HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Amaryllis » Journal
Page: « Prev 1 ... 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 ... 75 Next »


Profile Information

Member since: Mon Nov 29, 2004, 09:18 PM
Number of posts: 9,430

Journal Archives

Who remembers sorry everybody.com & apologies accepted.com after 2004 election? Could use them now!

Sorry everybody.com came out just after the 2004 election and and apologies accepted.com was the world's respone. We could use an updated version now!

For those too young to know about sorryeverybody.com, the website is no more, but here is the Wikepedia entry for Sorryeverybody.com:

Sorry Everybody was a website created after the 2004 United States presidential election, which invited U.S. citizens to apologize to the world in advance for the actions of George W. Bush in the next four years. Its most prominent feature was the gallery, which contains images submitted by visitors holding various apology notes. The website became massively popular in the aftermath of the presidential elections, leading some Bush supporters to create spinoffs to express they were not sorry.

The website was created by James Zetlen, an American neuroscience student who was at the time in the third year of his undergraduate program at the University of Southern California in Los Angeles. The first photo was taken by Zetlen of himself, in his home in Los Angeles on November 3, 2004, just after the concession of John Kerry in the 2004 U.S. presidential election (which had been held a day earlier, on November 2, 2004). Zetlen's photo inspired thousands more similar contributions from U.S. citizens, and he compiled a gallery of 8,000 of these photos on his website and published a 256-page book containing approximately 1,000 of them, entitled Sorry Everybody: An Apology to the World for the Re-election of George W. Bush.


Apologiesaccepted.com was the world's response to sorryeverybody.com and that website still exists:

"We, wanderers of the world outside the US, have been touched by the initiative of www.sorryeverybody.com, and the huge amount of photos they received. The initiators of this website would like to show to the American people that they appreciated that message."

Return of the King had come out the year before and LOTR was all the rage. This was my favorite post:

It's the last entry on this page:

Why We March: article by Senator Wyden (one of the speakers/marchers at DC tax march today)

Senator Wyden spoke and marched today in DC. He also marched in the DC Women's March with his wife. His aide told me once not to lose hope because there are a lot of really good people working on the Trump issue behind the scenes, as well as the ones we know about. He is one of the good ones. I just found this article he wrote on HuffPo.

Why We March
Americans deserve to know what is in Trump’s tax returns.
04/13/2017 01:33 pm ET | Updated 2 days ago


Before Donald J. Trump was sworn into office, I authored legislation requiring all sitting presidents to release their tax returns, a practice that has been routine for every president since Watergate. It looks like Mr. Trump will choose to keep his returns secret and ignore this very low ethical bar, even though it’s clear his “blind trust” isn’t blind at all and the separation he promised he’d make from his businesses seems to be nonexistent.

Support for Mr. Trump to release his tax returns has only grown. It’s stretched across both sides of the Capitol and has come from both sides of the aisle. Trump’s tax returns have become a topic of conversation among more families, friends and communities. It’s an issue that’s been raised at each and every one of the 23 town halls I’ve hosted in Oregon this year. And as we approach tax day Americans across the country are turning up the pressure on Trump to release his returns.


Here’s why we’re demanding Trump release his tax returns:

Self-interests or America’s best interests?

Earlier this year I penned an op-ed laying out all the reasons why Americans cared about Trump’s tax returns. As I wrote in January, without these returns, Americans cannot know whether Mr. Trump is using the presidency to enrich himself and potentially empower our nation’s enemies. Americans won’t know whether Mr. Trump’s “phenomenal” tax plan will lower the rates for his own personal financial gain or help out teachers, nurses and cops.

Foreign Connections?

As each day without Mr. Trump’s tax returns passes, more questions are raised about his ties to foreign governments, shady oligarchs and the ongoing federal investigations into Trump’s associates and Russia. If Trump’s tax returns were made public we could learn if he has foreign bank accounts—and where. We could learn who is investing in his enterprises—and where. Americans would have more information about where the president’s foreign entanglements really are. Given these national security implications, I’ve asked Senate Finance Committee Chairman Orrin Hatch to use his authority to allow the committee to review Trump’s tax returns. I’ve also urged Senate Intelligence Committee leaders to “follow the money” between the president and his associates’ financial connections to Russia.

Has Trump paid taxes at all?

Tax returns give the American people a lot of straightforward, honest answers. It’s not just about what rate you pay, it’s about whether you even pay taxes. Candidate Trump himself said that not paying any federal income taxes makes him smart. Additionally, the IRS estimates that America has lost more than $400 billion over the past ten years from corporations dodging their tax payments. Between Trump’s individual tax return and his business returns we could learn whether the president has been paying any taxes at all, either from his own personal income or from his businesses.

