HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » UTUSN » Journal
Page: 1 2 Next »


Profile Information

Gender: Male
Member since: 2001
Number of posts: 64,160

Journal Archives

So ANTI-secession (Texas) is *settled law*?! - wait a minnit! - where have we heard "settled law"

before?! --- oh, yes, it's coming to me, don't RUSH me: Here it is,

In all the sworn testimony of those wingnut nominees to the SCofUS, where they swore up and down that this-or-that was settled law. Also that they profoundly respected that other thing, "stare decisis" or somesuch.

So when the Texas wingnuts declared their wish to secede (again), all the so-called and self-called "legal experts" immediately went into their tut-tut, tsk-tsk, pooh-pooh mode, to the effect of their god SCALIA's saying, "It was settled in 1865."

*** Don't be too sure, especially where Texas wingnuts are involved, since *their* precedent goes along these lines: Crossing a "porous border" into a country of a different religion and a different policy against slavery, and these Whites spoke in tongues to their Brown hosts, swearing to at least put up with Catholicism and not own other people. When really, their concept of giving their word meant "biding time" to figure out the weak points and how soft the target was until they gathered the contents of their britches to take what they really wanted, Word or no word. And when they grabbed their Promised Land, they made up their own constitution making slavery legal.

And White wingnuts have found Teh "Brown ones" (said Poppy BUSH of his grandchildren) to be a soft target indeed, the BUSH Family Evil Empire being the shining example itself of a hot knife through butter. Poppy and Shrub had the touch with Teh Browns, about how needy they were for just a smile and a hug and just one little mangled WORD of "Spanish lingo" (LIMBAUGH), and used the touch as one brick in career building (and more feeding at the public trough). JEB's problem was not smiling enough to cover horrible policies, and son Pee Shrub just had NO charm at all, just sour besides being half-Brown. JEB was supposedly "smart" but didn't think outside the box like Poppy and Shrub.

*** So the Brits thought Brexit wouldn't happen; the "Royals" thought Mexit wouldn't happen; and most of the country thought Drumpf wouldn't happen.

Not saying the Texas wingnuts will secede, who knows how soon, but never underestimate the impossible. The whole planet might be blown up any given day, too, so there's that.

Australians have the simple answers to American mental gridlock over gun management

I haven't seen Meet the Press for a decade+ but just saw a clip of guest former (prime minister?) saying that after a gun massacre in the '90s, Australia enacted a prohibition on the assault type (am sure I'll be corrected), a 28 day waiting period on buying others, and a buy-back program removing a humongous number of guns. He also said, "You can CHANGE the law." And that there have been zero of the massacres the U.S. has been having all these years.

Then this Australian comedian popped into my machine, "shooting down" (so to speak) all the arguments that American gun nuts and NRA use here to fuel the gun mania.

*****PARAPHRASE, from bad memory (the dude is much more cogent and hilarious) : ***

(American gun nuts say: ) "You can't change the Second Amendment!1" - Yes you can, it's an *AMENDMENT*! If you don't know what that is, you don't need a constitution, you need a *THESAURUS*!

They say, "We need them for hunting." Australia is a rural country. We have more dangerous wild animals (and we don't need all that hunting).

(Gun nuts) argue the way slave owners could have done: "You can't take away my slaves - I take care of them, just because that other guy mistreats them why should you take MINE away?!1"

(Gun nuts) say, "I need them for my family's SECURITY!" - No, you don't, if you didn't leave the window open they wouldn't get in. They say, "I keep my guns safely LOCKED UP!" Then what do you need them for?

They say, "It's THE CONSTITUTION!" - We have a constitution in Australia. I don't know what it says. If something goes wrong, we'll check out what it says. Since things are going all right, just let it be.

You don't have reasons for all the gun mania, other than you JUST *LIKE* GUNS.

*************CLOSE PARAPHRASE***********

"Hollywood on Trial" documentary, 1976. Names and other names

In the snippets of the wingnuts who testified, ratted, stoolied, funny/odd how wingnuts are the same "type" then as now - yuk yuk good ol'boys with the inside "jokes", secret handshakes, and we're/wingnuts on the INSIDE - John WAYNE, RAYGUN blustering the same as he ever did, Gary COOPER saying his profession was "actor" with a shy aw-shucks "cuteness" pseudo-embarrassed self-deprecating smile, like he suspects *everybody* knows who/what he is. So cute (not). A-holes.

On the bright side, Lauren BACALL and BOGART and others attending to protest. And the Repuke chairman of the sub-committee eventually got jailed for corruption and ended up in the same Federal prison as Ring LARDNER, Jr.


