Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Wella
Wella's Journal
Wella's Journal
March 28, 2015
For those of you not educated in the Bible, Matthew 18:6 refers to Jesus and a little child. The back story is that the disciples are arguing among themselves as to who would be the greatest in the Kingdom of heaven. Jesus calls a small child to him and tells the disciples:
"Truly I say to you, unless you are converted and become like children, you will not enter the kingdom of heaven.
He then goes on to say that whoever humbles himself as this child will enter the kingdom of heaven. And if a person accepts a humble child like this, he also will enter the kingdom of heaven.
The end of the quote, Matthew 18:6, is actually a warning to those who would hurt a child or cause that child to do evil. It is the adult that does evil to a child that would be better off drowned.
The entire quote is about the PROTECTION of the child.
Matthew 18:6 and religious lies
A thread on this board is making the claim that the Bible supports the abuse, mangling and killing of children. To support its claim, the OP is using a graphic that contains at least one lie on it.
The graphic insists that Matthew 18:6 supports the drowning, stoning, cannibalism, burning stabbing and poisoning of young children.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6423745
That assertion is a complete and unambiguous lie. The verse in question, Matthew 18:6, actually is about the PROTECTION of children:
5"And whoever receives one such child in My name receives Me; 6 but whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in Me to stumble, it would be better for him to have a heavy millstone hung around his neck, and to be drowned in the depth of the sea.
For those of you not educated in the Bible, Matthew 18:6 refers to Jesus and a little child. The back story is that the disciples are arguing among themselves as to who would be the greatest in the Kingdom of heaven. Jesus calls a small child to him and tells the disciples:
"Truly I say to you, unless you are converted and become like children, you will not enter the kingdom of heaven.
He then goes on to say that whoever humbles himself as this child will enter the kingdom of heaven. And if a person accepts a humble child like this, he also will enter the kingdom of heaven.
The end of the quote, Matthew 18:6, is actually a warning to those who would hurt a child or cause that child to do evil. It is the adult that does evil to a child that would be better off drowned.
The entire quote is about the PROTECTION of the child.
March 27, 2015
Monica Lewinsky: The price of shame
I vividly remember the way this young woman was vilified. The only public defending voice I remember hearing was Bill Handel on KFI radio, a local LA station. (The Lewinskys were from Beverly Hills.) During this time, according to the talk below, Lewinsky's mother was sitting by her bedside every night and wouldn't let her shower with the door closed for fear her daughter would commit suicide.
This is a powerful talk. She's nervous, but she is the exact person to speak out about this issue.
March 26, 2015
Fraternities Lobby Against Campus Rape Investigations
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-03-24/fraternities-lobby-against-campus-rape-investigations
Fraternities Lobby Against Campus Rape Investigations
Fraternities Lobby Against Campus Rape Investigations
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-03-24/fraternities-lobby-against-campus-rape-investigations
College fraternities and sororities, concerned that students accused of sexual assault are treated unfairly, are pushing Congress to make it harder for universities to investigate rape allegations.
The groups' political arm plans to bring scores of students to Capitol Hill on April 29 to lobby for a requirement that the criminal justice system resolve cases before universities look into them or hand down punishments, according to an agenda reviewed by Bloomberg News.
"If people commit criminal acts, they should be prosecuted and they should go to jail,” said Michael Greenberg, leader of 241-chapter Sigma Chi, one of many fraternities participating in the legislative push.
The Fraternity & Sorority Political Action Committee, or "FratPAC,'' and two other groups will ask Congress to block colleges from suspending all fraternities on a campus because of a serious incident at a single house. In addition, the Greek representatives want a rule against "any mandate'' for chapters to go co-ed.
The groups' political arm plans to bring scores of students to Capitol Hill on April 29 to lobby for a requirement that the criminal justice system resolve cases before universities look into them or hand down punishments, according to an agenda reviewed by Bloomberg News.
"If people commit criminal acts, they should be prosecuted and they should go to jail,” said Michael Greenberg, leader of 241-chapter Sigma Chi, one of many fraternities participating in the legislative push.
The Fraternity & Sorority Political Action Committee, or "FratPAC,'' and two other groups will ask Congress to block colleges from suspending all fraternities on a campus because of a serious incident at a single house. In addition, the Greek representatives want a rule against "any mandate'' for chapters to go co-ed.