All of these reasons are why I — along with hundreds of thousands of Americans — am committed to pursuing the release of Donald Trump’s tax returns. Together we must work to protect the integrity of our government and the security of the American people.


How A National Parks Worker Sparked The Rogue Twitter Movement

Newly released documents offer a fascinating glimpse into how and why a national parks worker went rogue, triggering a resistance movement of disaffected federal employees in the age of the Trump administration.

A Freedom of Information Act that Bloomberg News requested turned up a note from one of the pioneers of the movement: a former seasonal worker at the Badlands National Park in South Dakota.

The worker, whose name was redacted in the released information, highjacked the park’s Twitter account (@BadlandsNPS) four days after President Donald Trump’s inauguration and tweeted several facts about climate change.

The worker acted because the Department of the Interior had issued an order after Trump’s inauguration that all Twitter accounts within its purview should be suspended immediately.


In an email from the “rogue” Badlands worker to a parks superintendent that Bloomberg obtained, the employee explained that he or she briefly took over the official Twitter account because the worker feared censorship of important facts.

“Fearing a gag order on climate science I willfully sent out a series of tweets on the subject,” the worker explained. “I changed the password a few months back but when setting up a Twitter account for my own personal use discovered the cookies had left me logged into the Badlands account. I loaded the tweets ... and proceeded to log out. I swear I no longer have the log-in information. I accept full responsibility for my actions.”


Within days, rebels claiming to represent the Trump resistance launched dozens of Twitter sites purporting to represent workers at federal agencies.

U.S. Customs and Border Protection issued a summons to Twitter this month, ordering the company to reveal the identities of those running the alternative Immigration account @ALT_uscis. But Twitter refused and sued the department ― and the feds backed down.

Most of the other documents that Bloomberg obtained about the Badlands Twitter incident praised the worker for going rogue and standing up to the Trump administration. Several hand-decorated postcards were sent thanking the site.


What happens when Malala Yousafzai & Justin Trudeau meet? Lots of laughter & warmth! (Video)


Malala Yousafzai has won many hearts for her campaign for women’s rights and girls’ education in Pakistan and across the world. And then there’s Justin Trudeau, the Canadian Prime Minister who’s often spotted on social media making people gush with his politically correct attempts at inclusion.

So what happens when the two meet? Much laughter and warmth, of course. Malala was recently made an honorary citizen of Canada, and arrived in the country on Wednesday to address the Canadian Parliament.

Her speech not only got multiple standing ovations from the audience but also left everyone, including Prime Minister Trudeau, smiling and laughing.

Malala talked about how everyone was more excited about her meeting Trudeau than about her being made Canada’s honorary citizen, and told her to make sure she shakes his hand.

Talking about Trudeau’s massive public appeal, she reminded her audience that he was the second youngest Prime Minister of Canada, did yoga and even had tattoos. “But I’d like to tell something to the children of Canada – you don’t have to be as old as the very young Prime Minister Trudeau to be a leader,” Malala added.

All this while, Trudeau can be seen smiling and laughing – even close to blushing at one point.

You can go to 22:52 minutes and watch Malala’s speech here: (Video link below)


How many of you find it challenging to distinguish between "reality" and satire with this regime?

So I just read this post by Tommy Carcetti quoting the WaPo article about Trump's interview with FAUX regarding the chocolate cake thing, among other stuff:


I thought it was satire at first. Granted, I had just posted the latest Borowitz column, so had satire on my mind, but I honestly had to read all the way to the end of the quotes to Tommy's comments on the quotes before I could determine if it was satire or not.

I'm sure you've all read comments after a presser with Spicer or Trump that SNL could lift their statements verbatim and not have to write a script becasue they already read like satire. So this is not a new concept for any of us, but I have to say it was disconcerting to have to read clear through the quotes to the comments on the quotes to know if it was satire or not.

I could always tell when Obama was being satirical. Never had to wonder.

Putin Angrily Resigns from Trumps Relection Campaign (Borowitz)

MOSCOW (The Borowitz Report)—In a stunning rebuke of a former close political ally, Russian President Vladimir Putin on Wednesday angrily resigned from Donald Trump’s 2020 reëlection campaign.

The abrupt resignation sent shockwaves through the Trump reëlection organization, for which Putin had served as chairman.

Putin’s sudden departure, which he announced during a joint appearance with the United States Secretary of State, Rex Tillerson, appeared to catch the former ExxonMobil C.E.O. off guard.

“Given the recent actions of Donald Trump, I feel that I can no longer effectively serve as his campaign chairman,” Putin told reporters, while Tillerson looked on awkwardly.

In an unusually emotional comment by the Russian President, a visibly bitter Putin added, “I worked very hard on Trump’s 2016 campaign, and, at the end of the day, I have no more to show for it than Chris Christie does.”

