HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Katashi_itto » Journal
Page: 1 2 3 Next »


Profile Information

Gender: Male
Current location: New Orleans
Member since: Wed Jul 20, 2011, 09:14 AM
Number of posts: 10,175

About Me

Well lets see, stuff about me... Veteran, Navy Admiral's Staff 2nd Fleet. I practice Kendo as my primary martial art. I am also a ranking Iaidoist (Japanese Sword). Working on a Master's in International Forensics' Accounting. Filmmaker, originally commercials, now working on my first feature comedy film, should be released Summer or Fall of 2016.

Journal Archives

Facebook CIA Project: The Onion News Network


India Declares Dolphins "Non-Human Persons", Dolphin shows BANNED.

Amazing, overlooked news from several months ago out of India.

India’s Ministry of Environment and Forests has decided to forbid the keeping of captive dolphins for public entertainment anywhere in the country.
In a policy statement released Friday, the ministry advised state governments to reject any proposal to establish a dolphinarium “by any person / persons, organizations, government agencies, private or public enterprises that involves import, capture of cetacean species to establish for commercial entertainment, private or public exhibition and interaction purposes whatsoever.”


“Whereas cetaceans in general are highly intelligent and sensitive, and various scientists who have researched dolphin behavior have suggested that the unusually high intelligence; as compared to other animals means that dolphins should be seen as ‘non-human persons’ and as such should have their own specific rights and is morally unacceptable to keep them captive for entertainment purpose,” the ministry said.
I was surprised to read about this the other night, since it happened back in May and somehow escaped worldwide attention and the 24 hour media hoopla. The effort to re-categorize Cetaceans (dolphins, whales, porpoises) as non-human persons has been gathering steam since a meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science in 2011 where a group of philosophers, conservationists, and animal behaviorists attempted to gather wide support for a Declaration of Rights for Cetaceans from the scientific community.
The Declaration:

1. Every individual cetacean has the right to life.
2. No cetacean should be held in captivity or servitude; be subject to cruel treatment; or be removed from their natural environment.
3. All cetaceans have the right to freedom of movement and residence within their natural environment.
4. No cetacean is the property of any State, corporation, human group or individual.
5. Cetaceans have the right to the protection of their natural environment.
6. Cetaceans have the right not to be subject to the disruption of their cultures.
7. The rights, freedoms and norms set forth in this Declaration should be protected under international and domestic law.
And what does it mean to say an animal has "rights"?

Unlike[...] positive rights, such as the 'right' to education or health care, the animal right is, at bottom, a right to be left alone. It does not call for government to tax us in order to provide animals with food, shelter, and veterinary care. It only requires us to stop killing them and making them suffer.
Seems reasonable enough. Considering dolphin intelligence has been long been established, this declaration doesn't seem to be a particularly radical move. They exhibit self-awareness, use tools, cooperate to solve tasks, don't vote Republican, and very recently it was found that they possibly communicate to each other using individual names. The major real world implications of declaring them non-human persons would be the closing of dolphin and orca shows at marine parks, setting them free from aquariums and zoos, and a prohibition against kills, such as the one documented in Academy Award winning movie The Cove.
Of course, the biggest implication is the whole idea of creating a new category of non-human persons. Do we stop at dolphins and whales? And, if not, where do we draw the line? Once we give rights to some animals how do we justify our continued exploitation of others


Collateral Damage from NSA surveillance: Copyrights and Patents?

Think of it this way

If European and Amercian companies, innovators and such, are using the internet to transfer data and critical information. It all gets vacumed up by NSA into the hands of private contractors and others.

That vital data, is now able to be looked at copied, sold or put in the hands whomever.

At a certain point, what is the incentive for anyone to look at patents/copyrights with any legitmacy ?

It would seem, the those who have the most to lose in all this are the biggest and most powerful companies in the world, whose secret proprietary information is now surely stored somewhere in an NSA database.
Corporate spies have now become obsolete.
All you need is a contact inside NSA and cash.

The South Shown in Graphics.

My personal feeling these factors contribute and excarbate the continued election of Republicans.

What I see is a war map.

A series of maps showing the attacks of Republicans on a sector of the populace. An ongoing attack that has lasted decades. The results of the Republican policies are the maps above

I don't look at this as a blanket condemnation of the South. But more, some of the reasons and results of Repuke control.

Anthony Weiner's Sexts Aren't Depraved. They're Boring.