Hollywood Ten,

in U.S. history, 10 motion-picture producers, directors, and screenwriters who appeared before the House Un-American Activities Committee in October 1947, refused to answer questions regarding their possible communist affiliations, and, after spending time in prison for contempt of Congress, were mostly blacklisted by the Hollywood studios. The 10 were Alvah Bessie, Herbert Biberman, Lester Cole, Edward Dmytryk, Ring Lardner, Jr., John Howard Lawson, Albert Maltz, Samuel Ornitz, Adrian Scott, and Dalton Trumbo.

The group originally included the German writer Bertolt Brecht, but Brecht fled the country on the day following his inquest, and the remaining 10 were voted in contempt of Congress on November 24, 1947. Convicted in federal court the following year, they were given sentences of six months to one year in prison. (While in prison, Dmytryk broke with the rest and agreed to cooperate, admitting being a communist and giving the names of 26 others.)

HISTORY | OCTOBER 20, 2017 9:00 AM
Hollywood Actors Who Were Blacklisted During the Red Scare
October 20th marks the 70th anniversary of the start of the notorious Red Scare.

Back in 1947, a Congressional committee began investigating Communist influence in Hollywood starting Oct. 20th.

The Cold War began to heat up between the United States and communist-controlled Soviet Union after World War II, writes History. The House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC) began questioning a number of prominent witnesses, asking “Are you or have you ever been a member of the Communist Party?” Some witnesses gave the committee names, whether out of fear or patriotism. A small group, called The Hollywood Ten, resisted, History explains, saying this violated their First Amendment rights. All 10 were convicted of obstructing the investigation and served jail time. Hollywood then started a blacklist policy, banning the work of about 325 screenwriters, directors and actors who the committee had not yet cleared. Some people were able to keep working, whether it was through pseudonyms or crediting their friends. It wasn’t until the 1960s that the ban began to lift, and finally, in 1997, the Writers’ Guild of America unanimously voted to change the writing credits of 23 films made during the blacklist period, reports History.

Time put together a list of entertainers who were blacklisted. Check out some of them below. ....

Charlie Chaplin
Burgess Meredith
Orson Welles
Lena Horne
Langston Hughes
Arthur Miller
Pete Seeger
Gypsy Rose Lee
Leonard Bernstein
Dorothy Parker
John Garfield
Burl Ives
Uta Hagen
Judy Holliday
Artie Shaw
Dashiell Hammet
Lloyd Bridges


Switzerland has a simple "drivers license" system for guns without the U.S. mass killings

In my zero zone of influence I have wondered why a simple drivers' licensing system for guns doesn't attract anybody: Vetting for mental competence, training, testing, a time-limited permit that is renewable (or not) and subject to revocation.

So simple, surely should be obvious. *Not* confiscation of all guns or all the boogeymen U.S. gun-nutters raise.

It turns out that something like this has been in place in Switzerland since whenever.


Switzerland has a stunningly high rate of gun ownership — here's why it doesn't have mass shootings

…. Swiss authorities decide on a local level whether to give people gun permits. They also keep a log of everyone who owns a gun in their region, known as a canton, though hunting rifles and some semiautomatic long arms are exempt from the permit requirement. ….

People who've been convicted of a crime or have an alcohol or drug addiction aren't allowed to buy guns in Switzerland.

The law also states that anyone who "expresses a violent or dangerous attitude" won't be permitted to own a gun.

Gun owners who want to carry their weapon for "defensive purposes" also have to prove they can properly load, unload, and shoot their weapon and must pass a test to get a license. ….


Small comfort that the latest mass murderer was a U.S. Citizen

It doesn’t take much imagination to figure out what wingnut hysteria would be unleashed if it had been an undocumented immigrant.

The seminal event for the U.S. wasn’t the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution, it was ***SALEM, Massachusetts***. The unhinged, insane, malignant religiosity of mob hysteria that has popped up periodically ever since in different guises of hatred – towards “Others” of other beliefs, foreigners, or races, boogeymen.

So the Wingnuts are about nothing if not about demonizing outsiders and attempting to impose THEIR personal BELIEF systems and “choices” on everybody else. Whether on being anti-Choice or on their so-called “Second Amendment rights” they impose and dictate.

So RESOLVED: That any criminal shootings that happen be classified as WINGNUT killers, irrespective of race, ethnicity, ideology, or religion.

And what “solution” do the Texas wingnuts bandy about? Why, naturally, as their criminal “attorney general” Ken PAXTON immediately barfed out (again): To ARM teachers. They/wingnuts in Texas (Texas Texas Texas) have already set this up on the home front in legislation. If the shooter had been an Undocumented, their front would have been a nationwide SALEM hysteria.

A reporter asked PAXTON, “MORE guns (instead of FEWER)?”

A modest, common sense plan for gun management would be something like Drivers Licensing: Screening, training, testing, time-limited permits subject to review and renewal (or terminated, or not renewed).

