HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Saviolo » Journal
Page: « Prev 1 2


Profile Information

Gender: Male
Hometown: Ottawa, Ontario
Home country: Canada
Current location: Toronto, Ontario
Member since: Wed Oct 29, 2008, 03:34 PM
Number of posts: 3,042

Journal Archives

Matthew Good - Bad Guys Win

Just how I've been feeling a little lately.

Arizona cop cleared of murder of sobbing, unarmed man

Source: Think Progress

A former Mesa, Arizona police officer who fatally shot and killed an unarmed father of two was cleared of second degree murder charges on Thursday. Philip Mitchell Brailsford, 27, was also cleared of criminal liability in the death of Daniel Shaver. It took the Maricopa County jury approximately 12 hours over a span of two days to find Brailsford not guilty.

Harrowing body-cam footage of the shooting shows Brailsford and five other heavily-armed Mesa officers proceeding through the hotel to confront Shaver and one of his acquaintances. As they exit the room, police scream at the pair to get on the ground. “Apparently we have a failure for you to comprehend simple instructions, I gotta go over some of them again,” one officer says. “If you make another mistake there is a very severe possibility that you’re both going to get shot…. I’m not here to be tactful or diplomatic with you. You listen. You obey.”

The officers then proceed to give the two civilians a convoluted series of instructions, including interlocking their fingers on their head and crossing their left and right legs, before asking them to crawl toward the officers. They take the female acquaintance out of the way and attempt to do the same with Shaver, who is sobbing and can be heard saying “please don’t shoot me.” Shaver then moves his right hand downward momentarily, prompting Brailsford to shoot him several times with his AR-15. In his testimony, Brailsford maintained that he reacted correctly and believed “100 percent that [Shaver] was reaching for a gun.”

The Shaver case is another grim reminder of how common it is for police officers involved in unarmed shootings to avoid any sort of punishment for their actions. Even officer firings like Brailsford’s are something of a paper tiger: an August investigation by the Washington Post found that, of the 1,881 officers fired for misconduct since 2006, more than 450 were reinstated after union appeals.

Read more: https://thinkprogress.org/arizona-cop-who-shot-sobbing-unarmed-man-at-point-blank-range-acquitted-of-murder-53bbceda925c/

It's not just right wingers in the USA that lack principle

Here's an Aussie couple opposed to marriage equality (which just passed in Australia! Yay!!) that said they'd get divorced if it passed:
Full Article Here

Now that Australia has legalized marriage equality, it’s a good time to check back in with the Christian bigots who vowed to get divorced if that ever happened since allowing gay people to marry would totally ruin their relationship… and they were determined to reach that conclusion one way or another.

Nick and Sarah Jensen made that promise in 2015, but their plan hit an early snag when critics pointed out that Australian law prohibited legal divorces when the couple still planned to live together and have children. The law required couples to be separated and live apart for a full year before the government will grant a divorce.

His entire statement boils down to, “The state won’t let us get officially divorced since we’d still be living together, so stop bothering us.”

“My previous public comments regarding civil divorce never envisaged me separating from my wife, but rather our marriage from the state,” he said.

“The legislation currently makes it untenable for us to do this under the law. The point we were highlighting and that still stands however is the fact that a redefinition of marriage changes the agreement under which we were originally married.

“We will be making no further comment.”

That’s one hell of a way to try to get people off your back. The law was already in place when they made their idiotic statement years ago. The only thing that changed is that the Jensens are now laughingstocks, no one ever felt bad about their sham divorce, and they’ve become symbols of how Christians have no legitimate reasons to oppose marriage equality.

The only people mucking up your relationship is you, dimwits!!!

Spatchcocked Roast Turkey recipe!

Just in time for the holidays! Now, my hubby's (Chef Caleb) not a butcher and he's a little out of practice breaking down a bird, but he really wanted to do a turkey video for the holiday season, and we've been seeing a bunch of people talking about spatchcocking this year, so we decided to do a video on that. We went a little further and removed the breastplate and also the thighs in our video, then we applied the compound butter we made last week under the skin, and it turned out SO well. It's amazing how fast a bird roasts when it lies nice and flat like that!

Also, we've just hit 275 subscribers! That's super exciting to me, and I thank anyone here who has subscribed to us on YouTube and/or passed our videos around to friends who are into food.

So, what do we do? I am at a total loss.