March 25, 2015
Toney's testimony starts at 4:44 on the video:
About that woman who threw a Molotov cocktail at Planned Parenthood protesters....
The suspect, Melanie Toney, was a witness for abortion rights against the new restrictive (draconian) anti-choice laws in Texas.
http://www.keyetv.com/news/features/top-stories/stories/police-woman-threw-molotov-cocktail-at-antiabortion-protesters-outside-planned-parenthood-24912.shtml#.VRLOhUJgqMk
A woman is facing charges after police say she threw a Molotov cocktail at anti-abortion protesters who were standing outside of Planned Parenthood.
Melanie Toney, 52, was charged with aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. According to the affidavit, the incident happened around 6:25 p.m. on Monday at the Planned Parenthood building on East Ben White Boulevard. Multiple witnesses told police that they witnessed Toney throw a flaming object out of the passenger side window of her BMW SUV near the protesters, the affidavit stated.
Police say witnesses reported that Toney had cardboard covering her license plate, in an effort to conceal it. Police stopped Toney less than 3 miles from Planned Parenthood and she was taken into custody. The Austin Fire Department and arson investigators inspected the item that was thrown from Toney's car, and determined it to be a "gum out fuel additive" bottle and a burned piece of paper towel that had been rolled into a wick.
Toney remains in Travis County Jail.
Melanie Toney, 52, was charged with aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. According to the affidavit, the incident happened around 6:25 p.m. on Monday at the Planned Parenthood building on East Ben White Boulevard. Multiple witnesses told police that they witnessed Toney throw a flaming object out of the passenger side window of her BMW SUV near the protesters, the affidavit stated.
Police say witnesses reported that Toney had cardboard covering her license plate, in an effort to conceal it. Police stopped Toney less than 3 miles from Planned Parenthood and she was taken into custody. The Austin Fire Department and arson investigators inspected the item that was thrown from Toney's car, and determined it to be a "gum out fuel additive" bottle and a burned piece of paper towel that had been rolled into a wick.
Toney remains in Travis County Jail.
Toney's testimony starts at 4:44 on the video:
March 25, 2015
Imagine You're Making a Cup of Tea
http://feministing.com/2015/03/11/still-dont-understand-consent-imagine-youre-making-a-cup-of-tea/Here’s a helpful analogy if you encounter someone who is still struggling to grasp that whole “only have sex with people who want to have sex with you” idea. The Rockstar Dinosaur Pirate Princess recommends:
If you’re still struggling, just imagine instead of initiating sex, you’re making them a cup of tea.
You say “hey, would you like a cup of tea?” and they go “omg fuck yes, I would fucking LOVE a cup of tea! Thank you!*” then you know they want a cup of tea.
If you say “hey, would you like a cup of tea?” and they um and ahh and say, “I’m not really sure…” then you can make them a cup of tea or not, but be aware that they might not drink it, and if they don’t drink it then – this is the important bit – don’t make them drink it. You can’t blame them for you going to the effort of making the tea on the off-chance they wanted it; you just have to deal with them not drinking it. Just because you made it doesn’t mean you are entitled to watch them drink it.
If they say “No thank you” then don’t make them tea. At all. Don’t make them tea, don’t make them drink tea, don’t get annoyed at them for not wanting tea. They just don’t want tea, ok?
They might say “Yes please, that’s kind of you” and then when the tea arrives they actually don’t want the tea at all. Sure, that’s kind of annoying as you’ve gone to the effort of making the tea, but they remain under no obligation to drink the tea. They did want tea, now they don’t. Sometimes people change their mind in the time it takes to boil that kettle, brew the tea and add the milk. And it’s ok for people to change their mind, and you are still not entitled to watch them drink it even though you went to the trouble of making it.
If they are unconscious, don’t make them tea. Unconscious people don’t want tea and can’t answer the question “do you want tea” because they are unconscious.
If you’re still struggling, just imagine instead of initiating sex, you’re making them a cup of tea.
You say “hey, would you like a cup of tea?” and they go “omg fuck yes, I would fucking LOVE a cup of tea! Thank you!*” then you know they want a cup of tea.