At the White House, a source close to Trump said that he had not yet decided who would take Putin’s place in his 2020 campaign, but that it would “probably be Jared.”


Tax March: how a law professor sparked a global event to demand Trump's returns (INSPIRING!)

Go read the whole article! It will totally inspire you. THis gives the whole history from the first idea posted on Twitter to what is now an international event. I had to cut out a lot, but it's well worth reading:

Inspired by the Women’s March in January, Jennifer Taub ‘impulsively’ called for action. Now people from New York to Tokyo are preparing to take to the streets
Amber Jamieson in New York
Wednesday 12 April 2017 06.30 EDT
The Guardian


The day after attending January’s Women’s March in Boston, Jennifer Taub was proudly looking at photos and coverage online when a video of Conway popped up.

Conway, Trump’s former campaign manager, declared that Trump was “not going to release his tax returns” and that voters didn’t care.

“That annoyed me ... people do care,” said Taub, a law professor at Vermont Law School, whose research and teachings focuses on corruption, corporate political spending and the links between politics and money.
Buoyed by the huge turnout at the Women’s March, she posted on Twitter.

"Let's plan a nationwide #DivestDonald and #showusyourtaxes protest for Saturday, April 15 "

“I traffic in ideas that people usually ignore,” explained Taub. “I invest years in research, writing and crafting a book, meticulously searching and referencing. I’ve testified before Congress. And nothing happens.”

But this time was different. Her post started getting hundreds of retweets.

A few hours later, the comedian Frank Lesser tweeted the same idea, and thanks to some high-profile retweets – from comedians Patton Oswalt and Billy on the Street’s Billy Eichner, and Beau Willimon, creator of the US TV series House of Cards – thousands of people were declaring they’d march on Tax Day to prove that people wanted the president to release his tax returns.


Marches are planned for as far away as New Zealand and Tokyo; major US cities including New York, Los Angeles and San Francisco; and tiny little towns in the midwest. One is being hosted at the Coachella music festival in California.

“It’s just this amazing combination of all different regions and all different sizes,” said Gwen Snyder, a community organizer in Philadelphia and national organizer of the Tax March.

Snyder notes that the Tax March has seen a lot of new community organizers like Taub emerge and want to get involved because of their frustrations at the Trump administration.

“These are newly activated folks who are building relationships and building this national network,” said Snyder.

The law professor agrees – even if she misses the quiet of her work before the march, reading and writing legal texts.

“I didn’t expect how much joy and love there would be in the resistance,” said Taub. “I’m really excited to work together for years to come. It’s been transformative for me in that way – maybe I won’t retreat back in my shell.”


Lots more here:

From my sister in Alaska: America's next war will be in Alaska & the enemy is not who you'd expect

My sister lives in AK. She just sent this article about the attempts of a local activist she knows to stop extremely toxic and destructive military maneuvers by the Navy. I have visited my sister and have been to the area in the photo. This is one of the most pristine areas in the world, breathtakingly beautiful, abounding with wildlife, and passionately loved by those who live there. This article lays out some of little known costs of war games.

(This essay is a joint TomDispatch/Truthout report.)

The Nation
Where Is America’s Next War? Alaska.
And the enemy is not who you’d expect.
By Dahr Jamail


It’s war in the gulf and the US Navy is on hand to protect us. No, not that gulf! I’m talking about the Gulf of Alaska and it’s actually mock war—if, that is, you don’t happen to be a fin whale or a wild salmon.

This May, the Navy will again sail its warships into the Gulf of Alaska. There, it will perform military maneuvers and possibly drop bombs, launch torpedoes and missiles, and engage in activities that stand a significant chance of poisoning those once-pristine waters, while it prepares for future battles elsewhere on the planet. Think of it as a war against wildlife, an assault on the environment and local coastal communities.

And call it irony or call it American life in 2017, but the US military’s Alaska Command has branded Emily Stolarcyk “a troublemaker” for insistently pointing this out. In a state where such a phrase is the equivalent of an obscenity, some have bluntly called her “anti-military.” The office of Republican Senator Lisa Murkowski has termed her a “rabble-rouser,” while a Kodiak Assembly member labeled some of what she’s been saying about the Navy “just silly.”

As a resident of the tiny fishing town of Cordova, Alaska, the most radical rabble-rousing thing about Stolarcyk may be the passion with which she loves this region of the planet in all its majesty. It’s why she’s taken a fierce and unwavering stand for years now against the ongoing training exercises the Navy carries out in the Gulf of Alaska during one of the largest migrations of birds and marine life on earth. These exercises, which inject tons of toxic materials into the gulf and use significant explosive ordnance, are once again scheduled to take place just as Alaska’s commercial fishing season opens.