Perhaps it could appeal to the Wingnut gun nuts if they realized a whole new industry of screeners and trainers would BOOM (so to speak). They love programs that have boondoggles attached (like "walls" or wars for enterprising contractors).

SanFran silly boy archbishop declared a Crusade/Inquisition on PELOSI, got communion elsewhere

My local wingnut who always harped on if-you're-Pro-Choice-you-ain't-a-Catholic once told me to join some Presbyterian or Methodist outfit.

(SIDEBAR: The farmworkers/migrants deserted the Cath into the evangelicals decades ago on the basis of Rich Church, statue-worship, virgin was a ***. )

Uh, I happen to “believe” that values/principles/beliefs are born and permanent, not switched around. Besides that I don't hew to any "religious" mindset. Although Mister NIETSCHE said everybody should examine themselves (he was a Classics/Greek professor, shades of Davis HANSEN to a much lesser degree) and figure out what is real and good for yourself NOT what you were BORN with, but then he also denounced FOLLOWERS, so I don’t FOLLOW. And (EMERSON? – no, WHITMAN) said, “I contradict myself” fine.

So the “archbishop” of SanFran declared he won’t bestow communion on a lifelong, Catholic, Italian-American PELOSi on the basis of his medieval interpretation a “Catholic” point. Yea, my learned cousin taught me that the Pope has no jurisdiction over all the scattered bishops, that the Pope is *ONLY* a bishop himself, the Bishop of Rome.

So, the Pope has already bestowed the communion thing on PELOSI, and as seen below, she can get it in another jurisdiction. States rights, doncherno.


Maya R. Cummings, Ph.D. @MayaRCummings According to @playbookdc
SPOTTED: Speaker NANCY PELOSI at the 9 a.m. Mass at Holy Trinity in Georgetown, where she was given communion.


My generosity to you is not to accuse you of attributing those things to me, personally.

In your list:
Slut-shaming a sex-positive woman
and most recently
Ageism (how dare a woman in her 60s still be interested in sex!!!!!)"

you left out *my* stated critiques:
Boring thudding simple 4x4 rhythm, pretentiousness, copying (no, not "reinventing" self) others, no melodic beauty, monotonous sing-song, and much more than I've been exposed to.

Yeah, I'm going to lay claim to MOZART's catalog, "reinventing", doncherno.

Forgot to mention her talk show appearnces - pretentious, stupid.

& her & JACKSON's cash magnet is a mystery to me.

Dedication to PUTEEN: Dance of the Cygnets - may it be soon


How 'Swan Lake' became a symbol of protest in Russia

The famous Russian ballet may seem like an unlikely choice to foreigners, but it is a powerful historical reference for Russians that is being used as one of several coded forms of protest during the war, according to Russian State University anthropologist Alexandra Arkhipova. ....

One of those ways is through the image of ballerinas from "Swan Lake." Graffiti depicting the line of four ballerinas in the "Dance of the Cygnets" has been popping up on walls in Russian cities. Earlier last month, when independent Russian news outlet TV Rain signed off indefinitely due to pressure over its coverage of the conflict, it did so with a clip from "Swan Lake."

The moment was a nod to when Soviet state TV interrupted programming by airing the ballet on a loop after the death of Premier Leonid Brezhnev in 1982 while Soviet leaders selected a successor. The same thing happened again after the deaths of Yuri Andropov in 1984 and Konstantin Chernenko in 1985, as well as during a failed coup against Mikhail Gorbachev in 1991 -- becoming a sign of political instability and upheaval."

In the late Soviet times, this ballet was a symbol of all of the deaths of the Soviet leaders," Arkhipova said. "And so that's why it became a sign that we are waiting for Putin to die." ....


A (of many) defining vignette of Orrin "Shirley TEMPLE pout" HATCH: "Mee-gwell" Estrada

Despite his 42 years of wingnut service, he was too "moderate", Deep State, or even "Left" for today's wingnuts, Drumpf Deplorables, and troglodytes. Among the many flip-flops that marked him, hah! notice how he was the only senior Repuke to miss Drumpf's inauguration - *not* from principle - but under the PENCE-like cover of being Drumpf's choice as "designated survivor" - the way PENCE only did some "heroic" resistance when he knew he had a rock solid cover (the Constitution).

So there's no mention of Orrin's being the face shepherding Miguel ESTRADA's nomination to a Court of Appeals. This was from Poppy BUSH's playbook with Clarence THOMAS - nominating a Minority member, from a supposedly Dem constituent group, the trap being making it that bit harder for Dems to use attacks as a tool, attack on a Minority member. There are turncoats in any group. There are Right Wings in any country of whatever ethnicity. So the answer to the Poppy BUSH Gambit of nominating Minority members is for Dems not to be distracted by the ethnic/racial heritage of the nominee and JUST FOCUS on that jerk's self-proclaimed WINGNUTTINESS.