If you say “hey, would you like a cup of tea?” and they um and ahh and say, “I’m not really sure…” then you can make them a cup of tea or not, but be aware that they might not drink it, and if they don’t drink it then – this is the important bit – don’t make them drink it. You can’t blame them for you going to the effort of making the tea on the off-chance they wanted it; you just have to deal with them not drinking it. Just because you made it doesn’t mean you are entitled to watch them drink it.
If they say “No thank you” then don’t make them tea. At all. Don’t make them tea, don’t make them drink tea, don’t get annoyed at them for not wanting tea. They just don’t want tea, ok?
They might say “Yes please, that’s kind of you” and then when the tea arrives they actually don’t want the tea at all. Sure, that’s kind of annoying as you’ve gone to the effort of making the tea, but they remain under no obligation to drink the tea. They did want tea, now they don’t. Sometimes people change their mind in the time it takes to boil that kettle, brew the tea and add the milk. And it’s ok for people to change their mind, and you are still not entitled to watch them drink it even though you went to the trouble of making it.
If they are unconscious, don’t make them tea. Unconscious people don’t want tea and can’t answer the question “do you want tea” because they are unconscious.
March 23, 2015
http://jezebel.com/zoe-saldana-wont-boycott-dolce-gabbana-is-super-casu-1692956906
"Zoe Saldana Won't Boycott Dolce & Gabbana, is Super Casual About Hate"
Zoe Saldana Won't Boycott Dolce & Gabbana, is Super Casual About Hatehttp://jezebel.com/zoe-saldana-wont-boycott-dolce-gabbana-is-super-casu-1692956906
Fashion designers Dolce and Gabbana made some awfully regressive comments about lifestyles, babies, and sexuality in a recent interview. "We oppose gay adoptions," was one such comment. Another, made by Dolce: "You are born to be a mother and a father. Or at least that's how it should be. I call children of chemistry, synthetic children. Rented wombs, semen chosen from a catalog." Now lots of famous people including Madonna, Elton John, Andy Cohen and Ricky Martin are publicly boycotting the brand.
Not Zoe Saldana. The new mom is all "it's like look people, have a drink, relax, it's okay." Adding, "My husband is from Italy, and if I judged him based on the words that he misuses in our English language he wouldn't be here today."
E! asked Saldana if she was planning to participate in the boycott:
"No! Not at all, that would be the stupidest thing if it affected my fashion choice," Saldana told E! News exclusively at the 2015 GLAAD Media Awards when asked if she will boycott the famous brand. "People are allowed to their own opinion, however, I wouldn't have chosen to be so public about something that's such a personal thing."
She added, "Obviously it caused some sensitivity, but then again if you continue to follow the news, you see they all kinda hugged it out, so why are we making a big deal about it?"
Not Zoe Saldana. The new mom is all "it's like look people, have a drink, relax, it's okay." Adding, "My husband is from Italy, and if I judged him based on the words that he misuses in our English language he wouldn't be here today."
E! asked Saldana if she was planning to participate in the boycott:
"No! Not at all, that would be the stupidest thing if it affected my fashion choice," Saldana told E! News exclusively at the 2015 GLAAD Media Awards when asked if she will boycott the famous brand. "People are allowed to their own opinion, however, I wouldn't have chosen to be so public about something that's such a personal thing."
She added, "Obviously it caused some sensitivity, but then again if you continue to follow the news, you see they all kinda hugged it out, so why are we making a big deal about it?"
March 17, 2015
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2015/03/16/lesson-learned-from-the-shooting-of-michael-brown/?postshare=8521426533755306
...What DOJ found made me ill. Wilson knew about the theft of the cigarillos from the convenience store and had a description of the suspects. Brown fought with the officer and tried to take his gun. And the popular hands-up storyline, which isn’t corroborated by ballistic and DNA evidence and multiple witness statements, was perpetuated by Witness 101. In fact, just about everything said to the media by Witness 101, whom we all know as Dorian Johnson, the friend with Brown that day, was not supported by the evidence and other witness statements....
