CALM, COOL, COLLECTED

Dresses

One 

Two

Three

Shoes

One

Two

when i was little i could almost inerringly switch back to disney channel right as the ads ended when i was channel surfing.

maybe youve never accidentally crushed a ladybug underfoot. maybe your microwave popcorn never burns. maybe you can spin around lots and lots of times before you get dizzy.

is that magic??

I have a coworker who somehow makes better coffee than everyone else even though the grounds come pre-measured and all you have to do is load them up and push a button.  I have a friend who has inch long nails that never break.  My brother can copy origami just by looking at the finished product and my mother can do the same with knots.  I knew a guy who never made an error when typing.

Embroidered Rose Shorts

Black/Red Cami Dress

Zipper Shorts

Girl Power Crushed Velvet

Mädchen in Natur 

English:

Girls in Nature

Flowers and girls are synonymous. Everyone thinks we are dainty and beautiful things to look at, but we are not. Flowers endure downpours and droughts, frigid and searing temperatures, soil depleted of needed nutrition and neglectful caretakers. Women endure desecration of their existence either maiming themselves or allowing others to maim them to force them into fitting the aforementioned non-confrontational beauty ideal society has for them. Naturally, the harshness of the world has an adverse effect on both. The flower’s petals tear and fall to the ground and the stems from the plants that hold them lose their strength. Then, they become shriveled and droopy shells of something that once was. Women are painted, cut, impregnated, silenced and disheartened on every corner of this earth in one way or another. Any attempt to rebel is met with grave consequences, but yet signs of their internal struggle break through the façade either they created or what was created for them.

Through the digital darkroom I combine film photographs to illustrate the narrative of flowers and women being intertwined. They are put on top of each other and they are blended into each other to reflect their relationship. The model is painted with makeup, but she is not passive or serving as delicate beauty for the viewer. Instead, she tells them that she is fading away and that she is not leaving without you remembering her existence.

what happened? 

tonight (4/6) the united states navy launched 59 tomahawk missiles from the mediterranean at a syrian air base. the strike was approved by trump, but was not approved by congress (we don’t know whether or not congress was notified prior to the strike or not). 

the us launched this strike as a response to syrian president assad’s chemical warfare on his own people that killed approx 70. the strike was aimed at the air base we believe carried out the chemical warfare. so far, no casualties are reported. in 2013, a similar chemical attack happened. i believe approx 1400 died then and syria was forced to hand over its chemical weapons, though obviously they didn’t hand over all of them. 

it is also important to note that in 2013 obama asked congress to approve a similar strike, but congress ignored him. this week, hillary condoned such a strike. the strike is being described by military experts as a “proportional response.” 

what does this mean?

the strike is intended to show us power on the world stage and to further force assad from attacking his own people. 

with concern about russia–assad’s closest ally–it is notable that the russian military was given advanced notice of the strike and it doesn’t appear that any russians were killed. the death of russians, obviously, would have other implications due to our precarious relationship with them atm. 

the strike could potentially put american troops in danger of syrian military retaliation. 

we don’t know if further strikes will ensue. i wouldn’t necessarily bet on it, but it’s possible.

is this constitutional? 

not sure. the legal situation is unsure. usually, a president would go through congress for this, but if the administration can spin it to say that they were concerned abt the welfare of american troops, it could be constitutional. as i’ve said, though this sounds like a huge deal, it’s actually the most minor proportional response to assad, according to experts.

democrats are already voicing concern about trump and the administration’s flip on syria (earlier this week, trump said it was up to the syrian people if assad remains president and he has a history of tweeting that he wouldn’t interfere in syria while obama was president).

also:

it’s notable that michael flynn was replaced by mccaster as national security advisor and steve bannon no longer holds a position on the national security council.

it’s also extremely that important that while the trump admin says it won’t tolerate assad’s abuse of his people, he also doesn’t want to let refugees in.

here’s a washington post article on the strike: [x]

here’s some places to help syria out: doctors w/o borders and SAMS

all of this is intended to clarify the situation without personal opinions attached

what happened? 