 Nevertheless, the Navy is requesting permits to use live ordnance including bombs, missiles, and torpedoes, along with active and passive sonar in “realistic” war-training exercises that could release as much as 352,000 pounds of “expended materials” into those waters including, according to the Navy’s own Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), missiles, bombs, and torpedoes.

These waters support some of the most valuable fisheries left in the United States, and the commercial fishing industry is the single-largest private-sector employer in the state of Alaska, providing over 63,000 jobs. Nevertheless, the Navy’s own EIS claims that fish in the area are at risk of chemical exposures of various sorts because the war games will introduce chromium, lead, tungsten, nickel, cadmium, cyanide, and ammonium perchlorate, along with numerous other heavy metals and toxic substances, into Alaskan waters. According to the EIS, “little is known about the very important issues of non-mortality damage in the short- and long-term, and nothing is known about the effects on behavior of fish.” It adds that “potential effects” include “death or damage” and that “fish not killed or driven from a location by an explosion might change their behavior, feeding pattern, or distribution.”


 Why then, I wondered, do its commanders refuse to allow independent wildlife observers aboard their vessels during the training exercises?

To do so, she insisted, “would result in unacceptable impacts to readiness,” an odd response given that the only “impact” would assumedly be the use of binoculars.

As Northern Edge 2017 approaches, one thing is clear enough. Despite growing opposition in Alaska, the Navy continues to do just what it wants in the state’s once-pristine, biologically rich Gulf of Alaska waters. Who knows how long it will be before parts of its vast marine web begin to test positive for the Navy’s toxins?



Thunderbolt: sexual orientation court case dares SCOTUS, other courts to find flaws in decision

This is a breath of fresh air among all the other news lately. There were some very conservative judges involved in this decision. It is likely to go to SCOTUS and will be a test to see what Gorsuch does with it.

A Thunderbolt From the 7th Circuit

In a landmark opinion, a bipartisan group of judges found that the Civil Rights Act prohibits anti-gay workplace discrimination.
By Mark Joseph Stern
Mark Joseph Stern is a writer for Slate. He covers the law and LGBTQ issues.

On Tuesday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit issued a landmark decision in Hively v. Ivy Tech holding that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits sexual orientation discrimination. The 8–3 ruling is an extraordinary victory for LGBTQ advocates—an emphatic declaration from a bipartisan group of judges that anti-gay workplace discrimination is clearly illegal under federal law. It also creates a sharp circuit split, increasing the odds of Supreme Court review. If that review comes and at least five justices agree with the 7th Circuit, their decision will effectively outlaw anti-gay employment discrimination in all 50 states.

The facts in Hively are straightforward. Kimberly Hively is an openly gay professor who believes that her former employer, Ivy Tech Community College, discriminated against her on the basis of sexual orientation. Hively sued Ivy Tech under Title VII, which prohibits workplace discrimination “because of sex.” A district court ruled against Hively in 2015, concluding that Title VII does not bar sexual orientation discrimination. A panel of judges for the 7th Circuit affirmed that ruling in 2016—but noted that it was only doing so because it was bound by two 7th Circuit precedents from 2000. In a frank opinion by Judge Ilana Rovner, a George H.W. Bush appointee, the majority signaled that it found these decisions dubious and untenable, urging the full court to reconsider them en banc. The court agreed, hearing arguments in November. And on Tuesday, it vindicated Rovner’s concerns, overruling those old precedents and holding that Title VII protects all gay employees.

As the lopsided vote in Hively indicates, the court did not find much difficulty reaching this conclusion—nor did it view the issue as a partisan one. (Five Republican appointees, including influential conservative Judge Frank Easterbrook, joined the majority.) Chief Judge Diane Wood’s opinion for the court largely tracked the reasoning laid out by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission when it determined in 2015 that Title VII bars sexual orientation discrimination. (EEOC Commissioner Chai Feldblum told me on Tuesday that she was “gratified to see that the 7th Circuit has adopted the simple logic that sexual orientation discrimination is a form of sex discrimination and I hope its reasoning can serve as a model for other courts.”)


Tuesday’s decision is, in short, a thunderbolt. It lays out three cogent reasons why sexual orientation discrimination is always a form of sex discrimination. And it essentially dares other courts, including the Supreme Court, to find flaws in its careful, disciplined analysis. Wood’s majority opinion contributes to a growing (though not yet universal) consensus among federal courts that Title VII obviously protects gay employees—and confirms that this consensus is bipartisan. It will be impossible for other judges to ignore. And with a little luck, it will soon push a majority of the Supreme Court to recognize that anti-gay discrimination is, at root, discrimination “because of sex.”


Senator Merkley on FB live filibustering Gorsuch

He is so articulate. Making great points. Going into Kochs, Citizens United, stolen SCOTUS seat.


Go to Page: « Prev 1 ... 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 ... 75 Next »