Page 6: Brown then grabbed the weapon and struggled with Wilson to gain control of it. Wilson fired, striking Brown in the hand. Autopsy results and bullet trajectory, skin from Brown’s palm on the outside of the SUV door as well as Brown’s DNA on the inside of the driver’s door corroborate Wilson’s account that during the struggle, Brown used his right hand to grab and attempt to control Wilson’s gun. According to three autopsies, Brown sustained a close range gunshot wound to the fleshy portion of his right hand at the base of his right thumb. Soot from the muzzle of the gun found embedded in the tissue of this wound coupled with indicia of thermal change from the heat of the muzzle indicate that Brown’s hand was within inches of the muzzle of Wilson’s gun when it was fired. The location of the recovered bullet in the side panel of the driver’s door, just above Wilson’s lap, also corroborates Wilson’s account of the struggle over the gun and when the gun was fired, as do witness accounts that Wilson fired at least one shot from inside the SUV...
Page 8: Although there are several individuals who have stated that Brown held his hands up in an unambiguous sign of surrender prior to Wilson shooting him dead, their accounts do not support a prosecution of Wilson. As detailed throughout this report, some of those accounts are inaccurate because they are inconsistent with the physical and forensic evidence; some of those accounts are materially inconsistent with that witness’s own prior statements with no explanation, credible for otherwise, as to why those accounts changed over time. Certain other witnesses who originally stated Brown had his hands up in surrender recanted their original accounts, admitting that they did not witness the shooting or parts of it, despite what they initially reported either to federal or local law enforcement or to the media. Prosecutors did not rely on those accounts when making a prosecutive decision.
While credible witnesses gave varying accounts of exactly what Brown was doing with his hands as he moved toward Wilson – i.e., balling them, holding them out, or pulling up his pants up – and varying accounts of how he was moving – i.e., “charging,” moving in “slow motion,” or “running” – they all establish that Brown was moving toward Wilson when Wilson shot him. Although some witnesses state that Brown held his hands up at shoulder level with his palms facing outward for a brief moment, these same witnesses describe Brown then dropping his hands and “charging” at Wilson.
Jonathan Capehart: "‘Hands up, don’t shoot’ was built on a lie"
‘Hands up, don’t shoot’ was built on a liehttp://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2015/03/16/lesson-learned-from-the-shooting-of-michael-brown/?postshare=8521426533755306
...What DOJ found made me ill. Wilson knew about the theft of the cigarillos from the convenience store and had a description of the suspects. Brown fought with the officer and tried to take his gun. And the popular hands-up storyline, which isn’t corroborated by ballistic and DNA evidence and multiple witness statements, was perpetuated by Witness 101. In fact, just about everything said to the media by Witness 101, whom we all know as Dorian Johnson, the friend with Brown that day, was not supported by the evidence and other witness statements....
Page 6: Brown then grabbed the weapon and struggled with Wilson to gain control of it. Wilson fired, striking Brown in the hand. Autopsy results and bullet trajectory, skin from Brown’s palm on the outside of the SUV door as well as Brown’s DNA on the inside of the driver’s door corroborate Wilson’s account that during the struggle, Brown used his right hand to grab and attempt to control Wilson’s gun. According to three autopsies, Brown sustained a close range gunshot wound to the fleshy portion of his right hand at the base of his right thumb. Soot from the muzzle of the gun found embedded in the tissue of this wound coupled with indicia of thermal change from the heat of the muzzle indicate that Brown’s hand was within inches of the muzzle of Wilson’s gun when it was fired. The location of the recovered bullet in the side panel of the driver’s door, just above Wilson’s lap, also corroborates Wilson’s account of the struggle over the gun and when the gun was fired, as do witness accounts that Wilson fired at least one shot from inside the SUV...
Page 8: Although there are several individuals who have stated that Brown held his hands up in an unambiguous sign of surrender prior to Wilson shooting him dead, their accounts do not support a prosecution of Wilson. As detailed throughout this report, some of those accounts are inaccurate because they are inconsistent with the physical and forensic evidence; some of those accounts are materially inconsistent with that witness’s own prior statements with no explanation, credible for otherwise, as to why those accounts changed over time. Certain other witnesses who originally stated Brown had his hands up in surrender recanted their original accounts, admitting that they did not witness the shooting or parts of it, despite what they initially reported either to federal or local law enforcement or to the media. Prosecutors did not rely on those accounts when making a prosecutive decision.
