Manny should not have been PPRd based on TOS because it doesn't apply until after the general election season has begun:
"When we are not in the heat of election season, members are permitted to post strong criticism or disappointment with our Democratic elected officials, or to express ambivalence about voting for them."
"In Democratic primaries, members may support whomever they choose."
"For presidential contests, election season BEGINS when both major-party nominees become clear."
It's still primary season. General election season has not yet begun and it won't begin until after we've actually elected someone to represent us. Neither Democrats nor Republicans have yet chosen a candidate.
Manny could say he's planning to write in Atilla the Hun for president and it wouldn't be against DU TOS as it's currently written. That line doesn't get crossed until AFTER we've actually chosen a Democratic candidate to proceed to the general election.
PPRing Manny is petty, divisive DU politics run amok. I'm disappointed to see that Skinner has inadvertently been dragged into and is now complicit in the obvious chicanery of the DU primary wars. I hope he'll reconsider his decision.
Manny deserves, minimally, to be reinstated until after we have chosen a Democratic candidate and the general election season has officially begun.
I know Catherina outside of DU. She is a beautiful black woman whose politics are passionately progressive and left leaning in the extreme. She is learned, well travelled, multilingual and one of the most intelligent people I've ever had the pleasure to call my friend. With a strong penchant for research, her contributions to DU have been legendary.
Catherina is a kind, compassionate human being who, as a citizen of the world, fights for the oppressed and the downtrodden of every hue. She's always been a staunch defender of equality and the basic human rights of LGBTQ people and of all peoples everywhere, regardless of party affiliation.
Several DU forum groups, as they pertain to the divisive 2016 primary season, have served to drive a wedge between well meaning, long time members of DU. Catherina's comment on twitter to Brother Ivan, "fuck those house ni**ers and their plantation mistresses," was a reference to black people who try to ingratiate themselves to the white power structure; because they got theirs and don't care about the more unfortunate who are left behind. It is a direct reference to Malcolm X's speech on 'the difference between the house negro and the field negro' which she had also posted on her twitter that same day.
If certain DUers imagined themselves in Catherina's sites regarding this comment, it was only by proxy of their complicity at the HCS forum and then finding screen grabs of their chicanery posted on DU.
As Catherina is a black woman, I will defend her right to use the language of her choice when calling out people of color and their allies. If you've ever read BlackTwitter, you know that her comment was mild by comparison to the daily exchange of ideas found there. If people were to take offense at every single edgy comment found on BlackTwitter, they would be eternally outraged.
If you feel offended by Catherina's comments to another POC on twitter, you may need to take a step back and consider why you found yourself reading her tweets in the first place and why you thought her comments might possibly have included you. If you've been engaging in nasty exchanges about DUers on a password protected site that is separate from DU, then you probably already know the answer.
Catherina has a long, respected history here. Taking her words and twisting them into racist fodder to fit a particular GDP agenda and thereby rewriting history is disingenuous. The Hillary/Bernie primary wars have cast a deep division on DU.
For the record, I don't yet support any one primary candidate in particular; it's a zero sum game. I do, however, support the way I remember DU and the way that it used to be in the months leading up to an election. Sadly, and by comparison, those halcyon days appear to have come and gone.
If you're a neoliberal, then you've probably found yourself at odds with Catherina but that doesn't justify the night of the long knives. Hopefully, DUers can look at this latest outrage du jour and separate the wheat from the chaff. Catherina is not a troll. She just happens to be a strong advocate for the Bernie campaign, who has decided to take a break from the insanity that is currently DU.
I don't claim to know everything about Catherina's politics but neither am I willing to throw her to the wolves during a time of upheaval. She has proven her liberal bonafides and I will gladly stand by her side during this time of dissension and welcome her back if she should ever change her mind about leaving DU.
I would like to believe that I have friends on both sides of this controversy but after this post, I guess I'll find out. Meanwhile, we have an election to attend to and a candidate to choose.
...before Jeb's campaign staff got ahold of it:
...(Idaho is one state north of Utah, where I currently reside.)
(published in the Idaho State Bar Advocate Magazine, Mar/Apr 2015)
(by) Arthur B. Macomber
In Idaho, regardless of the lawful geographic position of the drone operator, Idaho law prohibits the flying of drones1 into properly posted private property airspace without permission of the title owner or possessor of that airspace.2
In Idaho, real property includes land3 and land includes airspace.4 Rights in and limitations on the use of airspace in Idaho are governed by state statute and federal law, the latter through the commerce clause of the U.S. Constitution.5 However, in Idaho Code Flight in aircraft over the lands and waters of this state is lawful. . . , which implies a person inside the aircraft, not flight of a remote-piloted drone.6
Civil trespass and drones
Since property in Idaho includes the air space above it, a person flying a drone into airspace owned by another without permission is trespassing, subject to the right of flight. If a person without permission enters the real property of another with notice that such entry is a trespass, and nonetheless continues his trespass, the landowner plaintiff may be entitled to punitive damages.31 Therefore, while the definitions of permission and entry will refine the issue, flying a drone into private property airspace should initially be analyzed as a common-law tort.
