HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » kpete » Journal


Profile Information

Member since: Fri Sep 17, 2004, 03:59 PM
Number of posts: 55,322

Journal Archives

Which one is Trayvon?

Colbert: Yes, it was the hoodie's fault.

TUE MAR 27, 2012 AT 05:00 AM PDT
Stephen Colbert's must-see take on Trayvon Martin's murder


Yes, it was the hoodie's fault. A hooded sweatshirt can make an innocent teen look like a criminal. Just like a suit and glasses can make Geraldo Rivera look like a journalist. (wild audience applause)

Now, I believe, and this is urgent, Congress must pass strict hoodie-control legislation. It is terrifying to live in a country where you can walk into any Walmart, and buy a hoodie right off the rack. No background check. No 7-day waiting period. (No Drawstrings Attached)

Now, many parents keep their hoodies in an unlocked drawer where their kids can get at them. That's why my hoodies are hidden in the back of my gun closet. Plenty of room in there, because I keep my guns in my pockets, in case anyone comes for my hoodies. (Gun Also Says "Juicy" Across The Butt)


And what's important is that we get the powerful hoodie lobby out of politics, so Americans of all races can have a frank and open discussion of clothing control before it's too late. Because if we ever stop talking about these hoodies, we might start talking about guns. And that's the Wørd.

MORE (video & transcript):

Sick, just sick: "God will Forgive You" if "you CONSENTED to incest/molestation"

Christian Broadcasting Network Says I "may feel guilty because I consented to incest"

If You Were Abused

Sexual abuse is a traumatic experience, but it doesn't have to ruin your life. You may feel guilty because you consented to incest or allowed yourself to be molested. Or perhaps you and/or the abuser were Christians when the sin took place. Nevertheless, God will forgive you.

Many who have been willing or unwilling victims of incest or molestation have memories which deny them the freedom to live without hate, bitterness and resentment, fear and/or a desire for revenge. Yet you can be free and even find forgiveness for the abuser in your heart. Jesus and Stephen, at the time of their deaths, were both able to forgive those who executed them. Both looked to heaven and asked God to forgive the sins of those who were guilty. If you are a Christian, you have authority and influence with God concerning remittance of sin or retention of sin (John 20:23). God will listen to your prayer. Just remember that Jesus came to forgive rather than to condemn (John 3:16).


Catholic Bishops Lose a Big Battle Over Contraception

Catholic Bishops Lose a Big Battle Over Contraception

Who Needs Faith-Based Programs?
by BooMan
Mon Mar 26th, 2012 at 06:34:40 PM EST

If you were a sex slave who had recently been rescued, do you think you might want access to the full plethora of women's reproductive health care, including (potentially) abortion services and information about contraception? Well, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops didn't think so. And since the USCCB had a huge contract with the federal government to help victims of human trafficking that meant the official federal policy was being conflated with the teachings of the Catholic Church. The ACLU sued and just won their case in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts. The judge is a Clinton-appointee. If this case were to hold up under appeal, it would probably end the rationale for continuing George W. Bush's Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships. Which would be fine by me.

Basically, the judge said the government can't subcontract to a religious group if that religious group is going to use the money to impose its religious beliefs on others. The Obama administration had already terminated the USCCB's contract. Now they look justified.


Common sense from Massachusetts

But on Friday, a federal judge in Massachusetts essentially validated the Obama administration's position, ruling in favor of the ACLU in the lawsuit over the contract. Even though the bishops no longer have the contract, they had joined with the ACLU in asking the judge to rule in the case to settle the constitutional issues. US District Judge Richard Stearns explained why the bishops were in the wrong. He wrote:

To insist that the government respect the separation of church and state is not to discriminate against religion; indeed, it promotes a respect for religion by refusing to single out any creed for official favor at the expense of all others....This case is about the limits of the government's ability to delegate to a religious institution the right to use taxpayer money to impose its beliefs on others (who may or may not share them).


Arizona Woman Emails Representative Jack Harper; Harper Calls Her "Baby-Killer"

MON MAR 26, 2012 AT 10:10 PM PDT
Arizona Woman Emails Representative Jack Harper; Harper Calls Her "Baby-Killer"

Below is the text of an email written by a woman (she gave us permission to reprint here but we have removed her name) who responded to her local State Representative, Jack Harper about the recent Arizona anti-abortion bills and suggestions from Terri Proud that women should have to watch a video of abortions being performed before having the procedure.