By Amanda Hess

Steel yourself for Weinergate, Part Deux: The gossip website The Dirty has published another round of sexually explicit messages between Weiner and an anonymous woman. Weiner has admitted that the chats, published on Facebook and Formspring, sometimes under the alias “Carlos Danger,” are his. "Carlos" messaged the then-22-year-old woman to tell her things like, “I must have cum thinking about you and looking at you 100 times. How does that make you feel? Gross?” and “I turn you around and bend you over the back of a chair. Your pussy asking for it.”

Yawn. This is not, of course, our first peek into Anthony Weiner’s dirty mind. The new flood of messages is potentially relevant to Weiner’s mayoral campaign for one reason: The Dirty alleges that these conversations occurred after Weinergate first broke in June of 2011, meaning that Weiner’s initial public apology to everyone he “misled” by his actions was yet another cover-up for his continued sexting of the American people. The conversations are undated, but in one message to the woman, he alluded to the scandal: “Sadly my pics are out there to look at. Have you ever?” She had, and she was “quite impressed.” If the messages are really dated post-Weinergate, they call Weiner’s current bid for New York City’s trust into question.

But some critics are using the publication of these private messages to insinuate something much worse about Weiner: That the dirty talk in his cybersexing sessions reveals him to be a particularly depraved (and even criminal!) candidate. To that I say: Let he who has not sexted cast the first stone.

Understandably, Twitter is on fire with jokes about Weiner’s absurd online alias, “Carlos Danger.” It is, in fact, an extremely stupid name. But don't pretend that Weiner wasn't in on the joke. Before Weiner became infamous for thinking with his dick instead of his brain, he was known for his incisive sense of humor on the talk show circuit. He probably thought the name was hilarious, too. Other takes on wave two of Weinergate, meanwhile, insinuate that Weiner is more dangerous than he is foolish. The Daily Caller focuses its piece on one message in particular in which Weiner told the woman, “would you let me hold your hair while you gagged on my cock?” The implication is that Weiner is, at best, porn-addled, and at worst, potentially violent. But hey, some women are into talk like that. The anonymous woman’s response to Weiner’s question was simply, “Absolutely.”


(Thats pretty bad, the idea of being called boring, damn)

Frank & Nancy Sinatra - Something stupid (HQ)

This beautiful song by the father and daughter duo "Frank & Nancy Sinatra" was released in 1967, but the song was originally written and recorded in 1966 by "Carson Parks" with his wife "Gaile Foote"...

Trivia fact: The Origin of the term "Cracker"

I heard this on WBLK New Orleans as they were discussing the Martin Case

Comes from the slave days, the overseers with whips.

The sound of Whip-"CRACK"...


Ju-Rei: The Uncanny (Horror)

Children of the Tundra (RT Documentary)

Video shows white Milwaukee man shooting black teen as mother watches

Surveillance video submitted to a court on Tuesday showed a 76-year-old white Milwaukee man fatally shooting his 13-year-old black neighbor in the chest as the teen’s mother watched.

During opening statements in the trial for John Spooner, jurors saw video of 13-year-old Darius Simmons taking the trash bin in from the street on May 31, 2012. Spooner then confronts the teen on a sidewalk between their homes. He points a pistol at the teen, and then at the boy’s mother as she watches from the porch.

Seconds later, he points the gun back at Simmons’ chest and fires. The boy runs away and a second shot misses.

According to The Associated Press, Simmons’ mother, Patricia Larry, testified the jury that Spooner had told her to call 9-1-1 and that he was going to teach the boy a lesson for stealing.

At the time of the shooting, Spooner explained to police that some shotguns and other items had been stolen from his home and he believed Simmons was to blame.


Judge, lawyer in John Spooner case have family ties

Milwaukee County Circuit Judge Jeffrey A. Wagner and defense lawyer Franklyn Gimbel are two of the major players in this week's high-profile murder case in which a white senior citizen has been charged with gunning down a black teenager.

But Wagner and Gimbel have a personal relationship, too.

Wagner's son, Benjamin, is married to Gimbel's daughter, Rachel. The pair has a young daughter.

Is this a conflict of interest for the judge?

Wagner is presiding over the trial of John Spooner, the Milwaukee man accused of intentionally shooting and killing his unarmed 13-year-old neighbor in May 2012. Gimbel represents Spooner.

An expert on judicial ethics said there's no doubt that Wagner should voluntarily exit the case.

"Normally, I don't like to get involved with this stuff, but this isn't even close," said Frank Tuerkheimer, a University of Wisconsin-Madisonemeritus law professor and former U.S. attorney.

Go to Page: 1 2 3 Next »