Under Control

How To Finally Get Your Desktop Under Control

It’s easy to dump shortcuts, files and other miscellany on to your desktop for quick access or for convenience’s sake, but before long you can be left with a forest of icons and thumbnails obscuring the wallpaper beneath. If your desktop could use a clean up, we’re here to tell you how to go about it.

Read more…



Walk Around Adam Savage's Mini-Museum on Google Street View

Walk Around Adam Savage's Mini-Museum on Google Street View

Adam Savage isn’t just one half of the Mythbusters power duo, he’s the patron saint of awesome nerdiness. With decades in the movie prop and special effects business, he’s got a jaw-dropping collection of cool stuff—and now you can tour Savage’s Cave on Google Street View. Let’s take a gander!

Read more…



Chromecast's Best New Trick: Make Your Own Infinite Inception Vortex

Now that Chromecast screen mirroring is here , you can beam anything from your phone to your TV. It’s great for playing games and casting content from apps that don’t support Chromecast yet. But the best thing you can do with it is turn on your camera and point it at the screen.

Read more…



Here's What Saving $1.3 Billion On a New Stadium Looks Like

Here's What Saving $1.3 Billion On a New Stadium Looks Like

Yesterday we learned that London-based architect Zaha Hadid had rethought her design for Tokyo’s Olympic Stadium, after widespread protests and a major budget cut put the original design in jeopardy. Dezeen has the new images of the redesigned stadium, and it’s… pretty damn similar, despite a $1.3 billion budget cut.

Read more…