Representative Jack Harper wrote:

The only "laughing stock" in Arizona is the Democratic Party that has lost seats in the state legislature for five consecutive election cycles. Maybe you should change your baby-killer message. Why don't you move back to China where your "party" controls the message by force.


State Representative Jack Harper



In response to this email, a member of NOW (National Organization for Women) and feminist blogger, Lisa Blank called to verify that Jack Harper had personally sent the message telling a constituent her reproductive rights message is a 'baby killer message.' His office confirmed with, "Rep. Harper does respond to his own emails and if you saw the email on the Internet it is most likely correct."


Confidential NOM Internal Doc: Goals=Fan Hostility & Create A Race War Between Black/Latino/Gay

Final line I'm amazed NOM put on paper:
Goal of "fanning the hostility" btw blacks and gays
This is seriously f'd up.

A "confidential" internal document of the lead anti-"gay marriage" group, the National Organization for Marriage" (NOM), shows that the organization was not simply content at taking civil rights away from gay couples, they wanted to start a political race war between black, Latino and white Democrats, and they admitted it in writing. They outright admitted that a top goal of the anti-"gay marriage" movement is "fanning the hostility" between blacks and white gays, and between Latinos and gays. They write of the black community, and Latinos, as if they're mere puppets for the religious right to manipulate. And finally, the document seems to suggest that the goal here is not simply to stop the advance of gay civil rights, but rather to hurt the Democratic party.


Monday, March 26, 2012
Court documents prove NOM's plan to divide black, gay communities

The National Organization for Marriage's unsuccessful fight to skirt Maine's financial disclosure laws just backfired majorly on the group by revealing a distasteful part of its game plan to stop marriage equality.

According to a court document that was uploaded online, NOM specifically worked to drive a wedge between the black and gay community on the subject of marriage equality:

According to page 11 of this document called Marriage: $20 Million Strategy for Victory:

Here's the key passage about gays and blacks (and there's also a strategy for Latinos):

The strategic goal of this project is to drive a wedge between gays and blacks - two key democratic constituencies. We aim to find, equip, energize and connect African American spokespeople for marriage; to develop a media campaign around their objections to gay marriage as a civil right; and to provoke the gay marriage base into responding by denouncing these spokesmen and women as bigots. No politician wants to take up and push an issue that splits the base of the party.


A Furious Lawrence O’Donnell Interrogates Empty Chair After George Zimmerman’s Lawyer Cancels

Source: Mediate

George Zimmerman‘s attorney, one Craig Sonner, seemed a bit out of his league when he tried to answer such difficult questions from Anderson Cooper on Friday as “where is your client?” and “did he tell you what happened that night?” So it may not be that big of a shock that he canceled his appearance with Lawrence O’Donnell last-minute tonight. What may come as a surprise is that O’Donnell went on and did the segment anyway, interrogating an empty chair about who was paying its legal fees and what it feared it would have to argue to keep his client out of trouble.

The segment began with O’Donnell reporting first on some of the new developments of the Trayvon Martin story, including Zimmerman’s new claims of self-defense. He then noted that Sonner was meant to appear at the top of the hour, but not only canceled, but just “walked out of the studio”– a point that led O’Donnell into a five minute or so lecture consisting of reasons why, perhaps, Sonner wouldn’t want to appear, of assurances that he could not imagine Sonner rescheduling with O’Donnell, and O’Donnell’s assertions that Sonner could not feel particularly comfortable about his client’s chances if he wouldn’t go on the show. “He literally run away,” O’Donnell railed, “he is in our car right now taking him away from the studio.” Accusing him of “getting away with the craziest stuff any lawyer has attempted to get away with,” he warned his audience to watch him if he resurfaces anywhere else.

O’Donnell then turned to the segment his show planned with Sonner, showing the chair from which Sonner should have reported in Orlando. He did not, of course, but that did not stop O’Donnell from actually conducting his interview. He began asking questions passionately– “Who is paying you?,” “Did you represent Zimmerman in the domestic violence case in 2007?,” “Do you have photographs of your client’s broken nose that night?”– until he exhausted his list of questions, raising his voice dramatically at the empty wooden chair staring back at him helplessly from Orlando, bearing no answers.