Privacy and drones
Certain uses of unmanned aircraft in Idaho are prohibited without written consent, even if entry into the airspace owned by another does not occur.39 These activities, absent a warrant, (except for emergency responses for health and safety), include surveillance of persons or property, gathering evidence or information about a person or property, photographically or electronically record[ing] specific [ ] persons or specific [ ] private property is a dwelling, farm, dairy, ranch or other architectural industry.40
Thus, even if an unmanned aircraft system operator in Idaho stands on a public street where she is legally allowed to be, she cannot fly her unmanned aircraft in the air above that public street to watch specific persons or specific private property that may abut that public street without written consent of the persons being watched or the property owner.41 For this reason, the statute as written is overbroad because it prohibits photographic aerial capture of then-presently occurring constitutionally-protected speech activity, such as protests, speeches, or rallies.42
- See more at: http://macomberlaw.com/advocate-article-trespass-privacy-and-drones-in-idaho-no-snooping-allowed/#sthash.OtGRP4K3.dpuf
Utah law already places strict limits on the use of drones by law enforcement. http://blog.tenthamendmentcenter.com/2014/04/utah-governor-signs-bill-to-restrict-drone-use/
I have no doubt that private property laws in Utah, trump drone operators' desire to invade my privacy through invasion of privately owned airspace. It may end up in court but I am confident about the jury finding, as a landowner, in my favor.
...and borrow from it as a way to define herself, I don't understand what the problem is. People have been "passing" as one race over another for eons.
Consider the 70s "Crying Indian Chief" commercial with the tearful "Native American" guy who turned out to be Italian. He claimed to be of Cherokee-Cree descent and maintained the illusion throughout his adult life.
Carol Channing passed as white so as not to hurt her career as an actress. She finally outed herself when she was 81 by admitting that her father had been half black.
What about Michael Jackson? He tried desperately to convince the world (and himself) that he had white skin. Mariah Carey pushed her multiracial ethnicity early in her carrier. So did Tiger Woods. People appear to fashion identities that make them feel comfortable in their own skin.
Rachel Dolezal has been immersed in black culture for most of her life. She had African American siblings by way of adoption and she was, at one time, married to a black man. She also, apparently, parented at least one of her black siblings for a time.
The "one drop" rule and the fact that we all share a common African ancestry should buttress her right to explore African culture if she so chooses, but I think it goes deeper than that. She has attempted to walk the walk while consistently advocating on behalf of the African American community. Everything that Rachel Dolezal has stood for and worked for in her adult life, has been in the interest of defending and honoring black culture.
Berating someone because of their skin color, in this day and age, seems backward and counterintuitive. People are willing to attack her for attempting to wear a 'black' hairstyle but say nothing when Beyonce wears a straight blonde wig. They both should be able to wear their hair in any style that makes them happy.
As an actual multiracial person, by way of her Czech, Swedish, German and Native American roots, she should be allowed to self-identify in any way she chooses. How she rolls is no threat to anyone else's blackness or whiteness. She genuinely appreciates and loves African American people and black culture. She's worked tirelessly for racial equality, civil rights and an end to racism and police brutality.
The NAACP supports her multiracial identity and so do I.
...that ALL activists (to include gay activists and black activists) add the fight for women's rights to their activism dockets. (You don't have to be gay or black to be involved in the fight for equality and basic human rights.)
If someone hearing Patricia Arquette's comment is already fighting for women's equality then her backstage comment doesn't apply to them. Her request for solidarity only applies to those people who are not already on board with equality for women, and activists with a narrow purview of which causes are important enough to fight for.
Black women are already included in Patricia Arquette's "us" and "we" category of "all women" by virtue of their gender. Unless there are black women who've been actively campaigning against equality for women, the call for solidarity by Patricia Arquette does not apply to them, since they are already "us." "That we've all fought for" "that we've" includes black feminists. " to fight for us now" "us" includes ALL women of every stripe and hue.
Her initial call for equal wages for women, while onstage, sets the parameters for deciphering additional comments on the same topic backstage. If she hadn't already established intent with her first comment, then her backstage comment might be open to interpretation but she did, and it isn't.
Without the first comment, I can see how the second comment might be misconstrued, but we DO have the first comment which sets the rules by which the second comment is to be judged. Anyone not understanding the thrust of the backstage comment need look no further than the onstage comment to correctly decipher and parse intent.
She didn't demand anything. She merely requested solidarity from those who are already inclined toward activism. She requested support in the fight for women's rights. She didn't qualify that statement by saying "white women's rights," she said, "all women's rights" regardless of straight, gay, black or white. Her fight is for wage equality for ALL women, period.
She's asking that ALL people join in the fight for women's equality. If you're already on board, then her words were not directed at you. But, if you are female, her goal for women's equality is meant to benefit YOU, regardless of color or sexual propensity.
She didn't imply that other oppressed groups have "won their victories." She didn't say "you owe us." That's you projecting.
She's fighting for equality for ALL women, including you, while you're doing nothing but tear her down for her efforts.
You might be the one that needs to take a step back and reevaluate.
Profile InformationMember since: 2002
Number of posts: 8,028