So back then the Dems were still flummoxed off balance by being faced by another nominee who was a Minority member. And there was Orrin facing the press, making Dem opposition as all about ethnicity, a bit of lauding ESTRADA's overcoming hardships to get where he was, but mostly attacking Dems with aspersions of racism, all with the pretense of being INNOCENT and pseudo-appalled at the mystery of how Dems could claim to be champions of Minorities and then oppose a (any) Minority member.

He would pout like a sweet three year old, asking, (paraphrase) "How can Democrats claim to be champions of Minorities and oppose -- Mee-Gwell Estrada?!!"

It's pronounced: mee-ghel not mee-gwell.

So my little memory of HATCH is how he would put on that Shirley TEMPLE Pout and just trade off of his pretend innocence.

Below is a sampling of his *many* disingenuous flip-flops with the veneer of high-mindedness, while all the time serving nefarious wingnut purposes.

*** ON EDIT: Can anybody explain to me why "disingenuous" is used as a pejorative, a very PALE derogative? It means "dissembling" or pretending to be other than what it really is for the purpose acting innocent while being nefarious. And its so *MILD* as a pejorative. OOoo wee, what a ZINGER!1



…. In the 2016 presidential election, Hatch originally supported former Florida Governor Jeb Bush and later endorsed Florida Senator Marco Rubio once Bush ended his campaign. On May 12, 2016, after Donald Trump became the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, Hatch endorsed him.[24] On May 27, 2016, after Trump suggested that a federal judge Gonzalo P. Curiel was biased against Trump because of his Mexican heritage, Hatch said: "From what I know about Trump, he's not a racist but he does make a lot of outrageous statements...I think you can criticize a judge but it ought to be done in a formal way" and said that Trump's statements were not so inappropriate that he would rescind his support.[25][better source needed] On October 7, 2016, following the Donald Trump Access Hollywood controversy, Hatch described Trump's comments as "offensive and disgusting" and said that "[there] is no excuse for such degrading behavior. All women deserve to be treated with respect."[26] Hatch maintained his endorsement of Trump's candidacy.[27] ….

In 2017, Hatch was one of 22 senators to sign a letter[129] to President Donald Trump urging the President to have the United States withdraw from the Paris Agreement. According to OpenSecrets, Hatch has received over $470,000 from oil, gas and coal interests since 2012.[130]

In 2018, over the Judge Kavanaugh Supreme Court controversy, Hatch said that it did not matter even if Kavanaugh did what his accusers alleged was true. Hatch said, "If that was true, I think it would be hard for senators to not consider who the judge is today. That's the issue. Is this judge a really good man? And he is. And by any measure he is.”[131]

Hatch voted for the impeachment of President Bill Clinton in 1999, saying "committing crimes of moral turpitude such as perjury and obstruction of justice go to the heart of qualification for public office... ….

Miguel Angel Estrada Castañeda

(born September 25, 1961) is a Honduran-American attorney who became embroiled in controversy following his 2001 nomination by President George W. Bush to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Senate Democrats, unable to block his nomination in the Senate Judiciary Committee after the Republican Party took control of the U.S. Senate in 2002, used a filibuster for the first time to prevent his nomination from being given a final confirmation vote by the full Senate. They said Estrada was a conservative ideologue with no experience as a judge.[1]

Following law school, Estrada served as a law clerk, first for Judge Amalya Lyle Kearse of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, and then for Justice Anthony M. Kennedy of the U.S. Supreme Court during Kennedy's first year on the Court in 1988. … ….

In his testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Estrada said he had never thought about Roe v. Wade, even while serving as a Supreme Court clerk at a time when the first Bush Administration had asked the Court to reconsider it.[3] Also, while as Justice Kennedy's clerk, an article written by Jack Newfield appearing in The Nation magazine alleged that Estrada had disqualified candidates for clerkship who were too liberal while interviewing them. When questioned about this by Senator Charles Schumer during his confirmation hearing, Estrada did not recall the incident.[4] … ….

Leaked internal memos to Democratic Senate Minority Whip Dick Durbin mention liberal interest groups' desire to keep Estrada off the court because of his potential to be a future Supreme Court nominee, and because his Latino roots might make his nomination difficult to oppose.[6] A spokesman for Durbin said that "no one intended racist remarks against Estrada" and that the memo only meant to highlight that Estrada was "politically dangerous" because Democrats knew he would be an "attractive candidate" that would be difficult to contest since he didn't have any record.[6] Democrats argued that Estrada had extreme right-wing views, although others pointed to Estrada's difference with some conservatives on Commerce Clause issues.[7] ….



Go to Page: 1 2 Next »