Read more: http://www.mediaite.com/tv/a-furious-lawrence-odonnell-interrogates-empty-chair-after-george-zimmermans-lawyer-canceled/


Trayvon Martin’s Mother: “They’ve killed my son, and now they’re trying to kill his reputation.”

The parents of Trayvon Martin strongly condemned new reports that negatively reflect their son in an emotional press conference in Sanford, Florida Monday afternoon.

Both parents responded to two reports released Monday, where Martin’s shooter George Zimmerman claimed the teenager was the aggressor during the incident and an Associated Press report that found Martin was suspended from school for possessing marijuana.

“Even in death, Trayvon is gone and will not be returning to us,” said Tracy Martin, the slain teenager’s father. “Even in death, they are still disrespecting my son. And I feel that’s a shame.”

Martin’s mother, Sybrina Fulton added, “They’ve killed my son, and now they’re trying to kill his reputation.”

plus video:

George Zimmerman's Lawyer Prepares His Twinkie Defense Strategy "The Monty Python Defense"

George Zimmerman's Lawyer Prepares His Twinkie Defense Strategy "The Monty Python Defense"
Posted: 03/26/2012 7:37 pm

My client George Zimmerman is a very vulnerable individual weighing only 250 pounds. Fragile and delicate like a petite, gamine ballet dancer. His assailant Trayvon Martin was over 100 pounds lighter -- making him much more agile and dangerous. Furthermore Trayvon Martin was armed with a bag of Skittles AND an iced tea. These are lethal weapons. It is no wonder that my client felt so threatened. And quite understandably felt that his life was in danger.


Further, my client was raised on a steady diet of the educational television program "Monty Python's Flying Circus" in which people are taught to use a gun to shoot people armed with such frightening weapons.
Assailant armed with a lethal banana


So my terrified client -- confronted by a teenage boy who was eleven years younger than him and an intimidating one hundred pounds lighter -- dressed in full-military combat hoodie and brandishing an inter-continental ballistic bag of Skittles -- quite naturally flash-backed to the educational TV programs of his youth and the sequence in which vulnerable people can only defend themselves against such dangerous assailants by shooting them stone-dead with a gun at point-blank range.

The deadly weapon (over 2,700 calories) facing George Zimmerman that he was forced to defend himself against

Given this, I say that the only possible course of action is for my client to be found not chargeable for any breach of law. Especially not the **NRA-instigated statute enthusiastically signed into law in 2005 by the admirably porcine Florida governor John Ellis Pierce ("Oh just call me 'Jeb'") Bush that guarantees all Floridians the right to blow away anyone they don't like the look of. The so-called "shoot-first-be-exonerated later" law.

Furthermore he deserves to receive profuse and full apologies for any suggestion that just because there is audio of his 911 call in which he clearly mutters the words "fucking coons" immediately before shooting to death a 17-year-old African-American boy -- he was in any way motivated by racist beliefs. He is an American hero in the same vein as Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity and Michael Savage -- and he fully deserves to be given his own regular prime-time TV show on Fox News.



Birth Control Access Boosts Women's Wages, Study Finds

Now, for the first time ever, a new study has connected the narrowing of that pay gap to increased access to birth control pills.

Birth Control Access Boosts Women's Wages, Study Finds

About one-third of women's wage gains throughout the 1990s can be attributed to changing laws in the 1960s and 70s that lowered the age at which women could legally access the pill.

"We found that women who had early access to the pill in the 1960s and 1970s earned 8 percent more on average by the 1980s and 1990s than women without early access," said Martha Bailey, a research affiliate at the U-M Institute for Social Research who authored the study.

When some states dropped the legal access age from 21 to 18, the report found, contraceptive use among 18- to 20-year-olds doubled. This development, in particular, allowed more college-aged women to finish school without being interrupted by an unplanned pregnancy.

"As the pill provided younger women the expectation of greater control over childbearing, women invested more in their human capital and careers," said Bailey. "Most affected were women with some college, who benefited from these investments through remarkable wage gains over their lifetimes."