While credible witnesses gave varying accounts of exactly what Brown was doing with his hands as he moved toward Wilson – i.e., balling them, holding them out, or pulling up his pants up – and varying accounts of how he was moving – i.e., “charging,” moving in “slow motion,” or “running” – they all establish that Brown was moving toward Wilson when Wilson shot him. Although some witnesses state that Brown held his hands up at shoulder level with his palms facing outward for a brief moment, these same witnesses describe Brown then dropping his hands and “charging” at Wilson.
March 17, 2015
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/03/10/eric-holder-email-alias_n_6842686.html?1426024904
In other words, any remarks that you make about Hillary's email account, you must also apply to Holder--and whoever else has not yet admitted to the same practice.
When discussing the Hillary Clinton email scandal, please remember:
Eric Holder Used Email Aliases. DOJ Says It Wasn't A Transparency Dodge.http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/03/10/eric-holder-email-alias_n_6842686.html?1426024904
WASHINGTON -- Attorney General Eric Holder has used three email aliases to conduct government business over the past six years, a Justice Department official revealed Tuesday.
All three email aliases, including the one Holder currently uses, are official Justice Department addresses on the @usdoj.gov domain, the official told The Huffington Post. Holder has used the aliases to prevent spam and to keep his inbox from being overwhelmed by the public, not to avoid transparency, the official said. The addresses were known to DOJ officials handling Freedom of Information Act requests and congressional inquiries, according to the official.
"The Attorney General uses a Justice Department email address to conduct official business. As with many Cabinet officials, he does not use his given name in the handle of his email address,” Justice Department spokesman Brian Fallon said in a statement. “This practice is similar to using initials or numbers in an email address and helps guard against security risks and prevent his inbox from being needlessly inundated. It does not in any way impact compliance with FOIA requests. The Attorney General's email address is known to the individuals who process FOIA requests, and his emails are regularly produced, albeit with his exact address redacted.”
All three email aliases, including the one Holder currently uses, are official Justice Department addresses on the @usdoj.gov domain, the official told The Huffington Post. Holder has used the aliases to prevent spam and to keep his inbox from being overwhelmed by the public, not to avoid transparency, the official said. The addresses were known to DOJ officials handling Freedom of Information Act requests and congressional inquiries, according to the official.
"The Attorney General uses a Justice Department email address to conduct official business. As with many Cabinet officials, he does not use his given name in the handle of his email address,” Justice Department spokesman Brian Fallon said in a statement. “This practice is similar to using initials or numbers in an email address and helps guard against security risks and prevent his inbox from being needlessly inundated. It does not in any way impact compliance with FOIA requests. The Attorney General's email address is known to the individuals who process FOIA requests, and his emails are regularly produced, albeit with his exact address redacted.”
In other words, any remarks that you make about Hillary's email account, you must also apply to Holder--and whoever else has not yet admitted to the same practice.
March 13, 2015
ROCHESTER, N.Y. — The University of Rochester is demanding a social media site turn over the names, e-mail addresses and other information that would help the college identify its students who might have posted racially offensive and threatening language.
University senior counsel Richard S. Crummins sent a letter Thursday to Yik Yak, a popular social networking app, making the demand for information, along with screenshots of the posts the university wants to have identified.
Yik Yak allows users to post anonymously. The postings are seen within a 1.5- to 10-mile radius of the user.
Although university officials say the offensive and threatening statements on this social media app are no longer posted, the controversy raises questions about First Amendment issues and how social media is regulated...
U of Rochester Demands Yik Yak users' names and personal info from company
http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2015/03/09/university-rochester-yik-yak-user-identities/24672825/ROCHESTER, N.Y. — The University of Rochester is demanding a social media site turn over the names, e-mail addresses and other information that would help the college identify its students who might have posted racially offensive and threatening language.
University senior counsel Richard S. Crummins sent a letter Thursday to Yik Yak, a popular social networking app, making the demand for information, along with screenshots of the posts the university wants to have identified.
Yik Yak allows users to post anonymously. The postings are seen within a 1.5- to 10-mile radius of the user.
Although university officials say the offensive and threatening statements on this social media app are no longer posted, the controversy raises questions about First Amendment issues and how social media is regulated...
March 13, 2015
I find all racial epithets extraordinarily offensive.
However, I would not want to see them outlawed. That would lead us into speech censorship, which is a violation of the First Amendment.
Profile Information
Member since: Tue Aug 26, 2014, 03:31 PMNumber of posts: 1,827