I'm serious, it's an absolute mystery to me what we do. We hold ourselves to a higher standard that we KNOW the other side will not only not uphold, but will fight tooth and nail to avoid even looking at. They lie, they cheat, they bribe, they cover up, and they win. All the fact-checking in the world doesn't do a thing to them, but the slightest accusation of impropriety paints our side with the broadest brush.

Do we do the same? Do we start buying elections? Do we start bribing and covering up? I know the moral high ground doesn't mean anything, but do we need to abandon our principles? Do give up women's reproductive rights to win elections? Do we give up on gun control? Do we give up on LGBTQ+ rights? Do we give up on equality for POC? What do we do to fight the cesspool on the other side of the aisle without diving headfirst into it?

The wealthy own the mass media. CNN and MSNBC aren't run by liberals, they're run by corporations, and you can look pretty hard and still not find any liberals or progressives on the boards of those corporations. The right has muddied the water so much you can walk on it, now. Facts are over. There's no such thing. When a bunch of people on the right still believe in Pizzagate, we've lost the war on facts. So, what do we do? Where do we go from here?

I'm so frustrated I can't even think straight. All I see are walls going up. Traps being set by the right and the far right that we keep face planting into. Now we're going to lose Franken, a tiger in the Senate, and Moore's still looking good to win in AL. I'm grinding my teeth into splinters.

Our leaders have held back on attacking for years in the "spirit of bipartisanship" in order to make it seem like trying to reach across the aisle and bridge the gap, but every time we do, we get our arms grabbed and dragged further and further to the right. The GOP has given up any pretense of any sort of integrity or principle in favour of *actual nazis* and *child molesters*. There is no depth to which the GOP will not sink in order to gain and hold on to power.

Trump's personal banking information handed over to Robert Mueller

Source: The Guardian

Donald Trump’s banking information has formally been turned over to Robert Mueller, the special prosecutor who is investigating whether the president’s campaign conspired with the Kremlin during the 2016 presidential election.

Deutsche Bank, the German bank that serves as Trump’s biggest lender, was forced to submit documents about its client relationship with the president and some of his family members, who are also Deutsche clients, after Mueller issued the bank with a subpoena for information, according to multiple media reports. The news was first reported by Handelsblatt, the German newspaper.

Deutsche Bank declined to comment. The bank told Bloomberg in a statement that it always cooperated with investigating authorities.

It also indicated that any investigation into Trump personally may not be limited to the question of whether or not the president sought to obstruct justice when he fired the former FBI chief James Comey. Instead, said Ryan Goodman, a New York law professor and former Pentagon counsel, it showed that Mueller was possibly examining whether the president could be compromised by Russian interests.

Read more: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/dec/05/donald-trump-bank-records-handed-over-robert-mueller?CMP=share_btn_tw

And John Iadarola from TYT tweeted this:


7 Reforms after Trump

This just showed up on my Twitter feed (from Keith Boykin), and I thought it was an interesting and compelling short list of things the next Democratic government should work on:


7 Reforms After Trump

1. Repeal Shelby v Holder

2. Repeal Citizens United

3. Abolish electoral college

4. Apply anti-nepotism law to White House

5. POTUS candidates must release tax returns

6. Presidents may not self-pardon

7. Special counsel has power to indict president

Republican House Members Have Polarized More Than Their Democratic Counterparts

From The Crosstab: http://www.thecrosstab.com/2017/07/22/congress-polarization/

When last we chatted, I talked of how congressional elections have shifted to reflect national politics more than local influences. Importantly, I noted that this may be less the result of ideological “polarization” — the process by which the beliefs of partisans move left/right — and more the result of partisan “sorting.”

But polarization does exist, and it is real. This is especially true of elites in government: congresspeople in particular.

Ian McDonald, a visiting professor at Lewis & Clark College in Portland, Oregon had the incredible idea to graph the distribution of House members’ ideology over time. Using the distribution of a mathematical representation of ideology called DW-NOMINATE, McDonald showed how Republicans have moved right on mostly-economic policies over time, while Democrats have generally stayed ideologically the same.

I have added to his graphic (which appears on the left below) with a second mathematical representation of ideology in DW-NOMINATE – a so-called second “dimension” – to show how Democrats have changed in ways McDonald’s graphic does not show. This second dimension is often referred to as a “social” dimension, mainly encompassing the shift in views towards race that started to flip the parties in the last 1960s.

And an interesting tweet on the subject (that led me to the article):

Go to Page: « Prev 1 2