tonight (4/6) the united states navy launched 59 tomahawk missiles from the mediterranean at a syrian air base. the strike was approved by trump, but was not approved by congress (we don’t know whether or not congress was notified prior to the strike or not). 

the us launched this strike as a response to syrian president assad’s chemical warfare on his own people that killed approx 70. the strike was aimed at the air base we believe carried out the chemical warfare. so far, no casualties are reported. in 2013, a similar chemical attack happened. i believe approx 1400 died then and syria was forced to hand over its chemical weapons, though obviously they didn’t hand over all of them. 

it is also important to note that in 2013 obama asked congress to approve a similar strike, but congress ignored him. this week, hillary condoned such a strike. the strike is being described by military experts as a “proportional response.” 

what does this mean?

the strike is intended to show us power on the world stage and to further force assad from attacking his own people. 

with concern about russia–assad’s closest ally–it is notable that the russian military was given advanced notice of the strike and it doesn’t appear that any russians were killed. the death of russians, obviously, would have other implications due to our precarious relationship with them atm. 

the strike could potentially put american troops in danger of syrian military retaliation. 

we don’t know if further strikes will ensue. i wouldn’t necessarily bet on it, but it’s possible.

is this constitutional? 

not sure. the legal situation is unsure. usually, a president would go through congress for this, but if the administration can spin it to say that they were concerned abt the welfare of american troops, it could be constitutional. as i’ve said, though this sounds like a huge deal, it’s actually the most minor proportional response to assad, according to experts.

democrats are already voicing concern about trump and the administration’s flip on syria (earlier this week, trump said it was up to the syrian people if assad remains president and he has a history of tweeting that he wouldn’t interfere in syria while obama was president).

also:

it’s notable that michael flynn was replaced by mccaster as national security advisor and steve bannon no longer holds a position on the national security council.

it’s also extremely that important that while the trump admin says it won’t tolerate assad’s abuse of his people, he also doesn’t want to let refugees in.

here’s a washington post article on the strike: [x]

here’s some places to help syria out: doctors w/o borders and SAMS

all of this is intended to clarify the situation without personal opinions attached

what happened? 

tonight (4/6) the united states navy launched 59 tomahawk missiles from the mediterranean at a syrian air base. the strike was approved by trump, but was not approved by congress (we don’t know whether or not congress was notified prior to the strike or not). 

the us launched this strike as a response to syrian president assad’s chemical warfare on his own people that killed approx 70. the strike was aimed at the air base we believe carried out the chemical warfare. so far, no casualties are reported. in 2013, a similar chemical attack happened. i believe approx 1400 died then and syria was forced to hand over its chemical weapons, though obviously they didn’t hand over all of them. 

it is also important to note that in 2013 obama asked congress to approve a similar strike, but congress ignored him. this week, hillary condoned such a strike. the strike is being described by military experts as a “proportional response.” 

what does this mean?

the strike is intended to show us power on the world stage and to further force assad from attacking his own people. 

with concern about russia–assad’s closest ally–it is notable that the russian military was given advanced notice of the strike and it doesn’t appear that any russians were killed. the death of russians, obviously, would have other implications due to our precarious relationship with them atm. 

the strike could potentially put american troops in danger of syrian military retaliation. 

we don’t know if further strikes will ensue. i wouldn’t necessarily bet on it, but it’s possible.

is this constitutional? 

not sure. the legal situation is unsure. usually, a president would go through congress for this, but if the administration can spin it to say that they were concerned abt the welfare of american troops, it could be constitutional. as i’ve said, though this sounds like a huge deal, it’s actually the most minor proportional response to assad, according to experts.

democrats are already voicing concern about trump and the administration’s flip on syria (earlier this week, trump said it was up to the syrian people if assad remains president and he has a history of tweeting that he wouldn’t interfere in syria while obama was president).

also:

it’s notable that michael flynn was replaced by mccaster as national security advisor and steve bannon no longer holds a position on the national security council.

it’s also extremely that important that while the trump admin says it won’t tolerate assad’s abuse of his people, he also doesn’t want to let refugees in.

here’s a washington post article on the strike: [x]

here’s some places to help syria out: doctors w/o borders and SAMS

all of this is intended to clarify the situation without personal opinions attached